Pachter “disappointed” in lack of Call of Duty online sub service

Wednesday, 8th December 2010 10:27 GMT By Johnny Cullen


Michael Pachter’s told IG he’s disappointed” in Activision’s decision to not implement a subscription service for Call of Duty’s multiplayer.

“We were disappointed to hear Activision’s new head of publishing flatly deny the company’s plans to charge for multiplayer,” the Wedbush Morgan analyst said.

“We firmly believe that until the publishers address monetization of multiplayer, game sales will continue to be challenged by the publishers’ altruistic decision to provide significantly more entertainment value per hour than ever in history.”

Pachter added: “In our view, monetization of multiplayer is one of the greatest opportunities for the publishers, and we think that it would be a serious strategic error to pass on this opportunity.”

Rumours of a Call of Duty online subcription service have been reported since kingdom bloody come. But Activision publishing CEO Eric Hirshberg has said it won’t charge for COD’s online. “Ever”.

Pachter is cry.



  1. StolenGlory

    “Pachter is a massive cunt.”

    There you go. All corrected for you.

    #1 4 years ago
  2. KrazyKraut

    i wish I could say something…

    #2 4 years ago
  3. Blerk

    Wait, what? He’s disappointed that they’re not making us pay for something that was previously free? Does he have shares in Acti or something?

    #3 4 years ago
  4. Unlimax

    Who care … FPS still FPS nobody care from now on !

    #4 4 years ago
  5. naffgeek

    I’m disapointed that anyone gives this dog’s dick licker any attention.

    I know this is a business but keep that shit to financial meetings.

    For once Acti do something decent and he pipes up.

    #5 4 years ago
  6. 2plus2equals5

    Pachter, nothing more to say.

    #6 4 years ago
  7. M2Kx

    Please stop posting the statements and comments and predictions or whatever which come from this guy. PLEASE!!!!!

    Seriously, please.

    #7 4 years ago
  8. freedoms_stain

    I think there are some barriers atm.

    They’d have to build a model that would enable them to push new content to subs fairly regularly, and you gotta know MS would be all over that with a big ole plate for their undeserved slice of the pie.

    They can’t just slap a fee on the next iteration of cod, too much risk that without a significant hook, they won’t get enough subs to make their cash back.

    #8 4 years ago
  9. McLovin85

    Does he think we are made of money or something?….

    #9 4 years ago
  10. KBST

    He’s absolutely right, this statement is incomplete though. He (as a person) is not disappointed, but he speaks for shareholders. The man is simply doing his job. I wonder if people actually read the source (and know what Pachter is doing for a living). Not charging for multiplayer IS a missed opportunity. Shareholders want to make money..they could have made more. That’s basically it.

    #10 4 years ago
  11. Moonwalker1982

    I was almost ready to blast that dude. It’s a good thing for us gamers, the minute it does happen i’ll simply stop buying those games. I don’t play games online enough to pay for it every month.

    #11 4 years ago
  12. M2Kx

    “they could have made more”

    Pachter JR. Don’t be ridiculous. Who the hell would pay 60€ for Xbox Live + (let’s say 10€/month) for Call of Duty Online?

    This guy is talking rubbish (like always).

    #12 4 years ago
  13. drewbles82

    yeah glad acti wont do it. you pay for an xbox, then you pay 4 a game. if you wanted to play online when its sub, you gotta pay 4 the internet monthly, then for a gold membership and then a sub, all to play one game. No thanks, id pick a different game over that anyday. good thing they arent doing it.

    #13 4 years ago
  14. Yoshi

    Then if they did charge for online he would be crying and moaning *facepalm*

    #14 4 years ago
  15. drewbles82

    Also if they had done a sub, for someone like me who doesnt go on call of duty everyday or sometimes not even once a week, I wouldnt be willing to pay for a sub when im more a casual gamer so if subs had come into, for someone like me would miss out on any online modes

    #15 4 years ago
  16. NiceFellow

    Well, for all the hate Kotick and Activision get, you’ve gotta admit they sensed the undercurrent from their actual customers – us – and wisely realized that they will be raking it in with CoD and left things well alone.

    Guess that’s why Kotick and Activision are making games and Patcher’s just a commentator on the sidelines.

    I think they’d have hurt sales and I think Patcher is seriously missing that a huge chunk of CoD players (Xbox Gold subscribers) are, from their point of view, already paying for the online. Adding another charge would likely hurt that franchise more than help it. And hopefully Activition are looking at Guitar Hero etc are realising nothing is untouchable, particularly if those behind it fuck it up vs anything the competition might do.

    #16 4 years ago
  17. Anders

    He does have a point though. The fact that millions of players are playing hundreds of hours of Call of Duty for free instead of purchasing new games is harmful for the industry.

    #17 4 years ago
  18. pukem0n

    god….hes an industry analist and just tells activision how to make more money, thats his job

    #18 4 years ago
  19. theevilaires

    Kill him now please. He’s Jack Thompson in a different body :(

    #19 4 years ago
  20. OrbitMonkey

    Wasn’t there a report that subs are down, but dlc is up? Consumers don’t want another monthly bill, but will happily make a payment every 6-12 months. I think that’s gonna be the future online model.
    @17 you might as well say all the hours spent on pokemon, monster hunter is harming the industry. Obviously its not.

    #20 4 years ago
  21. chronoss2

    CoD is for n00bs, and if there is any subs for the upcoming CoD, these same n00bs will pay. Ridiculous

    @1 : I cannot agree more with you.

    #21 4 years ago
  22. rapante

    why do you guys at vg247 even give this moron a way voice to voice his bs opinions each and every time he opens his mouth to drop some utter crap about the games industry…

    #22 4 years ago
  23. The_Red

    So, the gamers have to pay 60 bucks for the game, then more for Xbox Live monthly fee and then some more for monthly subscription?
    How about we just sell our homes and everything we have, hand them to publishers and shareholders and call it a day?

    #23 4 years ago
  24. Patrick Garratt

    I might commission a feature on why Michael Pachter actually matters. Because he does.

    #24 4 years ago
  25. freedoms_stain

    @23 (and indeed all the nay-sayers), what if you were getting something above and beyond what you get now?

    -New Maps on a regular basis

    -New weapon sets/attachments

    -New perks

    -New modes

    -Special events (think L4D2 Mutations)

    #25 4 years ago
  26. polygem

    yeah a subscription model. awesome. the game itself will be for free then right? otherwise they just proof that they have sold their souls to captain cash. aka luzifer.
    @10: sure. but they already make shitloads of money. they own THE franchise in the history of gaming. the ultracashcow. you should give the cow a rest. otherwise it´s abusive. that´s what fucked up the market. that´s what caused the financial crisis. it´s wrong. profit is good. but greed is not. maybe they should sort something out with ms so that THEY have to pay THEM a subscription fee for cod. i already pay ms you know…they are making games for US. WE are buying them. WE made these companies big decades ago. now they rip us off. that´s really something special. thanks. got to love em.if you are a masochist.

    #26 4 years ago
  27. DSB

    Pachter should get a real job. I would suggest meteorology, you only have to be right like 20% of the time, blind guessing all the way.

    @17 I wouldn’t use the term harmful (people are still buying shooters, they’re just mostly buying Call of Dutys) but it goes without saying that it has potential – Just not with that kind of game.

    You can’t be the first publisher to launch a subscription model for a regular shooter, as it would allow all your competitors to stress the fact that their games are “free” where you have a paywall, and no one likes to play with that sort of disadvantage.

    It would be profitable, but they’d probably lose 50% or more of their userbase in doing so. The same model applied to online newspapers recently lead to a 70% loss in userbase – But the 30% who subscribed still meant greater profits for the publishing house.

    Still, I think it would be better to make a dedicated MMO-style game in terms of having lots more features, lots more connectivity and a studio steadily updating it. That’s what people expect in return for a subscription these days.

    The “free” CoDs keep the userbase up, so they can all sign up for the MMO when that time comes.

    #27 4 years ago
  28. Quiiick

    Michael Pachter actually doesn’t matter. He knows close to nothing about running a company but keeps on suggesting what platform-holders, publishers or even developers should do next or should refrain from doing.

    The only thing he may know well is luring investors into buying stocks from the game industry. That’s his job and nothing else.

    Worst of all, he should never have entered to be a media-guy. His appearances on GameTrailers (Bonus Round, Pack Attack) are laughable.

    Personally I think he’s a nice guy (he’s my age); albeit without any taste.

    #28 4 years ago
  29. AHA-Lambda

    this should evaporate any doubt in anyone’s mind that pachter actually gives a shit what consumers think.

    Plus there’s rumours going round now that acti gets cuts from xbl now each month and this is why they dropped the idea to charge for CoD AND why xbl price hikes happened in the first place.

    #29 4 years ago
  30. DSB

    @29 Facepalm.

    #30 4 years ago
  31. polygem

    @27: you have a point there. and i think the next bungie game published by acti will go that MMO Shooter hybrid path. in this case i might even be interested – if i know right from the start what to expect and if it´s an MMO like experience with all the updates and stuff. it would indeed be clever to use shooter mechanics in an MMO game and i believe it will hit really really hard. it´s what consumers want. but you have to work this out properly. it wont be too smart to dress up COD in that dress and say: yea it´s the same game you played for ages but hey you get like 4 new maps each year and some new killstreaks and weapons just by paying 5 bucks a month…i wouldn´t by myself into that even though i really like COD as a competitive console shooter.

    #31 4 years ago
  32. DSB

    @31 Yup.

    Basically to make a succesful MMO you need content that’s good enough to keep people wanting more, and then you need to make enough of that content to ensure that they won’t run out. If you get both right, chances are that people will stay.

    Sadly a lot of developers don’t get either one right.

    #32 4 years ago
  33. albo88

    Michael Pachter is a nob reach queer that thing that we all get money by going on the internet and talking shit like he does and who gives a rate fuck abut black ops a lot of peoples are going back to bad company 2 since the new maps are amiable for free at last pc users

    #33 4 years ago
  34. ultramega

    Why do you guys report on this asshat? Why give him any attention?

    #34 4 years ago
  35. Gekidami

    This shouldnt surprise anyone, Pachter dosnt care about games or the people that play them, he cares about the ‘economics of the gaming industry’. The fact that he dosnt make any difference the little games released on phones and the more fuller games released on portable consoles makes this pretty apparent.

    #35 4 years ago
  36. IL DUCE

    @ 24 Actually Pat, he doesn’t really matter at all I could do his job with no expertise and do about just a good of a job as him, he basically just takes rumors and puts them out there like he has some inside source and most of the time they are right because the rumors I find out from you guys are usually right also, there’s always some truth in rumors, not to mention he’s been horribly wrong the past few months and only right on the blatantly obvious things that he shouldn’t even be forecasting since they are so obvious…it just comes down to who you know, no expertise needed whatsoever…

    @ 25 If that was a case there would be no need to release a slightly updated game every year with a new 6 hour campaign and updated graphics being the only changes from year to year which therefore would demolish all the hype that surrounds call of duty every november and cut down the millions they sell every holiday season so I doubt acti would go for that…basically why ruin a good thing, don’t fix it if it ain’t broke ::insert any other phrase here::, because that’s good business is by doing what you’ve been doing if you’re making loads of money off of it not to mention DLC is a much fairer way to milk money off of your customers after they’ve bought the game, $60 is enough to pay for a game without a sub, why do you think single player games that previously released without a multiplayer component are now adding one (Dead Space 2, BioShock 2 etc.) because they need it just to attract more people to the game and keep them playing after the campaign is over…call of duty doesn’t need to do that since multiplayer is the main attraction and the rest is just an after thought

    #36 4 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.