Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Activision Wants Consoles to be Replaced by PCs

Tags:
Last response: in News comments
Share
July 7, 2010 2:12:31 PM

Oh the irony.
July 7, 2010 2:15:24 PM

what, they want it on pc so THEY can charge us for it? screw you activision. stay on ur console
Related resources
July 7, 2010 2:18:39 PM

Although I'm a PC fan, hate consoles, he is basically saying, we want more money...

Well, as long as it benefits us, the consumers, I'm ok with it.
July 7, 2010 2:22:16 PM

StarCraft II is going to be pay per play soon
July 7, 2010 2:22:24 PM

WOW, suddenly I am liking Activision.
July 7, 2010 2:22:35 PM

Every time that man speaks I kind of throw up in my mouth a little bit.

So he wants a PC that plays like a console so Activision can charge its own subscription fee for games that have been deteriorating in quality for some time now...

Maybe if you just made good games, you could sell a lot of them rather than trying to squeeze money out of every point in the system. I mean, I bought BFBC2 JUST because it had dedicated servers and it was Modern Warfare-ish. Thats a lot of extra sales Activision could have made.
July 7, 2010 2:23:11 PM

if they would get away from console that would be great for us pc gamers!!!! the programers woud be able to concentrate and put all their time into pc,,,making a better overall game!
July 7, 2010 2:25:16 PM

To add to my comment, this would spur the development and focus back to the PC for games, get away from port jobs. Still not buying SC2 because of their 3 part game with no LAN support.
July 7, 2010 2:34:25 PM

regulasWOW, suddenly I am liking Activision.


Why so they can charge you 60 for a game, 15 for a map pack, and now they want to charge a subscription fee on top of it. Hey activision make a game that is fun. Like MW2 was for the first 5 minutes before everyone started cheating.
July 7, 2010 2:35:47 PM

Linux platform please.
July 7, 2010 2:38:15 PM

Quote:
Activision would "very aggressively" support the likes of HP and Dell in any effort of making an easy 'plug-and-play' PC that would hook up directly to the TV


Solution: PC with HDMI out and a controller... this has been available for quite some time
July 7, 2010 2:38:41 PM

This guy is amazing . So what he is basically saying is he wants, Dell or HP to make a computer that hooks up to a tv. (basically a console). So they can sell a game that would be on par spec wise with a console. Just so they can charge for the game, all add ons, and make you subscribe for a fee, just to play a game. Hey activision make your own damn console. No wonder Infinity Ward told you to go.
July 7, 2010 2:39:09 PM

superblahman123Solution: PC with HDMI out and a controller... this has been available for quite some time


They should also look into PC designs like iBuyPower's LAN Warrior PC
July 7, 2010 2:40:24 PM

"We don't really participate financially in that income stream. We would really like to be able to provide much more value to those millions of players playing on Live, but it's not our network."

Translate: we are greedy rich bastards and want your money no matter how. We, like Apple, care not of you, only your money.
July 7, 2010 2:44:00 PM

Quote:
We've heard that 60 per cent of [Microsoft's] subscribers are principally on Live because of Call of Duty

Equates to -> "We saw the announcement by EA with the intention of charging a fee for their used games to be played online, then we got to looking at our cash-cow and started thinking of how to come up with a way to cash in ourselves."
July 7, 2010 2:45:22 PM

I don't know how to take this from Activision. I like to know what their true Agenda is. And really. Can there be a "Wanna-be PC Console"that will not need a single upgrade for 5 years...I don't think so. I think Activision better wake up from lala land. Anyone remember 3D0. That was suppose to be a common platform to replace the Sega's and Nintendo's of that era. Never happened and don't seeing it happening in the near future.
July 7, 2010 2:48:26 PM

I like that game developers are unhappy with XBox live. I don't really like the fact that Activision just wants a cut of those profits for itself. I think its pretty shady that you have to pay anyone (other than your ISP) to play a game online when the content doesn't change. Sure MMORPGs are pay-per-play, but they usually have to update constantly. The only time console games update is when they release new DLC (which you have to pay for). I don't see how they justify making you pay to play online. If they allowed private servers, they wouldn't even be bearing the cost of hosting.
July 7, 2010 2:49:36 PM

I hope Blizzard breaks off from Activision for some reason.
July 7, 2010 2:52:11 PM

First, CoD is dead. Kotick did that when he killed IW. Second, 60% of people are not on Live for CoD. The number of hugely popular games on Live before CoD even took off with MW1 pretty much paints this as revisionist history. Third, maybe he should consider the fact that the success of the platform apart from CoD is one of the reasons CoD does so well. Yes, he wants a cut of Live fees. Yet without the ecosystem that was already in place to support an online environment for the massive living room audiance he doesn't make his 1B off the CoD franchise.

Without reading between the lines: For many months now Activision is preparing gamers for a pay-to-play model for CoD. Good thing they killed IW because it is all down hill from here and I have no interest. I am going to enjoy this blowing up in his face :) 
July 7, 2010 3:00:43 PM

doomedUSA****Edited by moderator for language*******.


Are you crazy sir?
July 7, 2010 3:05:48 PM

Quote:
He added that Activision would "very aggressively" support the likes of HP and Dell in any effort of making an easy 'plug-and-play' PC that would hook up directly to the TV.


so any pc with vga/dvi/hdmi as long as your not still using a CRT TV (ok still need speakers if its not hdmi, big wow)
July 7, 2010 3:06:52 PM

First i saw the title ad said ohh...activision back on the pc wagon...and then...ohh not really, just wanna make mony of a pc like tv console (htpc kind) whith i think still mean ported games...
Usuck and u aint getting my green
July 7, 2010 3:08:17 PM

eklipz330what, they want it on pc so THEY can charge us for it? screw you activision. stay on ur damn console


You are not getting the point. I play MW2 on the PC and do not pay a monthly fee for a "live" service like on the 360,i just paid for the game and play multiplayer. Imagine a 360 where you didn't have to pay the $15.00 a month just to play multiplayer MW2, this is what he is talking about...
July 7, 2010 3:08:29 PM

First PC's are dead and now he says they are the way?

Make up your mind.
July 7, 2010 3:10:57 PM

There are two types of gamers, Console gamers who are uneducated and PC gamers who get better visual quality...
July 7, 2010 3:12:31 PM

Quote:
He added that Activision would "very aggressively" support the likes of HP and Dell in any effort of making an easy 'plug-and-play' PC that would hook up directly to the TV.


I don't think this guy understands what a PC is.
July 7, 2010 3:13:37 PM

tokenzWhy so they can charge you 60 for a game, 15 for a map pack, and now they want to charge a subscription fee on top of it. Hey activision make a game that is fun. Like MW2 was for the first 5 minutes before everyone started cheating.

Agree
July 7, 2010 3:16:29 PM

I got a computer that can do that now.....
July 7, 2010 3:19:30 PM

jonpaul37You are not getting the point. I play MW2 on the PC and do not pay a monthly fee for a "live" service like on the 360,i just paid for the game and play multiplayer. Imagine a 360 where you didn't have to pay the $15.00 a month just to play multiplayer MW2, this is what he is talking about...

"Kotick's solution to this is simply to turn to the PC, where it can set its own model for pricing – not unlike what Blizzard has done with World of Warcraft and Battle.net."

If you read the article, you would have seen that they want to charge monthly so they can 'provide the best service' on pc's.
July 7, 2010 3:19:44 PM

@Pei-chen : StarCraft II is already set as pay per play for battle.net in some regions of the world.
July 7, 2010 3:22:00 PM

So first they wanted to abandon the PC and go to the console where the money was and they had more control.
They see others (Microsoft & Sony) making some money providing a service that should have been free in the first place.
Now they lose control they cannot do anything about it and want to go back to the PC to charge users more money.
Good Luck with that... Ha Ha. Payback is a bitch!
July 7, 2010 3:22:47 PM

#1 - Most PC users who game are not retards. We're quite capable of connecting a controller to our PC and hooking up our video cards to our giant Plasma/LCD/LED tv's.

#2 - The irony of Activision trying to return to the PC platform is delicious, after screwing us over with non-dedicated servers.

#3 - I wouldn't pay them jack to subscribe to a gaming server to play COD. If you charge us for the subscription, you better deeply discount the game. And if you charge us $60 for the game, there better not be a subscription charge. Pick one.
July 7, 2010 3:24:29 PM

This fat tub of goo makes me sick.
July 7, 2010 3:26:16 PM

PC doesn't entirely mean Windows OS, So don't use the word PC games for Windows Games!!!
July 7, 2010 3:30:21 PM

TeamSpeak, Ventrilo, and any other chat software provides all the online experience needed to hangout and chat with friends over the PC while playing online. What makes him think if he went PC only that he would have that revenue stream anyway? Unless of course it was forced upon us through forced subscription services just to play the game(s).
July 7, 2010 3:33:42 PM

I am constantly amazed at how naive most of you are here on this forum. I speculate that the average age must be under 20. Someday many of you will also be in the business world and come to realize that profit is what makes the world go around. It's the responsibility of everybody in business to maximize profit. Demonizing business executives for doing their jobs is, well, naive. The more money companies make the better their product can be. Granted, it doesn't always work out that way but the product that best satisfies it's consumer's needs at the best price will usually win. Game consoles are nothing more than proprietary computers, as is Apple. This si a major reason why we all hate them so much. What this man is supporting benefits all of us. Why curse him for believing he can make a profit by doing so? Many of you would benefit from thinking before responding to an article like this and making yourself appear so ........naive.
July 7, 2010 3:35:52 PM

Atm computer industry is mostly driven by the competition between the PC components manufacturers in Gaming area, and activision wants to take that away because they don`t make more monney ? Imagine the PC today if all it should have been required to do was Office.
July 7, 2010 3:37:12 PM

guid_aaa000001PC doesn't entirely mean Windows OS, So don't use the word PC games for Windows Games!!!

well A gaming company talks about a PC be sure they talk about the Windows platform.
July 7, 2010 3:41:25 PM

If I have to pay a subscription for every online game that comes out. Thats the day I quit PC gaming. I ain't paying jack sh!t for no dedicated servers and un moddable games. And besides that pay $60 for a game and then $15 bucks a pop for a few maps. Which some have been ported over from previous games. Give you heads a shake and stop trying to milk a bull for money. Activision your plans are FIT FOR THE LAVA PIT!!! Ya Jackasses.
July 7, 2010 3:45:47 PM

basically i took this not so much as a pay to play , and more of a buisness model to not have to pay the $10 licensing fee for the console per game they sell, and a way to ensure used games don't exist so you don't have the option of reselling your game where they don't make money.

now as a predominantly pc gamer neither of these really effect me anyway, but i can still see they are just looking for ways to maximize profit.. but if it leads to more pc gamers and development centereed on pc not consoles then I'm all for it
Anonymous
July 7, 2010 4:02:10 PM

"We've heard that 60 per cent of [Microsoft's] subscribers are principally on Live because of Call of Duty," Kotick told FT. "We don't really participate financially in that income stream. We would really like to be able to provide much more value to those millions of players playing on Live, but it's not our network."

In other words: "MOOOOOOOOORE MOOONNEEEEY!!!"

In the history of gaming, I have never witnessed a more self-serving, greedy corporate than this man. I wish Blizzard would cut themselves off from this guy, or Activision in general, or maybe kill it.
July 7, 2010 4:03:19 PM

jojesaSo first they wanted to abandon the PC and go to the console where the money was and they had more control.They see others (Microsoft & Sony) making some money providing a service that should have been free in the first place. Now they lose control they cannot do anything about it and want to go back to the PC to charge users more money.Good Luck with that... Ha Ha. Payback is a bitch!



Unfortunately, he's trying to make it so we're the ones paying.
July 7, 2010 4:06:30 PM

Quote:
"We've heard that 60 per cent of [Microsoft's] subscribers are principally on Live because of Call of Duty," Kotick told FT. "We don't really participate financially in that income stream. We would really like to be able to provide much more value to those millions of players playing on Live, but it's not our network."


Maybe I'm reading this differently than most of you, but it seems to me that he's more interested in providing better content than XBOX Live will allow. These gaming companies have to pay their dues to XBOX Live to make the content available, and even then they are limited to certain file size constraints. This equals less content for more money, which makes Activision look bad and doesn't necessarily reflect on the Live service at all. I can see exactly where Activision is coming from on this one.

It's a limited system, and couch gamers (not like you or me, we already know how to get the best bang for our buck - PC) would benefit from this.
July 7, 2010 4:08:57 PM

I already get the best service on a P.C., they're called dedicated servers -- we run them ourselves. CoD had them once and then, hmm...

(and really, 60% of live users buy live subscriptions just to play CoD? I question whether 60% of live users even have CoD. I haven't bought a CoD game for my Xbox since CoD 3 -- I prefer PC games but have no issues with consoles -- use my Xbox to get together with my brother and other friends that don't have gaming PCs. Works great but I'd hate to pay a subscription fee for multiplayer for each game I have which is what this statement is code for.)

July 7, 2010 4:12:20 PM

never pay or will ever pay for game subscriptions.

I bought some pirate game for mistake, I was not aware of the game having some kind of subscription fee, simply thru the game away, didn't even bother with the "free trial".
July 7, 2010 4:12:57 PM

ohimAtm computer industry is mostly driven by the competition between the PC components manufacturers in Gaming area, and activision wants to take that away because they don`t make more monney ? Imagine the PC today if all it should have been required to do was Office.


This is not the case at all.

Activision wants to maximize it's profit while minimizing it's cost as much as possible. There's nothing wrong with this per se, but it doesn't lead to better quality games which is what most of us on this forum recognize. In fact, it's reducing the quality of their games substantially -- less content, higher prices, less value for the consumer.
July 7, 2010 4:15:00 PM

ram1009I am constantly amazed at how naive most of you are here on this forum. I speculate that the average age must be under 20. Someday many of you will also be in the business world and come to realize that profit is what makes the world go around. It's the responsibility of everybody in business to maximize profit. Demonizing business executives for doing their jobs is, well, naive. The more money companies make the better their product can be. Granted, it doesn't always work out that way but the product that best satisfies it's consumer's needs at the best price will usually win. Game consoles are nothing more than proprietary computers, as is Apple. This si a major reason why we all hate them so much. What this man is supporting benefits all of us. Why curse him for believing he can make a profit by doing so? Many of you would benefit from thinking before responding to an article like this and making yourself appear so ........naive.



As a CEO he should realize that when he speaks publicly, he should put the customer first, ahead of profits & the company's interest. If he is not able to install that perception, he and his company will never be successful. The customer does not care about his company and their profits. Tell them how exactly this will benefit their playing experience and budget. It amazes me how naive you are about this.
July 7, 2010 4:18:47 PM

My post above got screwed up, didn't mean to quote ohim.
July 7, 2010 4:20:40 PM

Based on this you could go the whole hog and say lets create one standard and everyone does not have a choice. I like to have variety and I also think it helps with development of better games, hardware and services. With the competition companies like Activision can not control the market with there games.
!