Infinity Ward backs away from Call of Duty subscription rumors
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ Jun 18th 2009 at 2:55PM } 
The survey, allegedly sent out by Activision, asked "how likely" players would be to purchase or subscribe to a system that provides "new in-game content like map packs and betas," and "team-management services." It appears Infinity Ward's statement doesn't overrule the rumors completely -- Bowling appears to be addressing pay-to-play multiplayer more than anything -- but it's good to see such rapid response to a concerned community.
So, what's the other Call of Duty developer, Treyarch, up to?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Crimson_Ryan @ Jun 18th 2009 3:01PM
Hopefully Treyarch will understand they couldn't make a decent Call Of Duty game to save their life, and maybe expand on their Nazi Zombies mode with a full blown game.
Might sound ridiculous to some by turning a game mode into a full blown game, but most of the WAW players seem to have only bought it for the Nazi Zombies mode, myself included. Or, at least the ones I've heard(And I've heard alot).
Dr. Facekick @ Jun 18th 2009 3:10PM
Maybe if you'd stop being a complete tool for a few minutes, you'd realize that WaW wasn't a terrible game. It wasn't as good as 4, but that in no way means that it was terrible. Treyarch also isn't given nearly as much time or money to produce their games, so they have to make do with what they get. The game was honestly fun, if not as solid or polished as 4. Saying it's terrible just shows how much you like to ride the bandwagon.
PR0F3TA @ Jun 18th 2009 3:26PM
hey Dr. Facekick,
maybe if YOU realized that its practically IS call of duty 4 with new skins... oh yeah and more blood (ZOMG! TEH BLO0D IZ WINRAR!!1!)
World at War is not a bad game but it isn't anything to call someone a "tool" over... let alone defend it. When its nothing original or fun
The one good thing that W@W ever did was put zombie mode, and even that isn't original. who doesn't love zombies.
Game_playa @ Jun 18th 2009 3:47PM
PR0F3TA, Maybe if you'd stop being a complete tool for a few minutes, you'd realize that WaW wasn't a terrible game. It wasn't as good as 4, but that in no way means that it was terrible. Treyarch also isn't given nearly as much time or money to produce their games, so they have to make do with what they get. The game was honestly fun, if not as solid or polished as 4. Saying it's terrible just shows how much you like to ride the bandwagon.
JXCgunrunna @ Jun 18th 2009 4:04PM
Treyarch was given the same 2 years for W@W that IW was given. the CoD4 engine was completed by the time PoSCoD3 came out.
Iroquois @ Jun 18th 2009 4:06PM
I agree with Facekick and Game_Playa. I loved WaW. I personally tended to enjoy WWII shooters more and it shows that Treyarch can still make a great game, granted that it WAS made with the CoD4 engine. Yes, Nazi Zombies is a lot of fun and a great idea, but making into a full game wouldn't be as cool. idk about you guys, but I'm not interested in someone else's Left 4 Dead. I like Zombies right where it is right now, as a fun extra that everyone can enjoy. I thought the story in WaW was better than in 4 too.
Cr4sh Dummy @ Jun 18th 2009 4:18PM
The only question I have is how the fuck can Treyarch possibly make one of the best games that has come out in the last few years worse? All they had to do is re-skin COD 4! It's perplexing.
False @ Jun 18th 2009 5:06PM
Nazi Zombies couldn't sustain itself as its own game, otherwise it would get demolished by Left 4 Dead. It's best left as a bonus mode.
DWells55 @ Jun 18th 2009 8:07PM
I bought it just for Nazi Zombies. I played WaW multiplayer for a while, but eventually got sick of it and went back to CoD 4. Spawning system is somewhat less broken in 4 as well.
kentuckyfried @ Jun 19th 2009 5:46PM
WAW has different pacing than COD4, but it by no means was awful (save for maybe the SP portion).
Why do so many people romanticize COD4? Awful, linear maps often leading to unbelievably one-sided battles. I for one could live without Downpour. yeah, it's really fun getting dominated into one corner of the map for a "fun" 200-50 Domination round and a resulting 25% K/D ratio. Sorry, but no thank you.
If WAW did something right, it's that a player has a better chance to have a good time and keep a positive K/D ratio on some maps even if their teammates aren't doing so hot.
Jacko @ Jun 18th 2009 3:02PM
I would consider paying for multiplayer ONLY if it came with plenty of FREE DLC and dedicated servers.
PR0F3TA @ Jun 18th 2009 3:29PM
ok sorry, but i had to laugh at that... MW2 free DLC and Dedicated Servers.... well apart from the dedicated servers that PS3 owners have in all games.
Teph @ Jun 18th 2009 5:32PM
"well apart from the dedicated servers that PS3 owners have in all games"
Uhhh no. That's not true.
Inect @ Jun 18th 2009 7:22PM
PR0F3TA
Ill give you two examples of games for the ps3 that don't use dedicated servers
COD4
COD WAW
ChristmasBeard @ Jun 18th 2009 3:02PM
Funk that! I loves me some COD multiplayer . . . it's all I play nowadays but I refuse to pay more for it than I already do. Isn't that what my XBL Gold membership is for?
Mattchewie @ Jun 18th 2009 4:42PM
I would think that XBL monies go to MS only. Therefore IW wouldn't see a cut of that.
kentuckyfried @ Jun 19th 2009 5:50PM
Actually, Microsoft will probably come up with something called a "Platinum" account where you get to bend over, and pay $20/month for online access including access to all your MMO needs. You just know the marketing guys over there are just rubbing their hands and salivating in anticipation.
Zoot Suit Jedi @ Jun 18th 2009 3:04PM
In addition to my XBOX Live subscription?
I've got something for them to "pay to play" with.
Storm Eagle @ Jun 18th 2009 3:07PM
OMFG! Joystiq. Why did a giant AOL Banner just float across my screen and ask me to take a survey? I thought you were different. I thought you could be trusted. Please, get rid of these ads. Or atleast make them more inconspicuous.
Dirty @ Jun 18th 2009 3:13PM
Their overlords say no. We all gotta pay the bills man.
WiiFTW @ Jun 18th 2009 3:17PM
http://adblockplus.org/en/
What ads were you talking about again? I don't see any.
Random G @ Jun 18th 2009 3:24PM
Do you pay a subscription fee to be a member of Joystiq? No. So how else can they make money? It's not like they're forcing me to switch to at&t to get a free Moto EM330.
Huey2k2 @ Jun 18th 2009 3:32PM
Wait... Joystiq has ads?
I am using FireFox with adblock plus, so I rarely if ever get ads.
PR0F3TA @ Jun 18th 2009 3:34PM
wow Storm Eagle, i always thought of you as a pretty smart guy.... you realize that that pop up ad not only appears on joystiq but from every webpage from Facebook to GameFaqs to YouTube.
even so, who cares you closed it right? if you want annoying pop up ads that don't go away till about 30 seconds go to IMDB... other then that quit your bitchiness when people need server money to keep this place up
CynicalStrike @ Jun 18th 2009 3:39PM
FF + ABP FTW
Dirty @ Jun 18th 2009 3:46PM
Boys II Men ABC BBD
Storm Eagle @ Jun 18th 2009 4:18PM
I'm sorry. It's been a long day.
Random G @ Jun 18th 2009 4:24PM
Apology accepted.
edupbm @ Jun 18th 2009 3:17PM
free? lol that's only if you're playing it on PS3 of course, xbox will never be free :)
Huey2k2 @ Jun 18th 2009 3:34PM
Did you even read the article?
Obvious troll is obvious.
ohyeahcola @ Jun 18th 2009 3:57PM
he was talking about xbox live, so technically CoD online isn't free for xbox 360
copa @ Jun 18th 2009 3:27PM
So basically Infinity Ward has a detente with Activision. Activision is allowed to exploit/defecate on/rape the corpse of Call Of Duty all they want, and Infinity Ward is allowed to say that Modern Warfare is a totally different franchise, and announce loudly to the press that they have nothing to do with this Call Of Duty thing.
Has Infinity Ward not learned from history? Do they not realize that once Activision has finished Tony Hawking the Call Of Duty franchise into an unsellable husk of its former self, that they are going to come back to Infinity Ward and say, "Oooh, what's that tasty Modern Warfare thing you got there? And wouldn't it play better with a guitar controller?"
VicViper @ Jun 18th 2009 3:37PM
Wait. You mean gamers actually spoke out collectively en masse against having to pay more money for something that used to be free, or at least included with a $60 MSRP?
Holy shit...
Now if we could only launch successful campaigns against DLC that could've shipped on the disk (OR DID!).
Jacko @ Jun 18th 2009 4:00PM
Yeah, I guess I should have put a LOL in at the end.
Sayed @ Jun 18th 2009 4:03PM
Personally i don't care what Treyarch is up to. Played World at War and played Modern Warfare, and im still playing Modern Warefare.
Cr4sh Dummy @ Jun 18th 2009 4:21PM
Well at least Infinity Ward debunked this rumor for MW2. If anyone would implement that inane idea, it would be Treyarch.
THX7168 @ Jun 18th 2009 5:16PM
"Multiplayer will always be equal and free for everyone as always."
Free for PC and PS3 users. 360 users still have to pay a fee to play games online.
Mazrael @ Jun 18th 2009 5:54PM
..And I thought it'd be a Blizzard MMO for next gen seeing that ork..... gutted..
Ashkental @ Jun 18th 2009 7:48PM
"Free to Play" as in Pay Gold Xbox Live
But again i have PSN so i get it for free...
(Not counting US$60,00 for the game)
Huey2k2 @ Jun 18th 2009 8:22PM
People that complain about having to pay ~$5 a month for Xbox Live make me laugh.
Listen, I have a 360 and a PS3, and although the PSN is decent for online games, Xbox live is still a much better and more cohesive experience for online games. As far as I am concerned you get more than your moneys worth for $5/month.
Now if the PSN was as good as Xbox Live is then sure, I would totally agree that we are being ripped off for it, but at this point in time, it is not.
jarhead906 @ Jun 18th 2009 11:34PM
@ Huey2k2
People that support a subscription fee for online access to games make me laugh.
So let's get this straight. Your ethernet cord, when plugged into your Xbox 360, makes your online round of CoD 4 magically better than when you plug said ethernet cord into your PS3?
How is PSN 'decent' for online gaming? It meets all the requirements, so I would call that fantastic. It certainly isn't as cohesive as XBL, I'll admit that, but there isn't anything that I would consider leaps and bounds better to place it above PSN.
I'm not arguing your personal preference, but saying ~$5 a month is 'completely worth it' is kind of a misplaced perspective.
Jerkamie @ Jun 18th 2009 11:06PM
"Multiplayer will always be equal and free for everyone as always."
Free multiplayer for pc, not for xbox, free map packs for pc, not for xbox.
JAH75157 @ Jun 18th 2009 11:58PM
WAW sucks only reason it was worth anything multiplayer wise was zombies, that's why i sold it.
Sayed @ Jun 19th 2009 9:27AM
Sad but true XD
kentuckyfried @ Jun 19th 2009 5:42PM
I think a COD MMO might work with enough effort (perhaps to be in direct contention to what MAG *might* be this fall).
kentuckyfried @ Jun 19th 2009 5:46PM
WAW has different pacing than COD4, but it by no means was awful (save for maybe the SP portion).
Why do so many people romanticize COD4? Awful, linear maps often leading to unbelievably one-sided battles. I for one could live without Downpour. yeah, it's really fun getting dominated into one corner of the map for a "fun" 200-50 Domination round and a resulting 25% K/D ratio. Sorry, but no thank you.
If WAW did something right, it's that a player has a better chance to have a good time and keep a positive K/D ratio on some maps even if their teammates aren't doing so hot.