Call of Duty: Beachhead - monetize the shit out of this franchise

Shakermaker

Shakermaker

Party Escort Bot
Joined
Sep 16, 2003
Messages
9,245
Reaction score
2
I am currently listening in on the Activision/Blizzard conference call. Kotick et al have been talking a bit more about the rumored Call of Duty 'mmo' / Battle.net hybrid whatever milking machine. They aren't giving specifics yet, other than that the project is called Beachhead, it will be integrated into the next Call of Duty that will be released this fall, and it will officially be announced in the coming weeks. The Acti people are currently trying to dodge questions about the financial aspects, but it certainly does sound like a subscription service. The call is still going; I will update if necessary.
 
Hahahaha. Pay to play for a multiplayer FPS? No ****ing way.
 
I am still wondering what their selling point will be for the sub service. The DLC map packs were doing better than "stand alone console titles" so Acti will likely want to hold on to those. Maybe extra weapons, extra xp, and one or two bonus maps?
 
I guess there will be volleyball games in the sand and you can cuztomise your character whit swinsuits?
 
I thought Activision stated they weren't ever going to follow the P2P route. Maybe that was just Kotick and his evil lies.
 
I didn't expect a vanilla automated vegeta response at all either! :) hey mane

You still a self-loathing hentai fapping ArmA emo?
 
That's pretty caustic bro.

I'm clearly not the only one who thinks this is a dumb and/or money-squeezing idea, I was just the only person to point out how often you seem to commit to day one purchase of the most terrible FPS games of today. I know that you've told me before that you love dumb/mindless multiplayer FPSs, and that's cool. I would enjoy seeing you spending even more of your money on a monthly basis to play awful games.
 
owned bro

breh

i admit it i love you

i think about you a lot

like, a LOT
 
I'd play it if it were reasonably priced and developed by a company that gave a damn about anyone but Dolla' Dolla' Bill. So, no.
 
BabyHeadCrab said:
World War 2 Online

Global Agenda (tps technically, I suppose... and went F2P? I forget), etc

It's been attempted, and will be successfully implemented. So yeah, on-wee's post is a bit silly.
Click to expand...
Global Agenda was originally a once off purchase with no subscription fee but you could pay a subscription to get an XP boost. Now it's F2P with you able to buy it for one XP boost and subscribe for another I think.
 
Ennui said:
Hahahaha. Pay to play for a multiplayer FPS? No ****ing way.
Click to expand...
As opposed to pay to play for a multiplayer RPG? I can't believe people pay for WoW, man. MMOFPS games can fun as ****. I played planetside for at least a year or so, had some really great times with that game. Also played Neocron and it was pretty dec.

A Call of Duty MMO game would blow, though.
 
BabyHeadCrab said:
World War 2 Online

Global Agenda (tps technically, I suppose... and went F2P? I forget), etc

It's been attempted, and will be successfully implemented. So yeah, on-wee's post is a bit silly.
Click to expand...
It's not silly, just true! I have never paid for a subscription based game and it's going to take one hell of a title to convince me to do otherwise (like a Starcraft MMOFPS). I've played some MMOs at friends' behest and I just don't see where paying hundreds and hundreds of dollars over a course of years on top of the game's base purchase price just to enjoy myself in a virtual environment becomes worth it. I have played as much FPS (CS, DOD, etc) as most serious WOW players have played WOW by hour, and I love that I have not spent $500+ on it over the course of my time playing like many of my friends who play WOW.

I did think about paying to play WWII Online way back in the day, but I'm fortunate I didn't.

Also, my point was mainly intended to be emphatic with particular reference to a pay-to-play Call of Duty title because I almost need to be paid by the hour to stomach playing the last few COD titles as it is.
 
"Call of Duty: Beachhead - monetize the shit out of this franchise "


why wouldnt they do that? they're in business to make money. companies need to refine a winning formula so that they can continue to make money. this is why there's an ipad2, this is why car companies come out with new vehicles every year and this is why NEW palmolive is better than old palmolive even though it's the exact same product with a different label (it says NEW on it)
 
JUL3 said:
Modern Warfare 3 plz.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's any kind of secret that this is being developed. Aside from the fact that the name alone would make them a mountain of cash to rival the Andes, there's been a recent leak suggesting it's already far into development.

Grandpa Stern said:
why wouldnt they do that? they're in business to make money. companies need to refine a winning formula so that they can continue to make money. this is why there's an ipad2, this is why car companies come out with new vehicles every year and this is why NEW palmolive is better than old palmolive even though it's the exact same product with a different label (it says NEW on it)
Click to expand...

Because a lot at hl2.net have yet to understand that publishers could give a shit about "TEH PC CROWD" beyond (profit earning) lousy ports. I laughed pretty hard when I saw the thread title too - why would any company not want to monetize a franchise? Especially now that it all has nothing to do with Infinity Ward. When this rage started I started a troll (which lead to a ban... and was admittedly pretty stupid) that genuinely worked and made people angry. It sucks, sure, but it's as if some here don't have a basic understanding of economics and would rather just make irrational statements.
 
CptStern said:
why wouldnt they do that? they're in business to make money. companies need to refine a winning formula so that they can continue to make money. this is why there's an ipad2, this is why car companies come out with new vehicles every year and this is why NEW palmolive is better than old palmolive even though it's the exact same product with a different label (it says NEW on it)
Click to expand...

The thread title isn't a verdict, it just sounded right. You seem to mistake me for Krynn.

Also, if the signs are correct the next CoD will be quite a departure from the earlier games. Not so much from a consumer standpoint (the marketeers are going for the traditional bigger & better approach so no surprises there), but the business model will certainly be different. 'Monetize' seems to be the key word here.
 
CptStern said:
why wouldnt they do that? they're in business to make money. companies need to refine a winning formula so that they can continue to make money.
Click to expand...

BabyHeadCrab said:
Because a lot at hl2.net have yet to understand that publishers could give a shit about "TEH PC CROWD" beyond (profit earning) lousy ports.
Click to expand...

Except a lot of companies DON'T make shitty games just to monetize a franchise, and they still make money. Believe it or not, some game developers are in the business to make good games, not get rich.

It's ironic that despite people like me being the ones who complain about the bad games of today, you guys are the ones who have really lost hope in the gaming industry, thinking everyone is just out to make money off of gamers.
 
BabyHeadCrab said:
Because a lot at hl2.net have yet to understand that publishers could give a shit about "TEH PC CROWD" beyond (profit earning) lousy ports. I laughed pretty hard when I saw the thread title too - why would any company not want to monetize a franchise? Especially now that it all has nothing to do with Infinity Ward. When this rage started I started a troll (which lead to a ban... and was admittedly pretty stupid) that genuinely worked and made people angry. It sucks, sure, but it's as if some here don't have a basic understanding of economics and would rather just make irrational statements.
Click to expand...
There is a very big difference between making a game profitable, and subverting both artistic integrity and standard pricing schemes to draw as much money as possible out of your consumers' pockets. Sure, it's "good business", but when has this brand of good business ever been good for art or consumers?
 
video games aint art they're a commodity. and who in their right mind would gamble millions of dollars and thousands of man hours on something that only a limited segment of society would get? this is why for the most part gameplay has remained relatively unchanged because you take what's already proven, throw in your own twist and hope people will buy into so that you can continue making games

also artistic integrity goes right out the door when you're being funded by someone not inolved with the creative process; ie publisher. and even when you're under no such constraints self preservation makes people censor their work to make it more appealing to the lowest common denominator; so artistic integrity takes a backseat to making money/not losing shirt


Shakermaker said:
Also, if the signs are correct the next CoD will be quite a departure from the earlier games. Not so much from a consumer standpoint (the marketeers are going for the traditional bigger & better approach so no surprises there), but the business model will certainly be different. 'Monetize' seems to be the key word here.
Click to expand...

that was inevitable. they're still gambling and it might prove fatal to their IP however it also has built in revenue making potential unlike traditional games who's revenue is mostly shaped by shelf life and post release dlc. more and more games will go that route however it's still in it's infancy; remember when micro transactions were rare? also dlc?
 
All art is a commodity. That fact changes nothing.
 
CptStern said:
and who in their right mind would gamble millions of dollars and thousands of man hours on something that only a limited segment of society would get?
Click to expand...

Lots of people. I say again, there are game companies out there that believe in making good games, and profit takes a backseat to quality and originality. Even ignoring the huge rise in the amount of independent developers out there, there are publishers too who are willing to support companies like this.
 
Art with a capital A is not a commodity. because there's only perceived value in art not real value. ie: you can take a Velvet Elvis painting and a painting by say Jackson Pollock and while they're both (arguably) art one has certainly a lot more value than the other even though they're almost exactly the same material wise. the real not so obvious difference here is that Velvet Elvis is certainly a commodity because it was specifically commissioned to sell mass qauntities and not the artistic vision of the artist who produces a single canvas. it can be argued that once he makes lithographs/prints they become a commodity
 
You're making up a dichotomy. Art is the result of interpretation. Even if intent is not there, perception will always dictate the artistic impact. Plenty of "capital-A" art is truly artistic, and plenty of "real" art is worthless and cold.
 
This art analogy is getting ridiculously OT. Let's not discuss this.

Art is mass produced to make money, yes. Games are mass produced so that people can ****ing play them. And to make money too, yes, but like I said this is secondary to most companies. If Stern honestly thinks that people go into the gaming industry to make money, that's just stupid. Yes, publishers want to get behind games that make the most money, but they don't run the show. I'd like to reiterate that there are tons of indie developers out there, and publishers/distributors that help games that are less than mainstream.
 
I just want him to understand that there is a difference between "profit" and "profit at any cost".
 
to your sensibilities yes but that could have been the artist's intent or just a byproduct of your own experiences. and the perception of artistic impact isnt in the hands of laypeople but rather those involved with the process.
 
CptStern said:
dont force me to make you prove it's art
Click to expand...
Video games are a very unique form of art. Unlike other mediums, they are a very expensive form of art requiring huge production values, publishers, etc. and unlike Vincent Van Gogh or Leonardo Davinci paintings, they are famous and make tons of money right away whenever they appeal to people whereas canvas or clay/marble art don't usually get popular until the artist dies. Furthermore, artists of the more conventional forms of art are the ones who get credited for their masterpieces while most of the attention and wealth is given to the publishers of video games, not the devs. It's sad that our favorite developers and franchises got wrapped up in such a cruel business model, but unfortunately, it's the only one that works if we want to play the most advanced in gaming technology as it ain't exactly as cheap as canvas paper or clay. Otherwise, we'd still be playing 3-8 bit Atari or NES games that folks could create in their basement. Which isn't a bad thing if you like old school stuff of course.

Also, did I mention that neither form of art will make the artist rich? (i.e Conventional artists never reap the monetary rewards because they have to die first and video game devs are slaves to their masterful publishers and only get paid decent wages) They just really love what they do and that's all there is to it.

EDIT> I'd also like to add that video games have alot in common with the fashion industry when you really think about it. A game that is popular today will be "15 minutes ago" tomorrow.
 
StarBob said:
Top Gun.
Click to expand...
0fda0e90_spongebob-wallet.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FrostedxB
Call of Duty: Black Ops 2
Replies
15
Views
1K
Edeslash
Edeslash
YROC
Call of Duty: Black Ops
2 3
Replies
103
Views
5K
Dynasty
Dynasty
Gargantou
Future Call of Duty plans announced.
Replies
18
Views
1K
the cow says moo
the cow says moo
T-6000
Some first info on the next Call of Duty title.
Replies
19
Views
925
Stigmata
Stigmata
OmegaX
Acti-Blizz restructuring, assigns new executive to Blizzard
2
Replies
78
Views
4K
CyberPitz
CyberPitz
Back
Top