ROFL...This moron should be concentrating on fixing thier hacker filled line of video games versus making us pay a monthly subscription for them. This is just sillyness.
Watch I bet it starts out P2P then adds a cash shop where you have to pay cash for the ability to kick hackers from your game.
This just makes me laugh. This retard must not be in touch with reality and is just chasing $$$. COD games arn't even worth paying the 50 bucks let alone paying a month sub for them.
CoD grossed three Billion so obviously quite a few people disagree with you.
It's one thing if it's a giant leap in gaming from one FPS to the next. But after having playerd CoD4, CoDWaW, BFBC2 (although it has vehicles), and CoDMW2, there is not some huge jump in how it's played or anything.
People eat up what is spoon fed to them. Your buddy tells you "OMG GET THE NEW CoD!!!" You may not enjoy it all that much, but because your buddy told you to, you did.
Did anyone notice the pretty outrageous price of the pack they had? 15 bucks? For a few maps and such....
This is what I expect them to do much more. Pay for any and all maps. Pay for new weapons/ranks. Pay for other certain things.
There are very few game devolopers who make a game, because they want to make an awesome game that they and tons of people would play, and rather a game to make as much money as possible as soon as possible.
You know? No. I will not play a COD MMO. For one simple reason, I want to play whatever Respawn Entertainment does (the former Infinity Ward guys. ). I would LOVE a large scale MMO FPS that Planetside wanted to be, but until I can beat MAG's 256 player battles in an MMO space I'll be happy with MAG.
Current Game: Asssasins Creed 2(PS3, Gamer Tag: Happy_Hubby) Current MMO: World of Warcraft and World of Tanks Former Subscribed MMO: Star Trek Online, Aion, WoW, Guild Wars, Eve Online, DAoC, City of Heroes, Shattered Galaxy, 10six. Tried: Too many to list
This doesn't surprise me after hearing about THQ's Company of Heroes Online. Just a move to squeeze more money out of players by adding "achievements" and progression in an avatar.
After having tried Company of Heroes Online, and seeing how well this works, I think it would be a great idea to do a Call of Duty version in a similar fashion. It is good to see that they are making games better, as I can think of so many examples of failed games, that it is finally good to see that someone it thinking of doing it better.
Forgive my ignorance (i dont play FPS) but isnt CoD an FPS? Why would anyone pay a monthly sub for an FPS when there are already so many that you can play online without a monthly sub?
Is this DRM via internet again and the players have to pay for it too, a straight up milking of the players or will they attempt to make an mmorpg out of an fps?
If the latter i suppose it will give all the people crying for "skill" and "twitch based play" a game to play, but i dont think it will be a game worth a sub fee (from me at least), especially with Global Agenda already going F2P.
I don't why, but this opinion seems rampant here (on MMORPG.com). There is no reason at all that a shooter can't have character development and roleplay opportunities every bit as rich and interesting as any RPG out there.
It's already been done, with limited success (PlanetSide) but set in a Sci-Fi setting. As popular as CoD (or Battlefield) is and has been, there's no reason why a game based on such a popular IP couldn't succeed. Especially if the developers were to take the lessons learned with PlanetSide, possibly even Tabula Rasa, and merge that with the lessons learned with WW2Online. There is every possibility of a great game in the making. As long as they don't screw it up with too much instancing, zero economy or crafting (or bad crafting, as in STO), or too limited character development as was the case in PlanetSide.
No but seriously thats ridiculous im not going to buy a game for my console and pay to play it. Espically call of duty.
The sad thing is theyll probably make it and people with pay to play it just because its call of duty.
I mean dont get me wrong CoD is great. Just not worth a sub. Hopefully that retard realizes it before he makes the mistake of making it and trying to put it out. But if they do put it out and its a huge success i for see alot of other companys following in the foot steps and making their other games pay to play i mean look at company of heros. Why pay to play it when you can just buy the box and play online with other people. What developers really need to do is stop going for our pockets and actually take time, put love and effort into making the game instead of rushing it out getting all of our cash. Itll be a sad day when activision releases Call of Duty online and makes us Pay To Play.
And now the dots are connected. This is why he fired the top dogs over at Infinity Ward.
If those two were still around they would make a fortune off any COD MMO, and they wouldn't let it be some generic McDonaldization that Kotick is so fond of.
Well played, Mr. Kotick. Way to herd the sheep to slaughter.
CoD is rife with hacks.....look to PBBans for proof of that.....BOBBY...only cares about making $$$$$$$ and not the gamer community....look at that pic of him....its fraud smile and his eyes say something.....the do no care about us...they want $$$$$$$ bottom line.....if they did give two dumps about the community they would fix the present problems within each system.
BTW...isn't IW currently in litigation with the original creators of CoD for IP? Yeah lets fund thier leagal problem under the disguise of "We care about the player base".......BS....do not be fooled folks.....they only want your money and could careless about you as a gamer. Just wait for the next best thing....trust me...its not from the CoD community...unless they get there act together.
The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps! Eleanor Roosevelt, First Lady of the United States, 1945
ATILLIUS, you are way off base on this one. Activision has nothing to do with either of the issues you put forth above. There are actually two different COD camps out there at the moment, Infinity Ward and Treyarch. Infinity Ward created Modern Warfare 2 and Treyarch did World at War and is working on Black Ops. The problems you talk about in your first paragraph are due wholly to IW taking away permanent servers from gamers. As it is, everything is done client side, (which they did only to save money on hosting), and the end result is that anyone can cheat and there cannot be any admins to ban them. We have to wait several months for Steam to VAC ban them if it happens at all. If you have those issues with a Treyarch product its simply due to laziness on the part of the people running the server.
The litigation comes from IW supposedly trying to shop around Activision's property to other publishers. And regardless, Activision itself doesn't make these games. It owns the rights to the COD name and publishes the game. If Treyarch puts out a COD MMO I'd be highly likely to jump on board. I am primarily an FPS gamer and an MMO gamer second. Atm I am back into my FPS only mode waiting for SWTOR to come out. If a game like what they're talking about had many mmo features plus the fun of a squad based shooter I would seriously consider disregarding all other mmos for it.
the problem is there would likely be even more lag. theres always a minimal 10k people. Thats a small number when its server-matches, but to put 3k people on 1 server even....... that just leads to lag from excessive people. another thing is, mmo's are meant to be played in 3rd person to view your srroundings. COD has only just barely touched that and only for fun. COD is an FPS game for a reason. SIghts. When you have 3rd person 9/10 times you have a very slow aim or projectile path they show you.
now if you said ghost recon needs to become an fps.... well now your talking. thats already played in 3rd person.
more to my point. the weapon system is solid right now. Pure lvl up to get more. I don't think COD is willing to make a at least 30,000 weapons to make loot a plossible feature unless they made ammo a lute. thay might be done, but people like new and shiney things to find in mmo's .
In general this was a bad idea. the best closest thing to this idea already exist in 2 forms. borderlands, and army of 2&army of 2-40thday
Love the Call of Duty games and sequels. However for a FPS game I prefer playing single player missions. My first foray into a COD multiplayer was my first and last. Even though had punkbuster installed ran into cheating players who could not be killed and remember one co-op server where the server host pulled the plug when he was losing. So told myself no more multi-player.
IMHO do not think COD would work as a MMO, there are too many people who would love to play this type of game who are pvp griefers and cheaters and it would ruin the game for everyone and game would be become unfun.
.... As much as I like CoD, I don't see myself playing it if it were an MMO. It's a good small map team vs. team game, but I don't see it making a good faction vs. faction style MMO. APB has made me a bit more open minded, but even then I still don't see me playing a CoD MMO.
Don't get me wrong though, I think the idea is interesting if you look at is as a Clan vs. Clan PvP MMO. Just not one I'd be interested.
Activision CEO Bobby Kotick spoke to the Wall Street Journal as part of an interview recently, where he revealed, among other things, that if he could do one thing right away at Activision it would be to make Call of Duty an "online subscription service".
This isn't the first time we've heard rumors of a Call of Duty MMO
I don't read this as Bobby Kotick saying he wants to make a Call of Duty MMO.
This reads more like "I want to charge people an online monthly fee".
When I was working at Toys R Us 2 years ago (yeah yeah...fuck you) one of the developers of Champions Online came in wearing a City of Heroes Shirt. I started talking to him about MMOs and I brought up how there seemed to be some animosity with Marvel. He responded by telling me that Microsoft was causing them much more problems.
He didn't really go into detail but looking back, I believe it was because they were pushing really hard to get Champions Online accessible on the Xbox 360 - which didn't happen.
I dont think anybody would be willing to pay two subscriptions, one for xbox live and another for champions online.
I think Call of Duty online would workd for PC and PS3 only.
And even then, Activision basically shat on their PC community with the terrible service that came with Call of Duty:MW2.
Activision has become what EA use to be; a publisher that forces their studios to produce rushed products with very little innovation.
Why frame the game as an mmo other then to rake in more bucks? That's really all that's about. The way the system works now is good and that is why it has the success it has. I'm sure they'll find some suckers to pay for the service if they block other avenues but that's really all it is on their end is greed....
LOL at Activision trying for a FPS MMO using COD. MMOs by nature call their home on the PC. And last I checked, Activision took a sh*t on the PC crowd. You know, the guys that supported the franchise since the first COD.
I'm also curious to hear exactly what they have in mind to make COD worthy of being an MMO. Because FPS for years now by nature are dominated by online play. Players already unlock weapons as they progress in COD and BF series. Stats and progress are already kept online. Exactly what do they have in mind to entice players to keep paying for the same game that they already own? Have fun with that, since you're going to be trying that with the console crowd, since Activision actually hates the PC market and community.
"I got him with Improved Headshot with my PSG-1 / +5 Accuracy and Gloves of Greater Stability +3. He stood no chance."
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
The reason why a GOOD FPS would be a successful MMO is simple, the competition.
Players always want to earn standing in FPS games, having everyone connected through one online service would allow for all types of leaderboards, competitions, and tournaments. That is the sole reason is would really work.
There would likely have to be some sort of map control and each side gears up for missions, so it wouldn't really be an open world MMO. WWII online tried that and it never did too well, the main reason being that it took too long to get in on the action, and then you could be shot once after spending all that time getting there and be out of the action again. FPS players want action, they want matches to start up quick and they want little down time during the match. Open world doesn't create that.
The reason why Global Agenda and APB aren't working out is that they took all the actual skill out of FPS games and made it more arcade like. The FPS crowd doesn't want that, they want true skill based with head shots and all of the other fun.
So CoD could do it, they have the fan base for it, and it could be done in a way that would be very successful. It just wouldn't be what most users of this forum equate to an MMO. And that is a large open world with arcade style of push this button then this button type of gameplay. No FPS MMO will ever be like that, so people have to stop thinking of an FPS MMO with that mindset.
If done correctly, it cold be very fun. Take the current great things and make them bigger....rather than just "domination" you would need other objectives. Capture pionts that mean something.
The wrong thing to do, would be to make the game into any kind of grind. In the curernt games, a Lvl 1 person can take out a lvl 70 with a single bullet. That kind of level playing field needs to stay the same!
Don't add arbitrary crafting things...
Currently not playing any MMOrpg -- Lvl 80 paladin WoW
not only no but hell no because you know it will be onothing more then an FPS with an item mall with for every little power up, aid pack and new gun you can imagine with the power of activision's greed being the only thing stopping them....
Comments
It's one thing if it's a giant leap in gaming from one FPS to the next. But after having playerd CoD4, CoDWaW, BFBC2 (although it has vehicles), and CoDMW2, there is not some huge jump in how it's played or anything.
People eat up what is spoon fed to them. Your buddy tells you "OMG GET THE NEW CoD!!!" You may not enjoy it all that much, but because your buddy told you to, you did.
Did anyone notice the pretty outrageous price of the pack they had? 15 bucks? For a few maps and such....
This is what I expect them to do much more. Pay for any and all maps. Pay for new weapons/ranks. Pay for other certain things.
There are very few game devolopers who make a game, because they want to make an awesome game that they and tons of people would play, and rather a game to make as much money as possible as soon as possible.
You know? No. I will not play a COD MMO. For one simple reason, I want to play whatever Respawn Entertainment does (the former Infinity Ward guys.
). I would LOVE a large scale MMO FPS that Planetside wanted to be, but until I can beat MAG's 256 player battles in an MMO space I'll be happy with MAG. 
Current Game: Asssasins Creed 2(PS3, Gamer Tag: Happy_Hubby)
Current MMO: World of Warcraft and World of Tanks
Former Subscribed MMO: Star Trek Online, Aion, WoW, Guild Wars, Eve Online, DAoC, City of Heroes, Shattered Galaxy, 10six.
Tried: Too many to list
So many big companies want to make mmorpgs because they see it as $60 as a one time purchase vs $60 + $15 per month.
To bad they just dont know how to make one.
After having tried Company of Heroes Online, and seeing how well this works, I think it would be a great idea to do a Call of Duty version in a similar fashion. It is good to see that they are making games better, as I can think of so many examples of failed games, that it is finally good to see that someone it thinking of doing it better.
I don't why, but this opinion seems rampant here (on MMORPG.com). There is no reason at all that a shooter can't have character development and roleplay opportunities every bit as rich and interesting as any RPG out there.
It's already been done, with limited success (PlanetSide) but set in a Sci-Fi setting. As popular as CoD (or Battlefield) is and has been, there's no reason why a game based on such a popular IP couldn't succeed. Especially if the developers were to take the lessons learned with PlanetSide, possibly even Tabula Rasa, and merge that with the lessons learned with WW2Online. There is every possibility of a great game in the making. As long as they don't screw it up with too much instancing, zero economy or crafting (or bad crafting, as in STO), or too limited character development as was the case in PlanetSide.
It's called Xbox Live, rofl...
As soon CoD goes sub battle field will take over.
lol
No but seriously thats ridiculous im not going to buy a game for my console and pay to play it. Espically call of duty.
The sad thing is theyll probably make it and people with pay to play it just because its call of duty.
I mean dont get me wrong CoD is great. Just not worth a sub. Hopefully that retard realizes it before he makes the mistake of making it and trying to put it out. But if they do put it out and its a huge success i for see alot of other companys following in the foot steps and making their other games pay to play i mean look at company of heros. Why pay to play it when you can just buy the box and play online with other people. What developers really need to do is stop going for our pockets and actually take time, put love and effort into making the game instead of rushing it out getting all of our cash. Itll be a sad day when activision releases Call of Duty online and makes us Pay To Play.
And now the dots are connected. This is why he fired the top dogs over at Infinity Ward.
If those two were still around they would make a fortune off any COD MMO, and they wouldn't let it be some generic McDonaldization that Kotick is so fond of.
Well played, Mr. Kotick. Way to herd the sheep to slaughter.
I'd play this when they figure out how to get everyone around the world under 100 ping.
CoD is rife with hacks.....look to PBBans for proof of that.....BOBBY...only cares about making $$$$$$$ and not the gamer community....look at that pic of him....its fraud smile and his eyes say something.....the do no care about us...they want $$$$$$$ bottom line.....if they did give two dumps about the community they would fix the present problems within each system.
BTW...isn't IW currently in litigation with the original creators of CoD for IP? Yeah lets fund thier leagal problem under the disguise of "We care about the player base".......BS....do not be fooled folks.....they only want your money and could careless about you as a gamer. Just wait for the next best thing....trust me...its not from the CoD community...unless they get there act together.
The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps!
Eleanor Roosevelt, First Lady of the United States, 1945
ATILLIUS, you are way off base on this one. Activision has nothing to do with either of the issues you put forth above. There are actually two different COD camps out there at the moment, Infinity Ward and Treyarch. Infinity Ward created Modern Warfare 2 and Treyarch did World at War and is working on Black Ops. The problems you talk about in your first paragraph are due wholly to IW taking away permanent servers from gamers. As it is, everything is done client side, (which they did only to save money on hosting), and the end result is that anyone can cheat and there cannot be any admins to ban them. We have to wait several months for Steam to VAC ban them if it happens at all. If you have those issues with a Treyarch product its simply due to laziness on the part of the people running the server.
The litigation comes from IW supposedly trying to shop around Activision's property to other publishers. And regardless, Activision itself doesn't make these games. It owns the rights to the COD name and publishes the game. If Treyarch puts out a COD MMO I'd be highly likely to jump on board. I am primarily an FPS gamer and an MMO gamer second. Atm I am back into my FPS only mode waiting for SWTOR to come out. If a game like what they're talking about had many mmo features plus the fun of a squad based shooter I would seriously consider disregarding all other mmos for it.
the problem is there would likely be even more lag. theres always a minimal 10k people. Thats a small number when its server-matches, but to put 3k people on 1 server even....... that just leads to lag from excessive people. another thing is, mmo's are meant to be played in 3rd person to view your srroundings. COD has only just barely touched that and only for fun. COD is an FPS game for a reason. SIghts. When you have 3rd person 9/10 times you have a very slow aim or projectile path they show you.
now if you said ghost recon needs to become an fps.... well now your talking. thats already played in 3rd person.
more to my point. the weapon system is solid right now. Pure lvl up to get more. I don't think COD is willing to make a at least 30,000 weapons to make loot a plossible feature unless they made ammo a lute. thay might be done, but people like new and shiney things to find in mmo's .
In general this was a bad idea. the best closest thing to this idea already exist in 2 forms. borderlands, and army of 2&army of 2-40thday
Love the Call of Duty games and sequels. However for a FPS game I prefer playing single player missions. My first foray into a COD multiplayer was my first and last. Even though had punkbuster installed ran into cheating players who could not be killed and remember one co-op server where the server host pulled the plug when he was losing. So told myself no more multi-player.
IMHO do not think COD would work as a MMO, there are too many people who would love to play this type of game who are pvp griefers and cheaters and it would ruin the game for everyone and game would be become unfun.
.... As much as I like CoD, I don't see myself playing it if it were an MMO. It's a good small map team vs. team game, but I don't see it making a good faction vs. faction style MMO. APB has made me a bit more open minded, but even then I still don't see me playing a CoD MMO.
Don't get me wrong though, I think the idea is interesting if you look at is as a Clan vs. Clan PvP MMO. Just not one I'd be interested.
I don't read this as Bobby Kotick saying he wants to make a Call of Duty MMO.
This reads more like "I want to charge people an online monthly fee".
When I was working at Toys R Us 2 years ago (yeah yeah...fuck you) one of the developers of Champions Online came in wearing a City of Heroes Shirt. I started talking to him about MMOs and I brought up how there seemed to be some animosity with Marvel. He responded by telling me that Microsoft was causing them much more problems.
He didn't really go into detail but looking back, I believe it was because they were pushing really hard to get Champions Online accessible on the Xbox 360 - which didn't happen.
I dont think anybody would be willing to pay two subscriptions, one for xbox live and another for champions online.
I think Call of Duty online would workd for PC and PS3 only.
And even then, Activision basically shat on their PC community with the terrible service that came with Call of Duty:MW2.
Activision has become what EA use to be; a publisher that forces their studios to produce rushed products with very little innovation.
Why frame the game as an mmo other then to rake in more bucks? That's really all that's about. The way the system works now is good and that is why it has the success it has. I'm sure they'll find some suckers to pay for the service if they block other avenues but that's really all it is on their end is greed....
No way, I would not pay to play COD online in any form. I won't even buy MW2 until the MSRP drops below 50 bucks.
LOL at Activision trying for a FPS MMO using COD. MMOs by nature call their home on the PC. And last I checked, Activision took a sh*t on the PC crowd. You know, the guys that supported the franchise since the first COD.
I'm also curious to hear exactly what they have in mind to make COD worthy of being an MMO. Because FPS for years now by nature are dominated by online play. Players already unlock weapons as they progress in COD and BF series. Stats and progress are already kept online. Exactly what do they have in mind to entice players to keep paying for the same game that they already own? Have fun with that, since you're going to be trying that with the console crowd, since Activision actually hates the PC market and community.
"I got him with Improved Headshot with my PSG-1 / +5 Accuracy and Gloves of Greater Stability +3. He stood no chance."
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
The reason why a GOOD FPS would be a successful MMO is simple, the competition.
Players always want to earn standing in FPS games, having everyone connected through one online service would allow for all types of leaderboards, competitions, and tournaments. That is the sole reason is would really work.
There would likely have to be some sort of map control and each side gears up for missions, so it wouldn't really be an open world MMO. WWII online tried that and it never did too well, the main reason being that it took too long to get in on the action, and then you could be shot once after spending all that time getting there and be out of the action again. FPS players want action, they want matches to start up quick and they want little down time during the match. Open world doesn't create that.
The reason why Global Agenda and APB aren't working out is that they took all the actual skill out of FPS games and made it more arcade like. The FPS crowd doesn't want that, they want true skill based with head shots and all of the other fun.
So CoD could do it, they have the fan base for it, and it could be done in a way that would be very successful. It just wouldn't be what most users of this forum equate to an MMO. And that is a large open world with arcade style of push this button then this button type of gameplay. No FPS MMO will ever be like that, so people have to stop thinking of an FPS MMO with that mindset.
If done correctly, it cold be very fun. Take the current great things and make them bigger....rather than just "domination" you would need other objectives. Capture pionts that mean something.
The wrong thing to do, would be to make the game into any kind of grind. In the curernt games, a Lvl 1 person can take out a lvl 70 with a single bullet. That kind of level playing field needs to stay the same!
Don't add arbitrary crafting things...
Currently not playing any MMOrpg --
Lvl 80 paladin WoW
not only no but hell no because you know it will be onothing more then an FPS with an item mall with for every little power up, aid pack and new gun you can imagine with the power of activision's greed being the only thing stopping them....
pfffft
http://www.forceofarms.com/index.php