[CoD MW3] 'Elite' service

hightower1 wrote: »

Assumptions based on likely information = guestimate
Conclusions based on information given by the company = educated guess.

Assumptions made upon a guess by the Wall Street Journal

Premium membership pricing has not been announced.
The fee (and exactly what you will get for it) has not been determined. The team says details will be coming later this summer on exactly what you get and how much that extra stuff will cost. But it’s supposed to be competitive with other digital enteratainment services. Until a real price is announced, if you’re looking for a ballpark, Netflix was name-checked by the Wall Street Journal (which was positively obsessed with the paid portion of the service and kind of ignored all the other stuff), and Netflix is $7.99/month.

http://oneofswords.com/2011/05/what-i-know-about-call-of-duty-elite/#more-8905

Tallon wrote: »

Will you give it a rest and just wait to see how much it costs... jeeze

I am still entitled to defend my opinion or reply to any posts which quote me as far as I am still aware? If you dont wanna read that then dont, simple as.

My point is that your quoting what the wall street journal has said and assuming that it speaks for Activision/blizzard.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576355310423496054.html?mod=e2tw

Activision executives said they haven't yet figured out how much to charge for the service, but they expect the cost to be less than fees for comparable online-entertainment services, such as a $7.99-a-month Netflix Inc. movie subscription.

Nice ambiguous source there, unnamed Activison execs, so nothing solid. Since we don't know what COD elite entails we can only speculate on what is and isn't a "comparable online-entertainment services". Any time I read any article without reliable sources I immediately think it's speculative not that it's gospel and that some blabber mouth exec had to share with a newspaper reporter.

Newspapers have online service content, playboy has online content also. Why not look at Activision/Blizzard themselves and see how much WoW is per month and use that as a figure? Any figure could have been used in that article, at best it's ballpark.

is there going to be online ranked clan vs clan matches so?

also this new elite feature can track your stats from black ops and all the other cod's like mw1 and 2 and waw?

good video but was hard to keep track of him on what features mw3 elite is going to have he kind of rushed it.

yimrsg wrote: »

My point is that your quoting what the wall street journal has said and assuming that it speaks for Activision/blizzard.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576355310423496054.html?mod=e2tw

Nice ambiguous source there, unnamed Activison execs, so nothing solid. Since we don't know what COD elite entails we can only speculate on what is and isn't a "comparable online-entertainment services". Any time I read any article without reliable sources I immediately think it's speculative not that it's gospel and that some blabber mouth exec had to share with a newspaper reporter.

Newspapers have online service content, playboy has online content also. Why not look at Activision/Blizzard themselves and see how much WoW is per month and use that as a figure? Any figure could have been used in that article, at best it's ballpark.

So you dont belive anythng thats reported unless its a direct quote comment from a named source????

I mean this was the Wall street journal who was at an invited press event and reporting on what was said... youcant expect every news reporter there to consist their colume of an exact transcript of what was said then site the source? They quote specific points of intrest and report the rest otherwise every single report of the even would be identical.

The only reasonable reason imaginable that they didnt quote this remark was that it didnt have a solid figure included but more an indicator at the intended pricerange.

Its unreasonable to only belive anything thats quoted. Do you open the guardian and disregard everything as rumour unless it is in quotation marks?

hightower1 wrote: »

So you dont belive anythng thats reported unless its a direct quote comment from a named source????

I mean this was the Wall street journal who was at an invited press event and reporting on what was said... youcant expect every news reporter there to consist their colume of an exact transcript of what was said then site the source? They quote specific points of intrest and report the rest otherwise every single report of the even would be identical.

The only reasonable reason imaginable that they didnt quote this remark was that it didnt have a solid figure included but more an indicator at the intended pricerange.

Its unreasonable to only belive anything thats quoted. Do you open the guardian and disregard everything as rumour unless it is in quotation marks?

Why should I treat it any differently than any other article without a source? I've a background in reading scientific papers and it really annoys me that most of the gossipy trash in papers today starts of an article with "our insider" or "close friend to xxx". Even some science journals get it wrong and they have considerably more pressure to make sure that their publications are factually accurate. Anyone in a similar situation of respect and plausibility as the WSJ can fabricate a story and make it seem plausible providing it's not rebuked.

The newspapers and the reporters know precisely that no-one is going to come out from Activision/Blizzard and go on record and set it straight before E3 or some other carefully managed event. They can print what they like and AC/BL get more free advertising for their game and the WSJ gets a scoop.

When I read anything I'd absorb it's content and decide for myself the veracity of it's claims before deciding what I read to be true. I am sceptical by nature so the fact that this arcticle doesn't have any reliable sources apart from hearsay is enough for me to think it's dubious. Loads of people release supposed leaked footage and other titbits from MW3 from insiders but don't automatically assume it's real.

Make up your own mind on what you've read.

MarkY91 wrote: »

why the hell does whatever price its gona be make and difference?...anything above 0.00 is downright laughable, mainly laughable at the people whi pay it:pac:

So you've never spent money on something thats overpriced or that is silly to pay for ?

unnecessary accessories for a hobby ? Apps or ringtones for your phone ? A special edition DVD or game ? Never bought a bottle of water (In Ireland !) or bought some food in an airport ? I've spent so much money on useless junk that I never use !

Its hardly laughable to spend money on something that you'll probably use quite often.. i can see myself sitting on a bus browsing through elite or checking who all the little second chance fags on my friends list while i take a crap !

What do the xboxers pay for live per year? I can't see this "extra" thing costing more than a yearly xbox live sub, but you never know.

=-=

Have not bought any CoD DLC yet, and don't see me buying any in the future. I view this stats thing as a DLC. If done monthly, anyone without a credit card will be left out. If paid in one big bulk, it'll be seen as no different as a DLC, and thus will have to have a couple of maps to entice people in.


Looks meh.

CORaven wrote: »

He said it all on his other channel. Not sure if he made an announcement on his main one. He stopped just before the Famas, and he had not finished the Homefront guide.

From reading http://twitter.com/#!/xboxahoy it seems he hopes to get back to making videos once he's allowed to. He does say:

I'll do a formal announce on my channel soon. Informally: I've been working on some content for COD:Elite.

Beta begin July 14th source

Ladies and gentlemen, I've decided to tale the step and decide that this year is the year that I stop giving Activision and Bobby Kotick any of my money as far as the Call of Duty series is involved, although that's true of many of their other franchises for me too. (More on that in the next paragraph). I told myself I'd be doing this around the release of Black Ops, but I didn't stay true to my promise after succumbing to all the hype that was built up around the game itself. But after experiencing the abortion of a game that Black Ops was and discovering that latest installment in the franchise of Call of Duty would include an optional premium component for features other studios have delivered so long for free for years, it was the final nail in the coffin for me.

Does Guitar Hero ring a bell? A franchise truly and utterly run straight into the ground; an entire genre of video games completely oversaturated and stagnated by their constant need to drain every possible penny out of a franchise that had potential, viewed now with contempt by many gamers because they were sick of seeing a new release every few weeks and having to buy more plastic peripherals that seemed to offer little in the way of innovation over whatever iteration that came before it. The same thing is happening with first person shooters and specifically tied to this genre, Call of Duty. But the worrying thing about this is, oversaturation of the series seems to do little to deter people from purchasing the next installment in the series. Pre-orders for Modern Warfare have never been higher and it's shocking to see just how many people (in this thread and elsewhere) are willing to actually sign up for the premium service that they're now offering up, set to go live properly after the beta in July. I just took a look at a link someone here posted earlier in relation to the details of the new service and the first comment I saw after the article really did sum it up for me:

Elite is a good example of corporate greed!

Corporate greed indeed. As if Activision charging 1200 MS points for map packs for Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops (with a big portion of these maps in MW2 just copied from the previous game) wasn't bad enough, Modern Warfare 3 was announced, although this didn't surprise anyone as it's in keeping with their yearly release schedule for a Call of Duty game. I was skeptical about Modern Warfare 3 from the outset, but I didn't want to jump the gun too quickly and pre-judge a game that hadn't even a gameplay video to show for itself as of yet, so I waited until the game was officially revealed at this year's E3 to throw my two cents in, which is what I want to do with you guys here. Some of you might think I'm exaggerating, but the game, as far as I could gather from the gameplay videos released (Submarine infiltration and the battle towards Wall St. in New York), is literally exactly the same as the previous Modern Warfare. Everything from character models, the weapon's reload animation, variations of the weapons themselves (M4 shown being used, AK-47, AK-74u and P90 shown as pickups), character death animations, and sound effects are pretty much copy-pasted from Modern Warfare 2. They really expect people to pay full-price for a game that's essentially an expansion pack with a new 8 hour campaign tacked on to tie up a story that was barely believable from the outset. I'm sorry but slight variation's of a weapon's aiming system (A magnified scope with a holographic/red dot sight in front of it ZOMG) or a new weapon skin isn't enough justify the pricetag for this game, let alone this 'Elite' service they're so good to offer alongside it.

But the story or the copy-pasted gameplay isn't the only part of this whole thing that irks me, although they're major contributors. It's the fact that gamers today are willing to roll over and accept overpriced maps and copy-pasted gameplay and features as the norm because it's what they're used to. This doesn't have to be and shouldn't have to be accepted by any of us, but if something doesn't change soon, nothing's going to stop Activision from charging 1600 points for less content down the line in 2 or 3 years' time. Xbox gamers like myself already have it bad that we're paying a subscription fee for the online service that's 95% of the time peer to peer based gaming, although the fee goes towards other stuff like exclusive DLC, multiplayer updates/patches and the service as a whole that offers very little downtime. But we really don't need meaningless features like Facebook integration, heatmaps, map packs, 'webisodes' and tournament info offered to us for a monthly fee; all of this alongside a mediocre shooter that we're already paying to play online with our friends on the Xbox 360. At the least, all of this stuff should be free.

I urge a lot of you to take a step back, really look at what you're buying into and make an informed decision about what you're getting yourself in; not just paying for the Elite service, but buying Modern Warfare 3 in general. There are a lot better games out there already released and soon to be released if you look hard enough, games that don't make you pay out the ass just to be a part of. Taking all of this stuff lying down is just going to perpetuate this endless cycle of mediocrity. The first Guitar Hero game was released by Harmonix in 2005 and when Activision acquired the franchise, it took them less than 5 years to oversaturate our consoles with poor excuses for rhythm game titles. First person shooters have been around a lot longer and are a lot more widely played among the general population, especially teenagers whose gaming horizons don't really stretch outside the likes of Call of Duty or Fifa games. It's going to take a bit longer for the FPS genre to stagnate but it's already starting to happen. I think titles like Arma III and Battlefield 3 are offering something even slightly refreshing to the genre and it remains to be seen if they'll truly stand the test of time, but at this point I can already see that Modern Warfare 3 is going to be as bland as they come as far as shooters go. Why do we have to accept this though? Is it really so wrong to ask for more from studios and developers? To get the most value out of the money we give them that make it possible to create their games in the first place?

I don't think it's wrong at all. Do you?

hightower1 wrote: »

While I agree its the definition of milking it for all its worth there are a couple things to note....

- Elite wont be needed to play the game (only if your a youtube fanboy who thinks they have "skillzzz" and hide the petty need for "subs" behind a think veil of an excuse like "oh .... I just like video editing")

- Activision are a business and making money is their primary goal, perhaps the devs have other motives but activision get the final say.

- It was as predictable as rain in Ireland seeing this coming, its Activisions MO to find an idea then mass produce / run it into the ground then walk away counting money.

Now with that said MW2 was excellent value for money based on what was paid vs time spent playing. I paid 60 for the game and 30 for the maps and have played it for 2 years nearly. Good value IMO. In the end we cant hope to change Koticks mind or how he does business BUT we can play him at his own game. Buy only what you feel is worth it and will use. Play the balls off it and they still only get a flat rate fee if you dont buy into the subscribe malarky.

Success like this is its own downfall, we can run it into the ground too, play as much as you want from that one fee, the public will get board eventually then another IP will step up to overtake the title of biggest game in the world. You cant get ripped off if you only buy what you believe is worth it.

(Side note, buy BF3 also on the off chance it rapes COD quality wise too ) While it only costs us 120 to cover all the bases it costs Activision billions. I do salute your moral standing though, kudos.

OH GET OVER YOURSELF ! Jesus.... What the hell has elite got to do with youtube ? Is everyone going to buy elite and make youtube videos out of their stats ?