The FPS Subscription Model: Why Everyone is Right

In: Articles by Nicholas "Heartbreak Ridge" Sylvain

5 Aug 2010

2008_1219_shutterstock_goldeneggSince Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick is definitely on the short list of the most despised people in gaming, his words tend to garner an inordinate amount of attention. So, when in mid-June 2010 he mentioned in an interview that he wished Call of Duty would be an online subscription service, naturally the internets exploded. The fire of nerd rage got some fresh gasoline poured on it when a video of a Modern Warfare glitch surfaced about a month later. Official sources and more gamer-friendly community people including Infinity Ward’s spokesperson Robert Bowling (@fourzerotwo) and Activistion public-relations rep Dan Amrich (@OneOfSwords) spread the word in clear terms: neither Modern Warfare 2 multiplayer, nor the upcoming Call of Duty: Black Ops multiplayer, will ever require additional fees to play.

I don’t think many of the people who raged on the internet were mollified by the responses. After all, dislike and suspicion for Bobby Kotick is burned into people’s synapses and it’s going to take a long, long time (if ever) to change people’s minds. However, in reading gaming press and podcasts lately, I was somewhat taken aback by the general response of even eminently reasonable and respectable members of the gaming press. While generally agreeing that Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops multiplayer would not be whored out for monthly subscription fees, even the gaming press seems to believe that it is only a question of when Activision will find a way, not if.

I’m not ready to believe that this is the inevitable fate of the Call of Duty and/or Modern Warfare franchises in the hands of Activision. It’s not hard to understand why, given the oceans of cash that Activision rakes in on a monthly basis from their World of Warcraft customers. Activision also can’t be happy that despite the massive sales of the Call of Duty and Modern Warfare titles and their impressive popularity on the Xbox Live charts they don’t get a slice of the Xbox Live subscription revenues. The motivation is definitely there, but the question is, where will it go?

I’m beginning to think that everyone is right.  There may very well be a shooter subscription model down the road, but it’s not going to be for either Call of Duty or Modern Warfare.

A subscription model is possible, but it is simply not going to happen with the current paradigm for the development of shooter games. The prime audience for shooters is too familiar with the value proposition of a one-time payment of $60 for a game that they can then proceed to play for hundreds and thousands of hours without having to pay additional money for the privilege. Sure, they may shell out additional money for Xbox Live once a year, or for a couple of map packs, but this doesn’t fundamentally alter the value proposition because gamers understand that there are alternatives to Xbox Live (like the Playstation Network), and that there will still be a healthy population of players who don’t buy the map packs. Activision could simply bolt on a subscription model, but unless they convince enough of the other big-shooter franchises to follow suit (like Halo, Gears of War, Battlefield, SOCOM and more), I have to think that Activision would hemorrhage enough customers to their competitors to dissuade them from such a brutal action.

This means that a subscription model won’t take place in the near future. First, some genius has to come up with a model for developing shooter games that adapts the lessons of the MMO space to the shooter genre. Getting people to accept the notion of a monthly subscription fee for a shooter will require the publisher to demonstrate a long-term commitment to improving a game (by incorporating technical improvements) and to producing a consistent stream of small nuggets of content interspersed with large impressive expansions. If people don’t believe at the outset of the game that the support will be consistent and give them additional value each and every month, it’s going to be a hard sell. In order to produce this sort of a steady stream of content, developers would need to change away from the “develop a big game then push out a couple of map packs before moving on to the sequel” model into one with a continuous long-term plan. What motivates players in the MMO space isn’t necessarily going to motivate shooter players, and simply doing a cut-and-paste from the WoW business plan would be a risky proposition.

Second, the Call of Duty/Modern Warfare franchises need to stay big. As it stands now,the lure of translating one-time sales from hugely popular games into waves upon waves of monthly cash is enough to make any business executive decide to keep pushing the issue even in the face of some risk. If the franchises start to suffer from gamer fatigue and lose ground, then the reward-versus-risk calculations change and some of the motivation is lost.

Third, the pending litigation involving former Infinity Ward heads Vince Zampella and Jason West is a big wild card. As long as the lawsuits are pending, Activision is likely to be averse to trying a subscription model until a settlement or a court affirms that they will retain complete control. If the resolution of the lawsuit cedes any rights or control to Zampella and West, that might stick a fork in a Call of Duty/Modern Warfare subscription model.

However, Bobby Kotick is no dummy. He clearly would like the revenue possibilities of a monthly subscription model, but he won’t want to unnecessarily risk damaging the brand of his marquee shooter franchises (which still make his company loads of cash) by springing it unawares on the gaming public. I would wager, if they do solve the subscription riddle, that elements of the plan would be incorporated into future games to get people used to the idea. Think of it this way — if a game has been offering you the option to purchase individual bits of optional (but valuable) content on regular basis, might you not be willing to consider a lower, monthly package price? Also, I would not be surprised to see Activision maintain the Call of Duty/Modern Warfare franchises as-is and try an experiment with a subscription model on a separate game. That way, if the experiment fails, the harm to the golden geese is limited, and if it succeeds, more’s the merrier! This also has the benefit of avoiding issues relating to their pending litigation.

So, in the end, enjoy your shooters for now — but keep an eye out for the future.

Share the GameHounds love:
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Fark
  • N4G
  • Twitter

4 Responses to The FPS Subscription Model: Why Everyone is Right

Avatar

Troy

August 5th, 2010 at 11:08 am

I wouldn’t be willing to accept a monthly paid service for a game I already paid 60 dollars for and have an xbox live gold subscription to pay online for. Ever. And no I don’t like the idea of a subscription service one bit because Activision would only go to such a model of service if it made them more money and they already price gouge on their map packs (never bought even one). Even if it was only $5 a month it would cost 60 dollars over the whole year, and that’s on top of everything else already paid for; not to even mention the fact that if you’d ever want to play it again you’d have to continue paying for it. Lots of people kept playing Cod4: MW instead of going to World at War. If they had to pay even 5 dollars a month while waiting for MW2 that’d be 120 dollars they’d have paid by the time it came out! and we all know activision would find a way to try and make it AT LEAST 10 dollars a month and realistically 15 dollars a month like they do with World of Warcraft. I can’t support the idea of paying even more every month to play Call of Duty online, especially with the economy in the shape it’s currently in. There isn’t a situation I could support paying even more money to pay call of duty online, even if the game was free because it would end up costing consumers more money.

Avatar

Gemini Ace

August 5th, 2010 at 11:16 am

Awesome article! I completely agree. I think Activision will let EA dip their toe in this pool first. I’m concerned that the franchise they decide to try this on might be the new Bungie one.

Avatar

Nick Dinicola

August 5th, 2010 at 2:16 pm

I think you’re underestimating Activision’s blind belief in CoD. There are now three studios working on CoD games, and Sledgehammer is working on an “action adventure” entry of the franchise. Kotick wants to expand the brand into other genres, that’s how he’ll avoid the “shooter fatigue” while keeping the franchise popular.

If any game were to go to a subscription model, it would have to be a CoD game because that’s the only IP Activision has with enough brand loyalty to actually draw in a sizable player base. Bungie’s new game will be a new IP and that fact alone prevents it from compeating on the same level as CoD.

However, I think this inevitable CoD subscrition game will be a spin off of the franchise, like the upcomming “action adventure” game. Think of a CoD that plays like Planetside, that old FPSMMO.

It really is just a matter of when, and I fully believe that game will carry the CoD name because it is the golden goose, as you said. They need that gold to draw players in, and that’s what they’ll do, fatigue be damned.

Avatar

Maj Malfunction

August 5th, 2010 at 7:03 pm

If Battlefield’s modern series remains free, no one would pay for CoD. Firmly my opinion.

Sony Online tried the MMO/FPS thing with Planetside. It flopped. New era now, but same challenges. Too much competition for anyone to want to pay a sub and much of the audience for these games can’t pay a sub. You would have to really bring something special. A persistant world etc and massive worlds. Then lag, ping etc beome too big a problem for a twitch game.
Would be tough to pull off.

Remember, CoD is peer hosted. How do you make someone pay a sub to host your game for you?

About GameHounds

Bringing you the latest in news, GameHounds delivers an adult perspective on the video game business and culture.

This podcast is explicit and is intended for adults ages 18 and older.

Subscribe

Subscribe in iTunes Full RSS Feed Podcast Only Feed

GameHounds Voicemail

Got something to say? Then leave a message on the GameHounds voicemail!

From your phone*, dial:
530-55-GAME5

Skype users, click here:
Leave a voicemail for GameHounds!


*long distance charges may apply

Sponsors

GameHounds on XBox Live

GamerEdie
Holy Goalie
fighterace100
Alsop Live