Sell games for $30 brand new at most, and charge no more than $5/month for multiplayer. That's the only rational way this would work. Nobody is going to pay full price for a game AND pay for the multiplayer portion on top of it.

Yeah, we pay a whopping $5 a month for a full price yearly memebership for the best online experience available on consoles... and if you wait till the subscription cards go on sale on Amazon or other retailers like I do, you can get Gold for as little as $3.33/month or $40 a year.

To put this in perspective... millions of people pay $8 a month just to stream old movies and TV shows.  Millions more pay upwards of $70 a month just to access sub par quality 3/4G service on their mobile phones.

sounds like you'd be ecstatic to add a whopping $5 a month yearly membership to the best online fps available on consoles...  activision will be please indeed.

looking at all the AAA F2P games current and coming out on PC, I'd say he's seriously stupid as fuck.

wut?

LOL. Xbox users are safe. We already pay for Xbox Live. Because we want to. We want the extras. Id like to see Activision try and say hey Microsoft we want to add a fee to each game for online. Ontop of the Live fee for online.

good luck with that.

I agree with Patcher.

A typical single-player campaign I play for a measly 10-12 hours (Dead Space, Uncharted, Bioshock, God of War).

A long single-player game from 40 (Assassin's Creed, Borderlands) to 100 hours (Dragon Age, Dark Souls, Fallout, Skyrim).

A multiplayer focused game I can play anywhere from 100 to 300 hours (Enemy Territory, Crysis 2, Battlefield).

But they all cost $60. That's not right. The industry can't sustain by having all these millions of kids that are addicted to one single game they play for hundreds and hundreds of hours and not buy more than one or two games per year.

A fair deal would be to lower the base price of games to $50, then add costs for multiplayer focused games that you tend to put massive amounts of hours in.

That's indeed one strong trend, but another trend is what COD and BF are trying to do. You pay $60 and if you end up being addicted to the multiplayer you will be tempted to buy all these frequent map-packs they pump out or the Premium or Elite subscription.

And in next gen in addition to that we might see all sorts of paid unlockables for COD & BF multiplayer but still have them keep that $60 entry price, while less attractive games such as Yerli's Crysis will have to remove those mandatory $60 and do traditional F2P.

this makes no sense, they already charge for COD elite you think Acti wouldnt be so bold to tell MS they have to have players pay for a subscription?? NOt that im saying they will, but the fact is just like you pay for XBL cause you want, im sure there are people that will pay for COD because they want to, Xbox or not

Pachter: "Subscription MMOs are DYING! Long live transaction-based gameplay!"

Pachter: "Transaction-based games such as Call of Duty should implement MMO-styled subscriptions!"

Whatever you say, Pachter. Whatever you say.