By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - What percentage of XBL subscriptions now goes to Activision?

makingmusic476 on 07 December 2010
thranx said:
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.

I aaume most people here have had or have cable. How many channels do you pay for? how many do you watch? How many letters of complaint have you sent about paying for services you do not use?


Except you're told about such things before hand.  It is clearly presented to you when signing a cable contract that you are paying X amount for Y channels.  It took quite a bit of sleuthing for us to find out that Activision is now being funded through XBL, and it's something I doubt Microsoft was keen on making public.

Of course people aren't going to complain when they know what they're paying for before giving away a single penny.

As for your earlier post, it's funny that those Call of Duty players would've been anticipating said map packs either way, as they would've hit 360 on the same date regardless of whether they were exclusive.  Yet they're subsidizing exclusivity, even though it doesn't directly benefit them in anyway.



Around the Network
Mr Puggsly on 07 December 2010
thranx said:
Mr Puggsly said:
Calmador 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.


Just wanted to say that ESPN recently made it's way to Xbox live and I think it's safe to say that part of the increase in price of XBL went to ESPN.

How much do you think those services like ESPN, Facebook, Netflix, and others get really?

I doubt they even get a dollar from each account. They are free services elsewhere so MS can't be giving them a big piece.


the ESPN is not free anywhere that I know of.

Its the same content found on ESPN3.com

All of these extras like ESPN, Netflix, Facebook, Twitter, etc... its all free on the PC.

Simply being available on Xbox 360 is great promotion for them. Services like Netflix and Hulu Plus (coming soon) get more subscribers for being on Live.  So they must only get a very small piece of subscription profits.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Mr Puggsly on 07 December 2010
Doobie_wop said:

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.

Who cares? If you get a year subscription its basically $5 a month.

If you play a few online games reguarly even if they aren't CoD, I think you get your $5 worth. Especially if take advantage of the discounted games.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

welshbloke on 07 December 2010

The only outcome from any sort of deal like this is to put more pressure on to Sony to charge for its system. I can see why a PS3 owner would not be happy with this development as it sets a precedent.

 

W.L.B.B. Member, Portsmouth Branch.

(Welsh(Folk) Living Beyond Borders)

Winner of the 2010 VGC Holiday sales prediction thread with an Average 1.6% accuracy rating. I am indeed awesome.

Kinect as seen by PS3 owners ...if you can pick at it   ...post it ... Did I mention the 360 was black and Shinny? Keeping Sigs obscure since 2007, Passed by the Sig police 5July10.
Squilliam on 07 December 2010

The thing I wonder is if they are truly getting a slice of the Live money then given the fact that Microsoft has the 2nd and 3rd biggest competitors to Call of Duty exclusive to their system, why haven't they started charging PS3 users the same?



Tease.

Around the Network
ameratsu on 07 December 2010
Squilliam said:

The thing I wonder is if they are truly getting a slice of the Live money then given the fact that Microsoft has the 2nd and 3rd biggest competitors to Call of Duty exclusive to their system, why haven't they started charging PS3 users the same?


Well, there a mechanism in place where virtually all x360 cod players purchase ongoing subscription to play multiplayer content in cod games. Activision realized cod games drove of a lot of online play traffic on the 360, which Microsoft profits from directly. So Microsoft agreed to give them a cut of live subs after Activision was talking about adding their own sub model to cod games. Since the same sort subscription model is not present on the ps3, how could they charge ps3 users the same? I also don't know how Sony, or fans, would take Activision trying to charge money for online play in ps3 cod titles when one of the selling points of the console is free online play. 



Demon's Souls Official Thread  | Currently playing: Left 4 Dead 2, LittleBigPlanet 2, Magicka

Squilliam on 07 December 2010
ameratsu said:
Squilliam said:

The thing I wonder is if they are truly getting a slice of the Live money then given the fact that Microsoft has the 2nd and 3rd biggest competitors to Call of Duty exclusive to their system, why haven't they started charging PS3 users the same?


Well, there is a mechanism in place (xbl gold) where virtually all cod players purchase ongoing membership to play multiplayer content in cod games. Activision realized cod games drove of a lot of online play traffic, which Microsoft profits from directly, so microsoft gave them a cut of live after Kotick was talking about adding their own subscription model to cod games. Since the same mechanism is not present on the ps3, how could they charge ps3 users the same? I don't know how Sony, or fans, would take Activision trying to charge money for online play in PS3 COD titles. 

Ahh! I don't play online so I dunno. Maybe something like more free content etc for the Xbox 360 version? Anyway I just figured they would try to get something out of Sony / PS3 COD players given they are already getting something from Microsoft and on the Sony platform they are pretty much as it stands the only major shooter franchise whereas the Xbox 360 has 3 major ones inclusive of COD.



Tease.

IMU1808 on 07 December 2010
Squilliam said:
ameratsu said:
Squilliam said:

The thing I wonder is if they are truly getting a slice of the Live money then given the fact that Microsoft has the 2nd and 3rd biggest competitors to Call of Duty exclusive to their system, why haven't they started charging PS3 users the same?


Well, there is a mechanism in place (xbl gold) where virtually all cod players purchase ongoing membership to play multiplayer content in cod games. Activision realized cod games drove of a lot of online play traffic, which Microsoft profits from directly, so microsoft gave them a cut of live after Kotick was talking about adding their own subscription model to cod games. Since the same mechanism is not present on the ps3, how could they charge ps3 users the same? I don't know how Sony, or fans, would take Activision trying to charge money for online play in PS3 COD titles. 

Ahh! I don't play online so I dunno. Maybe something like more free content etc for the Xbox 360 version? Anyway I just figured they would try to get something out of Sony / PS3 COD players given they are already getting something from Microsoft and on the Sony platform they are pretty much as it stands the only major shooter franchise whereas the Xbox 360 has 3 major ones inclusive of COD.


That's what I'm wondering about. A subscription model on PS3 for a single wouldn't look very appetizing unless it was an MMO. Doesn't make sense to add it into PSPlus since it's not needed to play CoD online. I'm expecting 360 CoDs to start getting more content if this is all true.



thranx on 07 December 2010

They also announced the timed exclusive DLC in june. http://www.product-reviews.net/2010/06/15/call-of-duty-black-ops-dlc-map-packs-on-xbox-360-first/

its missing from the op post. Perhaps this small fee is in payment for the timed exclusive DLC for 2 years. Which is what MS should be doing with our money. Making live better than its competitors by bringing in more content before they can.

To my other point about comparing it to cable, where on your aggreeement does it say where your money goes? Why expect the same from MS? I have never had a contract for a service such as cable break down which channnel gets which money. You just pay for a service or package and get what you get, just like live. You pay for live service and get access to its feautures. There is no need to know where your money went, just that you got what you paid for.



DonFerrari on 07 December 2010
thranx said:

They also announced the timed exclusive DLC in june. http://www.product-reviews.net/2010/06/15/call-of-duty-black-ops-dlc-map-packs-on-xbox-360-first/

its missing from the op post. Perhaps this small fee is in payment for the timed exclusive DLC for 2 years. Which is what MS should be doing with our money. Making live better than its competitors by bringing in more content before they can.

To my other point about comparing it to cable, where on your aggreeement does it say where your money goes? Why expect the same from MS? I have never had a contract for a service such as cable break down which channnel gets which money. You just pay for a service or package and get what you get, just like live. You pay for live service and get access to its feautures. There is no need to know where your money went, just that you got what you paid for.

So you think for you to be pleased on Live, PSN shouldn't have the same features?

Maybe to gloat about why it's worth to pay a game per year on fee?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."