Microsoft Plans Boldest Games Bet Since Activision Deal, Changing How 'Call of Duty' Is Sold (wsj.com) 51
Microsoft plans a major shakeup of its videogame sales strategy by releasing the coming installment of Call of Duty to its subscription service instead of the longtime, lucrative approach of only selling it a la carte. WSJ: The plans, which mark the biggest change to Microsoft's gaming division since it closed the $75 billion takeover of Activision Blizzard, are expected to be announced at the company's annual Xbox showcase next month, according to people familiar with the matter. Call of Duty is one of the most successful entertainment properties ever, generating over $30 billion in lifetime revenue. Activision, which makes it, has long released new editions annually, selling about 25 million copies on average, selling for around $70 each in recent years.
Before the Microsoft deal last year, Activision was reluctant to fully embrace subscription-based models for a game that still attracts a premium price. Microsoft's subscription service, Game Pass, costs $9.99 to $16.99 a month, and provides access to hundreds of games from Microsoft and dozens of other companies.
Before the Microsoft deal last year, Activision was reluctant to fully embrace subscription-based models for a game that still attracts a premium price. Microsoft's subscription service, Game Pass, costs $9.99 to $16.99 a month, and provides access to hundreds of games from Microsoft and dozens of other companies.
Gaming as a service (GaaS) (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
CoD is not in the same position as Office, so they won't succeed with rent-seeking behavior in this space.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is forcing a subscription? You can buy any of the games that are on game pass separately.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Gaming as a service (GaaS) (Score:1, Troll)
Businesses lie to regulators all the time when trying to make major acquisitions. There never seems to be any consequences.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
Your response is lazy. You make an accusation with no proof. When people questioned it WITH FACTS that (1) every Game Pass is currently purchasable separately, (2) MS has made a deal with Sony to release it on other platforms, and (3) the article doesn't even say that it's exclusive to Game Pass.
So you're just making things up and want other people to prove you wrong? That's not how it works. You present facts to your claim first.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Prove what? It's what the article says is happening:
"... releasing the coming installment of “Call of Duty” to its subscription service instead of the longtime, lucrative approach of only selling it a la carte."
Go see the author for proof, or provide your own proof that they will be offering CoD a la carte for all platforms (not just playstation as you injected).
Re: Gaming as a service (GaaS) (Score:4, Informative)
"... releasing the coming installment of “Call of Duty” to its subscription service instead of the longtime, lucrative approach of only selling it a la carte."
Re: (Score:1)
Prove that Microsoft is planning to not release COD, as they stated, on PS5. Also maybe learn how to read :
"... releasing the coming installment of “Call of Duty” to its subscription service instead of the longtime, lucrative approach of only selling it a la carte."
Chill with the learn to read BS.
"... releasing the coming installment of “Call of Duty” to its subscription service instead of the longtime, lucrative approach of only selling it a la carte."
It used to "ONLY" be sold a la cart. Now, instead of a la carte, they are releasing it as a subscription service.
That there is any ambiguity to the articles statement is an editor problem, not our fault. Worse still, that seems to be incorrect.
Re: Gaming as a service (GaaS) (Score:2)
"Chill with the learn to read BS."
Learn to read first.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Where's the grammar nazis when you need one? Arguing semantics when the point is the WSJ's statement was unclear kinda proves that the statement was unclear.
Re: (Score:3)
Nowhere does it say that they will stop releasing it outside of their service. It merely says that they're release it ON DAY ONE to their Game Pass service which is new for Microsoft.
It doesn't say anything about exclusivity or only being on that service.
Re: Gaming as a service (GaaS) (Score:2)
Nokia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You keep injecting PS5 into this mix. So what if CoD is available on PS5 for purchase? That's also not a sure thing - I see no proof that will happen.
Nothing I've seen indicates it will ONLY be available on Gamepass.
TFA: "subscription service instead of ... selling it a la carte."
NOTE: That isn't "as well as selling it a la carte". It says "instead of". Maybe the article is wrong, but that's pretty clear.
Do you have some news to add to this that shows it will be available for purchase as well as subscription on xbox (or any other platforms)?
Re: (Score:2)
"... releasing the coming installment of “Call of Duty” to its subscription service instead of the longtime, lucrative approach of only selling it a la carte."
Looks like companies are not the only ones who lie.
From IGN:
Of course, Activision will also launch Call of Duty across Xbox, PlayStation, and PC as a game that can be bought outright. But with Game Pass subscriber numbers failing to grow meaningfully Microsoft is under pressure to attract new customers. Adding a mainline Call of Duty game at launch will no doubt help with that.
https://www.ign.com/articles/call-of-duty-black-ops-6-reportedly-set-to-launch-straight-into-xbox-game-pass
Re: (Score:2)
But the bolded "only" in that quote doesn't mean shit. It's a misleading statement at best. "Instead of" is not the same as "as well as".
Everything about TFS and TFA implied they are moving to subscription only.
The IGN link - thanks. That's much more clear than TFA, and I'd trust IGN for gaming news over WSJ.
Re: (Score:2)
I think MS does not understand that competition to Call of Duty franchise
they don't seem to mind? all else being equal competition will remain as is, plus it might generate a strong influx in subscriptions which is what they care about, apparently, worth the loss in one time sales. we don't know the numbers but i would bet they make sense. if it works out remains to be seen.
now, if this also entails cutting costs on the game's development or marketing that could indeed backfire ... though the game's popularity is so huge and it is otherwise such a basic and clichéd formula
What is that smell?? (Score:2)
Is that the stink of microtransactions and datamined personal information??
The only way I can see MS making money on this is to introduce microtransactions in one form or another.
Of course, there is also the little thing of getting players to sign up to MS to play CoD on the cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
. No one buys COD to play single player
Tell me you don't know what other people want without telling me you have never talked to another player. It's not like people on Steam have criticized how bad the single player experience is on CoD. [steamcommunity.com] Or YouTube rants about single player on CoD. [youtube.com] Or maybe what YOU want out of CoD is not what everyone wants out of CoD.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But even if it was as you say, that would still not represent a new thing in single player games. You and the top poster are thinking of offline DRM-free games, but that doesn't apply to big titles anymore (with a paltry few exceptions). They all spy on you, and a large portion also have microtransactions.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody plays CoD for the campaign anymore, I was a little surprised to hear that they're even still making those. It's a mutiplayer game.
Maybe that is because single player campaign sucks because Activision knows they can't make infinite amounts of money on multiplayer. Activision puts in the bare amount of effort.
Re: (Score:2)
They already have microtransactions, along with a million cosmetic DLCs. Buy Call of Duty® Points today!
I've Never Played CoD (Score:2)
Now it's subscription, I guess I never will.
Suscriptions are optional, but make more $ sense. (Score:5, Insightful)
You can come up with whatever conspiracy you want, but I think MS realizes the future is like me now vs 20 years ago. Back then, I carefully purchased items or stole games from friends. Even 10 years ago, when my kids were born, I bought games on Steam when they were on sale and played them to the end, but I never paid full price. But I have kids now and am too busy to play them as much as I'd like, so the games pass is more for the kids.
The Nintendo Switch is built for kids, but a total horror show. I've put $200 into games they NEVER play. They only play 1 game regularly, Mario Kart. The want every game made, but they never play through to the end and when I pick some Mario game for us to play together, they liked the idea, liked the trailer, but didn't play...so the games pass was a godsend...they can play whatever they want, stop asking me for new games, and I don't care if they play 1 game or 100.
When I see a game come out, I won't pay $60...I just don't have the time to invest in that. 10 years ago, I'd just buy them on steam during a major sale. But even now, I see a $20 game and know I will play it for a week and then get wrapped up in something else. I just am too busy.
I am no longer a serious gamer. I love playing games. I have many fond memories of playing them and I impressed my son with my FPS skills when we played fortnite together. However, there are a lot more causal than serious gamers...always has been. It's better to get 10/month from 100 million people than it is to get $60 per release from 10 million. Hardcore gamers are picky and too few in number. Subscriptions allow mainstream people like me, my wife, families, etc fund the games you like and give stability and lower risk to publishers...maybe they can afford to treat their employees in a humane way if they knew they had a constant stream of money coming in!
Re: (Score:2)
MS will take your money alacarte.
Was not the point of the article is that the next CoD is subscription only? At least that is the proposed strategy of MS.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, Activision will also launch Call of Duty across Xbox, PlayStation, and PC as a game that can be bought outright. But with Game Pass subscriber numbers failing to grow meaningfully Microsoft is under pressure to attract new customers. Adding a mainline Call of Duty game at launch will no doubt help with that.
https://www.ign.com/articles/c... [ign.com]
gamepass in some regions is cheaper (Score:2)
Pc gamepass is 3 bucks here in thailand.
For CoD this makes sense. (Score:3)
The whole paradigm of 3 or however many studios all churning out a CoD on a yearly release always seemed incredibly silly. If you are expecting your customers to pay $60-70 a year, plus micropayments and then proceed to make the games multiplayer incompatible just seems silliness, just charge them $5 a month.
There is so much to CoD and so much of it online throughout the series, CoD should be a single service game and the campaign modes are just modules in it and the multiplayer modes as well.
As someone who has not played the series since Black Ops 1 on a PS3 even if I wanted to where do I jump in? Logic would say MWIII as it's the most recent but people still play the older titles.
Devils in the details but live service games don't have to be a raw deal for players if it's done right (but that's the hard part)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The whole paradigm of 3 or however many studios all churning out a CoD on a yearly release always seemed incredibly silly. If you are expecting your customers to pay $60-70 a year, plus micropayments and then proceed to make the games multiplayer incompatible just seems silliness, just charge them $5 a month.
There is so much to CoD and so much of it online throughout the series, CoD should be a single service game and the campaign modes are just modules in it and the multiplayer modes as well.
As someone who has not played the series since Black Ops 1 on a PS3 even if I wanted to where do I jump in? Logic would say MWIII as it's the most recent but people still play the older titles.
Devils in the details but live service games don't have to be a raw deal for players if it's done right (but that's the hard part)
Problem is, it's been working for them thus far, having a new version of COD every year and mircotransactions a-plenty. The dudebros have been lapping it up.
I suspect the new system is still going to have an initial purchase and microtransactions but also now a monthly rental fee, given it's mainly a multiplayer game they'll have to suck that fee up as well. There is only so much they can nickel and dime people, even the hard of thinking that still play COD but there has to be a tipping point somewhere.
eh (Score:2)
Nothing involving marketing Call of Duty can be called "bold."
That's right, twitch-kiddies! (Score:2)
Did anyone ever think for a second that their purchase of Activision Blizzard wasn't due to them wanting to expand their rent-seeking into gaming?
Have fun renting your annual retread releases of first-person shooters.
Don't pay? Don't play.
Clashes With My Own Crusade... (Score:1)
...to shed as much monthly recurring obligations as possible. Sent both NovaBackup anc Winzip away for wanting me to send them money every month, or even year, rather than a flat dollar two ninety eight and be done with it. Have resisted sports channel's Dirtvision at $40 / mo, and became satisfied with Sling's $49 / mo when I originally intended to add Hulu to pick up a full complement of local channels. Have been wanting to strike back at the greedy broadcasters that think their signal that they send