By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Jereel Hunter on 07 December 2010
Edit Thread
Doobie_wop said:
Mr Puggsly said:
KylieDog said:


Many games shift hardware, should they all get a proportionate percentage of the XBL fee?  If a game only has 20% of the players CoD does should it get only 5 cents, using your example figure.

 

Upping the fee for CoD onto people who do not play it is bogus.

If a publisher has an extremely popular Xbox Live game, I can understand why they would want a piece of the profits. Especially if its a big reason people subscribe to Xbox Live and it helped make the service a success.

I highly doubt they upped the fees just to cover CoD.

Whether you pay for Xbox Live or PSN Plus, you're likely paying the fees for some features you don't actually use.

I don't get it. You don't think it's wrong that Live members who aren't playing COD are being pushed into paying extra for a service they aren't using? If Live has 20 million Gold members, but only 10 million play Call of Duty, that means that they're kinda screwing the other 10 million. I don't know, I can't condone those kind of actions.

@thranx. Your trying to turn this into something that it isn't and your going to be burned eventually when people starting jumping into this thread and making list wars and all that nonsense.

This is all supposition. Lets say 60% of live users play CoD. Live can easily calculate stats on that. Maybe they have a system worked out where activisions get x% (say 20%) of subscription fees where live users play ONLY CoD, and a reduced rate, say 5% for users play play CoD and other games, and 0% for non CoD players. We don't know. It would be a very easy system to set up. Now you may think, "but hey, I pay the same extra 80 cents a month either way." True, but if you signed up for gold, you use something on gold that's worth that money, right? Noone's whining that Xbox live is a better service because games like Halo and CoD bring more people onboard, even though people who play JUST to play those have subsidized costs for other lesser services this whole time.

The fact is, everyone that uses gold uses aspects of the service, which is still dirt cheap. But if you play CoD, you know your monthly payment has some of it go to activision. The only other way would be to make everything on live a la carte, and get nickel and dimed for every service and major game. I play Halo but not CoD, I should only pay $57.50 a year! I play CoD but not Halo, I should pay $56.25!   The price "hike" was what, 80 cents a month? And that's after the price didn't rise for inflation for 8 years? Logically, MS made a reasonable price hike, and make a DLC deal for activision out of their margin, NOT out of your pocket.