- Activision CEO Bobby Kotick mentioned to Financial Times that he is frustrated by the Xbox Live business model, because Microsoft would benefit the most from the service. For example over 60% subscribers are on Live because of Call of Duty series, but Activision doesn't get any revenue from it.

http://www.the-magicbox.com/gaming.htm

Call of Duty isn't pay to play, so why should he get any of the money from LIVE?

Next up: "I want PSN to charge for online and I want money from it."

If Activision has to pay some amount of money or help foot the bill for the maintenance of those servers then I can see his point, but if they don't incur any cost for the XBL then they don't deserve any of the money, if they want to get the money from people paying to play online they'll just have to make their own system (which I believe is what they're attempting)

Yet.

ok so there are servers somewhere that Activision themselves have to maintain?  Then I can see why they should get some of the money from XBL, but it would be hard to figure out how much.

Wow really? "For example over 60% subscribers are on Live because of Call of Duty series." Where does he get those numbers. Halo 3 has sold a megaton, and I'm sure that alot of the online Halo players play COD games, so there is an overlap. You can't say that it is BECAUSE of COD series.

If someone pays for LIVE because of Call of Duty that's money lost to Activision. Technically LIVE is paying to play Call of Duty, it's just not called that.

He just did.  Even worse, he may well believe it! ^_^

Why stop there - if they can state that 60% of people pay their xbox live subscription exclusively for Call of Duty, why not attach a figure to controllers as well - say 15% of xbox users bought a controller because of Call of Duty and that's money lost to activision, fuck what about the batteries too...look out Duracell here comes Bobby!

Fixed the OP.