Online multiplayer, especially in popular shooters like Halo or Call of Duty, is taking up more and more game time for consumers, and it's an area that needs to be better monetized, Wedbush Morgan analyst Michael Pachter has reiterated. Over the summer, Pachter insisted that Activision must start charging for Call of Duty online play.
Now, in advance of Activision Blizzard's fiscal Q3 report (expected November 4), Pachter has noted that he believes the publisher will make a (probably not so popular) announcement about a paid online service. "We expect the company to announce plans to monetize online multiplayer content inBlack Ops, StarCraft II and other games before year-end," he said.
Pachter also told IndustryGamers earlier this week, "I truly think the biggest surprise [this holiday] will be the launch of a premium service offering multiplayer online gaming. The publishers all are looking at this, and I think one of them will be bold enough to announce such a service by year-end. I'll be surprised if the price is low, and equally surprised if gamers accept it without complaint."
8 Comments
October 28, 2010
F**k Activision - will never buy any of theyr games again (unles it's from Blizzard) - money hungry pastards. Milking the money from everything they posibly can.
October 28, 2010
I buy games on their own merit not the publishing corporation. With that said Activision really doesn't make games for me. I have no interest in their catalog and the idea of paying extra for a game because it's popular is absurd.
October 29, 2010
I think this is a bad idea. People don't want to pay to play a first person shooter, so if COD gets a subscription cost, you can kiss its popularity goodbye. Likewise if players are able to spend money to obtain in-game advantages. As for StarCraft II, adding subscription there would be disastrous. I, for one, would stop playing immediately. Not because I can't afford $15 a month or whatever, but because I bought the game with the impression that I would not have to pay anything else until the expansions come out. Adding subscription fees may result in more profits in the short term, but the damage done to the player base would be irrevocable.
October 29, 2010
I have to agree that adding this cost to new multiplayer titles, while appealing, is basically a reasonable thing to consider. Adding it in retroactively to existing titles....that seems like asking for a class action lawsuit of some kind.
October 29, 2010
It would be smart if they lowered the price at retail to 30$ and then charge 5$ a month or so. But a full price game + subscription? I wouldn't do that even if I would swim in money.
October 29, 2010
Publishers raised the price point of premium games by 50 percent over a decade. Now they want to further capitalize on the one feature that could justify that increase for game buyers. Good luck.
October 29, 2010
I play MW2 online but I do pay Microsoft for that "priveledge". Activision may want a slice of that pie but theres no way I'm paying anymore(on top of the retail price and XBL) to play a game online.
October 29, 2010
Why is that fool Pachter still quoted on things?
It seems that Pachter failed to notice that blizzard has entered the E-Sports market with the new Starcraft2.
The starcraft franchise is big money in Korea where entire television channels are dedicated to broadcasting SC2 matches, with players earning up to 200k in sponsorships + the money they win in tourneys.
Even the recent Blizcon event focused a lot on the e-sports. It would not make sense to reduce their possible audience by charging for online play.
Google Pachter and wrong.....the guy is useless