Activision Wants Consoles to be Replaced by PCs

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
While I agree with most of you that he is moaning that they are missing out on this "revenue stream" I think his suggestion may already be in the works.
A PC/console system that can be plugged into the TV is far from a new idea, but has flopped for various reasons. But take a look at some newer architectures. AMD fusion CPUS meld a CPU and a 5xxx series GPU into one die. Implementation of a "console like PC" would be fairly easy. Too keep it fresh, in a couple years, upgrade to a faster CPU/GPU chip. I think AMD should push a form factor to take advantage of this. Call it something like the "REACTOR" or something.
 
um... im not sure why it hasnt been mentioned but COD: MW is on the PC, though it has poor reviews from players because of all the hacking and glitching others do..
I went with BBC2, much better game
 
I am all for free online gaming. If its fun.
BF:BC2 took over for COD4 on my computer....
But imagine if we all paid $10/month to play BF:BC2 and this kept DICE constantly working on updates (daily fixes even), and/or policing servers and kicking/banning hackers from the game entirely.
Think of how many people work at Blizzard just to keep WoW running smoothly.
How cool would it be if we had that same kind of post sale support for a great FPS?
There ARE some companies that can manage this for free -like Valve. To an extent.
But am I the only one that sees how much better the multi player experience in FPS's could be with some more support?
Ram1009 makes a valid point (somewhat hidden behind unnecessary insults).
These companies aren't here to make you feel warm and fuzzy inside.
They exist to make a profit.
If they make great games and support them properly, I for one am more than willing to pay them for their efforts.
Then they take my money, pocket a portion, and invest the rest into making better games.
Sounds like a win/win for everyone.
People should take less of a "I want everything for nothing" approach and understand how this could benefit PC games.
If you dont have the money to pay for a game subscription then you just cant play the game.
This is a pretty basic concept that applies to every other aspect of our lives.
Why should games be any different.
If you want a "service" pay for it.

Here's a simple analogy:
If you buy a Corvette should GM pay for your gas? Oil changes?
Sounds pretty silly doesnt it.

(wow you'd think I worked for Activision, lol)
 
Wow this is just stupid.....If we charge we will give extra content....
Valve must be a bunch of morons, since Team Fortress 2 was released they have updated and changed the game play a lot and added new weapons, maps, and other cool features and did not charge for it.
 
PCs already can play directly to a TV
PCs can already use console style controllers
PCs never were replaced by consoles as the platform of choice for "real" gamers

Say it how it really is, Activision wants to make PC games, charge a subscription fee and see a healthy balance sheet.

OK, I dont have a problem with that, maybe Activision has had some issues in the past that people are a little sore about but if you make a good game that people are happy to pay a monthly fee for, (just like WoW has) then best of luck to you. Bear in mind however that WoW in an MMORPG and people spend months building up and really living the characters they use.

But if you think you can hang a subscription service on a first person shooter, the genre that relys on short term instant fix, you are seriously smoking some bad weed. Put it down.

Good game, open ended, worth paying for = cash

By the way if they want a share of the Xbox Live fee they should have invested the billions instead of MS, they didn't so get bent.
 
[citation][nom]jonpaul37[/nom]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...[/citation]

No it isn't what he is talking about... he's talking about you paying them the $15 instead of MS.
 
what's the problem with activision getting some more of the money that microsoft makes for a game they didnt make? If activision got more of that money, maybe they would have more cash to dole out on BETTER GAMES
 
I don't understand why people feel XBOX Live and Sony should be free. Do any of you that state that have ANY IDEA of the infrastructure costs and programing that goes into keeping XBOX Live up and running? XBOX live includes video streaming and many other features beyond multiplayer gamming. I have personal first hand knowledge of what's behind the curtain and I can tell you it is far more sofisticated than you might imagine.
 
Here is my translation of what he said:

"We want Console gamers to trade the walled gardens of Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo for the walled gardens of Activision, Blizzard, and so forth.

After all, console makers already get a single time payment for each game we sell which makes up for the loss they typically take on a console which is totally fair - but for us to not get continuous residual income from their online services despite us having none of the bandwidth or server infrastructure costs is just plain unreasonable.

Finally, that whole things about PC piracy killing the PC gaming business was just a load of BS - we were just kidding. It really this online service 'piracy' that is killing our business."

--------------------------------

As to hooking up your PC (or other computer) to your LCD TV... um, I've been doing that for over 2 years now. I know people who have been doing it longer. Then again, I am one of those people who likes to use "failed" technology like tablet PCs (which people still go "wow - you can use your computer like a pen-and-paper notebook? I didn't know they could do that... that's neat") and my tiny EEE PC netbook (which is perfect for watching streaming movies and writing a quick email). Oh yeah, and I still like games that are complete and come on a disk that I install on my computer and function without my internet connection.
 
I don't understand why people feel XBOX Live and Sony should be free. Do any of you that state that have ANY IDEA of the infrastructure costs and programing that goes into keeping XBOX Live up and running? XBOX live includes video streaming and many other features beyond multiplayer gamming. I have personal first hand knowledge of what's behind the curtain and I can tell you it is far more sofisticated than you might imagine. There is real value in the fees behind those console services...while not everyone may use every feature of those services they are much more feature rich than Battle.net and simply logging into a private game server.
 
[citation][nom]dudikusmaximus[/nom]what's the problem with activision getting some more of the money that microsoft makes for a game they didnt make? If activision got more of that money, maybe they would have more cash to dole out on BETTER GAMES[/citation]

Kotick will almost single-handedly destroy gaming because of people just like you. Sheep.
 
I don't see casual gamers replacing their cheap consoles with more expensive PC's any time soon. Sony and MS lose money on the hardware and make it up on game sales... How would that work for Dell, HP, and/or Activision? I agree that it would be awesome for developers to concentrate more on PC games though, or at least stop giving us crappy ports from console versions.
 
It doesnt quite matter what this clown wants. Activision is on its way out. Again!

Remember. No fun in making video games. Well it shows!
 
My personal favorite Kotick quotes:

"We have a real culture of thrift. The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games."

"If you think about the success that we've had in other product categories on subscription, you can get a sense of the direction that we want to take that franchise" (Concerning Call of Duty franchise)


"And Tony, you know if it was left to me, I would raise the prices even further."
 
This guy is all about making money. I know corporations exist to make money. But when your focus becomes making money instead of doing what you love (making fantastic games), it's called selling out. Great achievements never come from a focus of making the most profit.

Blizzard is making a fortune with WoW. Wow is a great money making model:
- Can't be pirated
- The subscription fee means players keep paying. COD4 was fantastic, but we paid only once.
- It's addicting (not to me, I don't play, but to many).

He wants to bring the WoW model to Call of Duty. He realizes he can't do this on consoles (piracy is huge. I could argue that pirates have determined the winning console since games could be pirated).

COD4 was fantastic. I spent hundreds of hours playing it. I got way more than my $50 worth. I would personally pay a subscription fee for:
- Dedicated servers
- Moderators who kick cheaters, and hate/racism talkers. You could even have R and G rated servers where cursing is allowed/not allowed. I'm an adult, but I don't need to read/hear someone child cursing everytime he get's fragged.
- Regular map updates and balance corrections. If 50% of the players bunny hop with an MP5, maybe there's a balance issue.
- Map glitches are found and fixed in hours, not weeks.
- Battles could become much larger scale with lots of people all over the world participating ala WoW.

A lot of good can come out of this, but Activision must be focused on making a brilliant game that is worth paying a monthly fee for first.
 
I remember the good old days when Activision made awesome games for the Atari 2600 ...what the hell happened?!?

Wall Street allows you to get too big for your britches, and then you become a slave to your shareholders. Money is a drug. be careful.
 
Seriously Activision, you screw all of your loyal PC customers that have been buying your products for many, many years, and now you are saying that the PC is the way to go? I hate you Activision, until you go back to making a proper FPS with dedicated servers, mods, etc, you can just curl up and die for all I care.
 
The best thing to do is to have ALL consoles and ALL PC's that have online portions for games connected to the same servers for online play, so that the MARKET can choose.
 
It would only be able to work like that if the OS/drivers were able to be updated with the click of a mouse, This would otherwise be a big problem for all the kids that are used to the plug and play setup... maybe some kind of software that runs when windows starts... sort of like the xbox dashboard preventing the basic users from accessing the OS functions like control panel and task manager. Going to Nvidia/ATI.com and finding the correct drivers is too great a task for the Console users, what they need are POWER, RESET, EJECT, PLAY, AND UPDATE buttons. Making this kind of "PC" = WIN
 
[citation][nom]superblahman123[/nom]Solution: PC with HDMI out and a controller... this has been available for quite some time[/citation]
what hasnt been available is a hp computer thats under 800 that can actually play the games, unless you count intel gma.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom