.

Welcome to the PGRF gaming community! Everyone here is very friendly, so don't hesitate to say hi and engage in some video game discussion with all of us! From retro to modern, there's no discrimination here. If you have any questions, feel free to ask the moderators and administrators! Have fun.

Registration is simple, fast, and completely free!
Join our community!

.
Tweet Topic Started: Jul 16 2010, 07:22 PM (606 Views)
altinator	Jul 16 2010, 07:22 PM Post #1
Level 2 Posts: 55 Group: Members Member #1,709 Joined: Mar 15, 2010	. Edited by altinator, Dec 13 2014, 11:16 AM.



burningmice	Jul 16 2010, 07:29 PM Post #2
Level 7 Posts: 1,338 Group: Members Member #604 Joined: Apr 18, 2009	This is also a report by Pachter, has this man ever predicted anything correctly? Every time I've heard something from this man is has been completely false and usually idiotic. However Kotick has already expressed interest in implementing a monthly fee into games such as Call of Duty, and if he has his way I know I will never be buying it.



Draven26	Jul 16 2010, 07:35 PM Post #3
Posts: 1,328 Group: Founding Members Member #63 Joined: Jan 27, 2009	I was scared until I saw Pachter's name. The man is an idiot, who gets 90% of his predictions wrong and the ones he gets right are already well substantiated rumors. If they did this I would never buy another Activision game. They are already pushing it with their idiotic business practices and lack of new IPs combined with spamming Guitar hero and call of duty games. Everyone talks crap about EA but look what they have done this generation games like Dead Space, mirrors edge, battlefield bad company, brutal legend etc. activision needs to get their heads out of the sand and realize they are not the greatest company out there
	www.youtube.com/draven2626


bediger	Jul 16 2010, 07:41 PM Post #4
Game Fan Posts: 1,422 Group: Members Member #274 Joined: Feb 17, 2009	Pachter is a bit of a joke, although I wouldn't put it past Activision to try and pull a stunt like this.
	"I have both machines but (insert fanboy bait here)" Gaming Together Night


NinjaPenguin8969	Jul 16 2010, 11:57 PM Post #5
I SUCK AT GAMES Posts: 3,048 Group: Members Member #1,200 Joined: Aug 29, 2009 Currently Playing Horizon: Zero Dawn	Well it's from Pachter, but if it ends up true then that's what it will take for me to boycott Activision games. I'll speak with my wallet rather than words. I just hope this doesn't catch on with other developers because monthly fees are the reason I avoid MMO's, and I would avoid their games if they do something like that. I only put up with Xbox Live because I can play any 360 game, and usually Xbox Live 1 year cards are on sale for $30 bucks or so during the year.



hooflung128	Jul 17 2010, 07:32 AM Post #6
Level 7 Posts: 1,369 Group: Members Member #1,853 Joined: Mar 31, 2010	Man might be an imbecile but if you don't see this coming you are kidding yourself.
	Youtube page \| My HeatWare rating.


Kharnivore2099	Jul 17 2010, 07:43 AM Post #7
Retroverdose Posts: 3,313 Group: Moderator Member #47 Joined: Jan 27, 2009 Currently Playing Dark Souls III Twitter Kharnivore2099	Surely microsoft will kick up a fuss about this... Why dont they just start releasing more games worth playing that arent WELL overpriced? Or they could get into the digital software a little more to save some cash? Another reason to hate activision i guess.
	Twitch Channel Youtube Channel


appletsauce	Jul 17 2010, 07:56 AM Post #8
3DS Posts: 1,580 Group: Members Member #1,218 Joined: Sep 5, 2009	Yay, another MMO. It'll probably be very successful, too. But in a way I hope it doesn't because that sends the message that we don't care if we're charged monthly to play games we already own. I think that would be the wrong message to send to anyone. And that can't be good.



hooflung128	Jul 17 2010, 08:21 AM Post #9
Level 7 Posts: 1,369 Group: Members Member #1,853 Joined: Mar 31, 2010	Kharnivore2099 Jul 17 2010, 07:43 AM Surely microsoft will kick up a fuss about this... Why dont they just start releasing more games worth playing that arent WELL overpriced? Or they could get into the digital software a little more to save some cash? Another reason to hate activision i guess. Unfortunately AAA titles run around 9 million to make on an established game engine at the very least. For instance, Call of Duty 2 bank rolled the Modern Warfare version of the IW engine. It is probably only using controller input code from Quake 3 now, the graphics pipeline is probably proprietary save for code path selection ( choosing Direct X vs OpenGL compatible rendering engines ). Call of Duty 4 bank rolled World at War and Modern Warfare 2. Only incremental engine updates were done dollars ratios were higher for hired map designers, AI programmers and artists. Dead Space was based off of the Godfather Engine which is only incremental, thus a lot of the money was art assets, naration and AI. Likewise, Dante's Inferno is based off the Dead Space engine and the content creation tools used for DS so the investment was minimal for tech. Had these games been released on new engines they would have cost the companies more, therefore you would not have them. A new IP, based on a new engine, will cost a company roughly 20+ million to bring out. Marketing dollars, Programmers not only for engine development but for content creation tools, Artists, narrators, and game designers. Unfortunately this is why you have franchise milking. It is cutting costs down, therefore a new game can come out. RockStar is another example. They overhauled the GTA engine for GTA4, incremented it slightly for Gay Tony, and the money made from the profit from GTA 4 + DLC went to fund the artists, mappers, scripters, AI and game designers , marketing juggernaut for the Red Dead Redemption. It also paid for the new Max Payne game... and they are approaching that title like no other before it. Sending photographers and map designers to South American Slums to make the game feel authentic. The costs are astronomical these days. The competition for publisher dollars is fierce. Edited by hooflung128, Jul 17 2010, 08:23 AM.
	Youtube page \| My HeatWare rating.


browland1	Jul 17 2010, 10:18 AM Post #10
Posts: 3,481 Group: Admins Member #719 Joined: May 12, 2009 Currently Playing Bloodborne.	I don't think online feels will sit well with gamers, especially with many of us already paying for Xbox Live and with a new paid service on the PSN coming soon. Plus, any Call of Duty release is going to be a mega-seller, so it's hard to look at this as being anything other than a blatant cash grab. However, I think that fee-based gaming is inevitable and game developers as well as console makers will be looking to cash in. It sucks for gamers, since we already are paying inflated prices for games, so having to keep paying into a game just to enjoy it is a real kick in the teeth.



Doom_master1122	Jul 17 2010, 11:26 AM Post #11
Level 2 Posts: 85 Group: Members Member #2,343 Joined: Jul 16, 2010	Because more gamers play MW2 and L4D2 instead of other newly bought games. Well. STOP ALWAYS HAVING TO INCLUDE AN ONLINE PLAY. Seriously the ONLY reason people buy a CoD game is for online. To the point of them making MW2 have a 6 hour campaign, and the rest is online. I'm not saying online is bad. Just they shouldn't make it where is a game is mostly online oriented. Gamers these days are to blame for it(Not all, and not completely but,). If a game does not contain online play. Its bad in their eyes. If it does not have good graphics... Its bad in their eyes. Hate to see what they would have done back in the SNES era.
	My Youtube account: GreatCacodemon = Game play videos of random games.


hooflung128	Jul 19 2010, 06:22 AM Post #12
Level 7 Posts: 1,369 Group: Members Member #1,853 Joined: Mar 31, 2010	Doom_master, I sort of share your enthusiasm about having games spend more time on single player campaigns and story lines over multiplayer. The problem with diverting funds is that Microsoft have a lot of input with game developers, Sony too, in the ground work to get a game going. And I am not sure I want them to remove net play from any game. In fact, I would appreciate it if they would integrate social gaming locally, and over the internet, into single player-story driven campaigns. Gears of War 1 and 2 are prime examples of coop done right. Borderlands and the Left 4 Dead games are other coop games done right as well. I would love to see Mass Effect 3 to include 3-way coop, and not just allow friends to take over the team members, but the story to incorporate their actions as well. In fact, I think that will be fleshed out on the 8th gen when Microsoft brings back their HD-DVD drives and give every system a hard disk medium. Afterall, iD Tech 5 and Unreal 4 engine are being built specifically for the PS4 and Xbox 720 even though. iD Tech 5 will be in RAGE but it will flourish on the 8th gens.
	Youtube page \| My HeatWare rating.


Andsy	Jul 19 2010, 07:40 AM Post #13
Hurf n' Durf Inc. Posts: 1,480 Group: Members Member #1,443 Joined: Dec 14, 2009	Be interesting to see how they justify it, and how many people will swallow it up. As an Xbox player, I have to pay for the game itself, and a monthly fee to Xbox Live, which erks me as I'm not playing on any hosted servers, it's all P2P. In my mind, they wouldn't be able to justify a monthly fee for online, because they're not supplying me with anything. Hell, they'd only end up charging for map packs still anyway.
	VSigma100: If I've learned anything on here it's that Andsy is a crazy bastard. LOL.


tmh	Jul 19 2010, 07:42 AM Post #14
Level 2 Posts: 59 Group: Members Member #2,348 Joined: Jul 16, 2010	If this were to actually happen, I could see this being a great downfall for the company. People don't have the money to pay £45 for a game, £40 for online, and then like another £24 on two crappy map packs, for them then to add another fee on top is ridiculous. BTW, this isn't me, i have all the map packs and that, I just know people who cant even afford to get the map packs.



hooflung128	Jul 19 2010, 12:30 PM Post #15
Level 7 Posts: 1,369 Group: Members Member #1,853 Joined: Mar 31, 2010	Andsy Jul 19 2010, 07:40 AM Be interesting to see how they justify it, and how many people will swallow it up. As an Xbox player, I have to pay for the game itself, and a monthly fee to Xbox Live, which erks me as I'm not playing on any hosted servers, it's all P2P. In my mind, they wouldn't be able to justify a monthly fee for online, because they're not supplying me with anything. Hell, they'd only end up charging for map packs still anyway. That is another great point. A lot of net play on the 360 is Peer to Peer which makes Live! down right bullshit if it was simply left to match making. Thankfully they offer some really good features exposed through live, and the cross game chat. I think the next big thing for live will be the Live! Azure enabled service. They could even call it Live! on the Cloud. I want my profile to be on the cloud servers so I don't have to store it locally. I think they are going in that direction, and are trying to work it out so you can have a temporary local copy so if you lose internet it can update the cloud when its available. Steam Cloud is going this route and I'd be surprised if MS isn't already beta testing it, and it is probably the main, secret, reason why they had to discontinue the original xbox's live! access.
	Youtube page \| My HeatWare rating.


hooflung128	Jul 19 2010, 12:42 PM Post #16
Level 7 Posts: 1,369 Group: Members Member #1,853 Joined: Mar 31, 2010	tmh Jul 19 2010, 07:42 AM If this were to actually happen, I could see this being a great downfall for the company. People don't have the money to pay £45 for a game, £40 for online, and then like another £24 on two crappy map packs, for them then to add another fee on top is ridiculous. BTW, this isn't me, i have all the map packs and that, I just know people who cant even afford to get the map packs. I highly doubt they would do 40. I would expect it to be a monthly fee similar to MMO subscriptions, 9 to 15 USD, and you'd have access to the entire online enabled library. Unfortunately, I feel it is a broken model since Publishers, save for EA, have a vast Portfolio of online games that transcend enough genre's and are decent enough to extort a loyalty tax. Not to mention network programming for an FPS is not the same as network programming for Action RPGs or Sports Titles, thus if you want to best implement a service that handles both you'd want to create a massive Peer to Peer match making system that is basically one big Proxy server. And Live! and PSN already serve those purposes. So what I am thinking is that we're going to get some sort of cross platform play system, based on cloud Publisher-housed ID's that tie into Live!, STEAM or PSN player tags. That way Microsoft and Sony are free to keep their player profiles on the cloud, and Publishers can then create tie-in cloud based accounts. Sigh... SaaS (Software as a Service) never seemed so ruthless and extortionate.
	Youtube page \| My HeatWare rating.


tmh	Jul 19 2010, 01:35 PM Post #17
Level 2 Posts: 59 Group: Members Member #2,348 Joined: Jul 16, 2010	hooflung128 Jul 19 2010, 12:42 PM tmh Jul 19 2010, 07:42 AM If this were to actually happen, I could see this being a great downfall for the company. People don't have the money to pay £45 for a game, £40 for online, and then like another £24 on two crappy map packs, for them then to add another fee on top is ridiculous. BTW, this isn't me, i have all the map packs and that, I just know people who cant even afford to get the map packs. I highly doubt they would do 40. I would expect it to be a monthly fee similar to MMO subscriptions, 9 to 15 USD, and you'd have access to the entire online enabled library. Unfortunately, I feel it is a broken model since Publishers, save for EA, have a vast Portfolio of online games that transcend enough genre's and are decent enough to extort a loyalty tax. Not to mention network programming for an FPS is not the same as network programming for Action RPGs or Sports Titles, thus if you want to best implement a service that handles both you'd want to create a massive Peer to Peer match making system that is basically one big Proxy server. And Live! and PSN already serve those purposes. So what I am thinking is that we're going to get some sort of cross platform play system, based on cloud Publisher-housed ID's that tie into Live!, STEAM or PSN player tags. That way Microsoft and Sony are free to keep their player profiles on the cloud, and Publishers can then create tie-in cloud based accounts. Sigh... SaaS (Software as a Service) never seemed so ruthless and extortionate. For the 40, i meant the price of xbox live lol.



hooflung128	Jul 19 2010, 03:12 PM Post #18
Level 7 Posts: 1,369 Group: Members Member #1,853 Joined: Mar 31, 2010	tmh Jul 19 2010, 01:35 PM hooflung128 Jul 19 2010, 12:42 PM tmh Jul 19 2010, 07:42 AM If this were to actually happen, I could see this being a great downfall for the company. People don't have the money to pay £45 for a game, £40 for online, and then like another £24 on two crappy map packs, for them then to add another fee on top is ridiculous. BTW, this isn't me, i have all the map packs and that, I just know people who cant even afford to get the map packs. I highly doubt they would do 40. I would expect it to be a monthly fee similar to MMO subscriptions, 9 to 15 USD, and you'd have access to the entire online enabled library. Unfortunately, I feel it is a broken model since Publishers, save for EA, have a vast Portfolio of online games that transcend enough genre's and are decent enough to extort a loyalty tax. Not to mention network programming for an FPS is not the same as network programming for Action RPGs or Sports Titles, thus if you want to best implement a service that handles both you'd want to create a massive Peer to Peer match making system that is basically one big Proxy server. And Live! and PSN already serve those purposes. So what I am thinking is that we're going to get some sort of cross platform play system, based on cloud Publisher-housed ID's that tie into Live!, STEAM or PSN player tags. That way Microsoft and Sony are free to keep their player profiles on the cloud, and Publishers can then create tie-in cloud based accounts. Sigh... SaaS (Software as a Service) never seemed so ruthless and extortionate. For the 40, i meant the price of xbox live lol. lol true, well that is a price you can apply to a host of games. If it was only the ability to play the game yes it would be rubbish like I replied to Andsy. Fortunately, it has a lot of features exposed for the yearly sub. But like I said, the publishers will probably add on top of that to extort a fan tax in the future. Software as a Service is here to stay and it will transcend virus checkers, to cloud apps, social sites eventually, online television feeds and video games. We're already seeing things you used to buy once and update every other year, like virus checkers, do this bullshit.
	Youtube page \| My HeatWare rating.


sdcpro	Jul 21 2010, 11:07 PM Post #19
Level 9 Posts: 2,243 Group: Members Member #1,460 Joined: Dec 21, 2009	To my knowledge, FFXI (MMO that requires a monthly subscription) will work on a silver account, meaning Microsoft will not require you to pay for Xbox Live for a Gold account. If they charge a monthly subscription instead of Xbox Live, I can see some people sticking with it. However, I cant see it benefiting overall since most people use Live and not just play Activision games. Seems like they're trying to take some money away from Microsoft



Michael	Jul 22 2010, 03:55 AM Post #20
Posts: 670 Group: Founding Members Member #57 Joined: Jan 27, 2009	So now you would have to pay for xbox live and activision. To be honest gaming too me is just as fun without online and i don't need it. I have been logging in more hours on my ps2 anyway. In case activision hasn't read the news, were in a economical decline and that is probably the reason game sales have been low since when you need money you tend to cut out the unessentials of life. I know people who slimpy cant buy too many games maybe two to three a year so yea activision get your head out of your asses. There just trying to nickle and dime us. I mean really screw activision i had way more fun with fallout 3 then i will ever have with call of duty modern warfare 2 :D.
	Check out my youtube channel for everything gaming but mostly PS2 http://www.youtube.com/user/Nightridergamer


Andsy	Jul 22 2010, 04:55 AM Post #21
Hurf n' Durf Inc. Posts: 1,480 Group: Members Member #1,443 Joined: Dec 14, 2009	Calm the rage gents, it's just Pachter stating his opinion on the matter. Activision haven't stated that they'll be rolling out a monthly sub fee.... Yet.
	VSigma100: If I've learned anything on here it's that Andsy is a crazy bastard. LOL.


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)

Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today. Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · General Gaming · Next Topic »