Kotaku 
Enter your username and password.
Denver, 12:40 PM
Wed Dec 16
62 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip us:
Editor-In-Chief:
Brian Crecente
| AIM | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Stephen Totilo
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Editor:
Michael McWhertor
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor, Japan:
Brian Ashcraft
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, East Coast:
Michael Fahey
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Oceania:
Luke Plunkett
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Weekends:
Owen Good
| AIM | Twitter
Correspondent, San Francisco:
AJ Glasser
| AIM | Twitter
Columnist:
Leigh Alexander
Columnist:
Tim Rogers
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/18/09
11/16/09
Another issue I see with this concept of charging for extra features or services in games like Call of Duty is the fact that many people already pay an XBox Live subscription fee. I have no problem doing so, I feel I get good value for the price. But I would have a hard time paying for XBL as well as paying extra to play games on XBL (outside of MMORPGs. I understand the fees involved in that type of game.)... #activision
11/16/09
11/16/09
"Our gamers are telling us there's lots of services and innovation they would like to see that they're not getting yet."
And what's the number one "service" gamers (at least PC) would like to see? Dedicated servers. So Activision charges a monthly license fee to allow *you* to run a dedicated server on *your* machine.
And I would wager that the license agreement would preclude you from charging others to actually play on *your* dedicated server, running on *your* machine, over *your* net connection.
An alternative of course being that Activision runs the servers and charges the players to use them, or even that while using the aboves scenario of licensing dedicated server software to end users, somehow charging players for the ability to access those servers. #activision
11/16/09
It's hard ignoring high DLC for games you love. I understand. In terms of the "marketplace", that's our problem... and our choice. My choice is to avoid games that seem designed from the ground-up to suck both value from themselves and money from my wallet.
Purchasing games that are "complete" - no online enabled features, no DLC planned - sometimes gives me the warm, cuddly illusion that I'm actually getting more for my money.
So uh... thanks, Activision? For that? #activision
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
The only thing about the game I really don't like is the multiplayer: too many unlockables (why lock game modes until people reach certain levels? why lock all customizations?) and stuff like player-controller helicopters raining death from above are just two things I can't stand. #activision
11/16/09
This just in: we live on a capitalist dominated world. If you don't like it, speak up, boycott and certainly don't buy their products. Your jaw shouldn't be dropping to the floor because Kotick is rapidly becoming the next Murdoch, the industry has been headed in this direction for years.
It's a great time, however, to start paying more attention to Indie game development and supporting grass roots developers. #activision
11/16/09
Activision's not talking about gimping their games. Even they know that would result in less sales because, at the end of the day, it would ruin the experience by fragmenting the market, something that happened with Gears 2 and the aggressive DLC. However, we as a lot are a bunch of demanding bastards who always bitch about not enough this or not enough that, or they want other services inside the game.
They're talking about experimenting with ways to add onto multi-player, means that go beyond map packs, and as long as they continue to offer quality product, that's fine.
Honestly, I think some of you people just want to be offended by every little thing. #activision
11/16/09
I'd be interested if this actually meant people having to pay extra for that privilege of full PC functionality. #activision
11/16/09
Removing dedicated servers was an effort to streamline the way gamers play competitively over the internet more than a move to "gimp" anyone. It's not like it's written in stone somewhere that PC games must use dedicated servers for multiplayer, or that dedicated servers are "best" for everyone. YOU may think they are best, but it just isn't written in stone.
I swear, some people seriously just can't handle change.
Now, this isn't a necessarily positive change, but there is the *possibility* that this change *could* be positive for PC gamers and console gamers alike - bash away all you want, but the more similar the various platforms are, the more money and dev time can go into improving everyone's experience. #activision
11/16/09
I fail to see any positives here outside of setting up a platform that allows the company to sell "premium" packages and content. Not really good for us as consumers.
The sad thing about this is that they deemed it necessary that there couldn't be both Dedicated Servers and their "streamline system" together. #activision
11/16/09
You know what would gimp the game? Removing killstreak bonuses, no martydom, or locking out certain guns, three things I have heard of being done on dedicated servers. I don't know what you would call removing perks or guns except gimping. Hell, I dont use martyrdom, don't even like it, but it's there, it's part of the game and taking it out gimps it, plain and simple. I'd go so far as to say it's cheating. #activision
11/16/09
Your statement does have some value- you'd like a "Vanilla" game, rules as written. There is no stopping you or anyone else making their own sever to fulfill those tastes. You have that choice.
When I say "gimp", there is no choice because someone at the company thought it would cost too much money to properly test a multiplayer system for the PC edition that wouldn't allow them to sell extra widgets down the line. #activision
11/16/09
When developers are trying to come up with bigger, better, badder multiplayer for today's best multiplatform games, they ALL have to design around two different systems. Two entirely different ways that players connect to and play with other players. Both have to work, or someone's multiplayer is going to suck from the ground up.
I can't exactly point to any specific feature that would benefit from the streamline, as I said, but if it does become standard, then who's to say that (since then devs would all have one system to build off of) something great wouldn't come of it?
Look, I'm just trying to point out that it isn't all bad. My fondest memories of my counter-strike days are of the close-knit community that the dedicated server architecture brought. That was great. For me. At the time. But it wasn't great for a lot of people who weren't able to plug in to that type of group for whatever reason. Modern matchmaking systems try to streamline that experience and make it so that everyone can jump into a match right after they get off work and enjoy a quality experience, without all the hassle of finding a favorite server, getting a slot on that server, cultivating a reputation on that server, etc.
Again, I realize as well as anyone else what is lost with dedicated servers, but it doesn't mean the end of the world. Competitive multiplayer gaming will live on and it even might be better for it - you never really know what this kind of change will let developers do that they couldn't do as easily before. #activision
11/16/09
11/15/09
11/15/09
I'm no fanboy, but it seems like maybe these other developers/companies should take a hint...
I just laugh at all the hype bullshit from developers/compainies that have all this money to dump into IPs, just to screw the people who bought their product over and over again anyways. PASS! #activision
11/15/09
In response, I'm willing to monetarilly persuade Infinity Ward to begin offering said service. #activision
11/15/09
11/15/09
11/15/09
Normally, I am a little sympathetic to businesses when they make statements like this. I don't know what they have planned or what these new multiplayer modes could be. I'm willing to look on the bright side most of the time, as maybe the stuff really is new and worth the extra money. But this just seems... obtuse. #activision
11/15/09
I can't help but wonder if they're thinking of incorporating similar deals into other games and marketing them as 'features'. #activision
11/16/09
11/16/09
But, as you're bringing it up, while some arguably have 'good reason' behind it in terms of man hours needed to police things like name changes or manual server changes, I'd generally say there are more benign ways of doing it. Many of those things could be automated (if they aren't already), and some, such as visual re-customization, already are automated, and are being charged for simply because they can. They may proclaim something to the effect of 'it ruins immersion if you can change your face all the time!', but that ideal kind of clashes with game features like Starcraft Murlocks and Mohawk Grenades (fun features both, but not improving immersion). #activision
11/15/09