Today’s WTF: Call of Duty Elite Will Add A Monthly Subscription

Call of Duty Elite

In a move that’s sure to raise eyebrows, Activision Blizzard (via the Wall Street Journal) have announced that they will finally try to add the long-rumored monthly subscription to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 when the game launches this fall. While the exact services and price are still being discussed some portions are suspected to be things like in-depth stats-tracking and a Facebook-like webpage.

Call of Duty Elite will not be mandatory, at least not at this juncture, as Activision confirmed that non-subscribers will still be able to play online, but the company is being very hush-hush about what capabilities the hold-outs will have. Call of Duty Elite purchasers will get access to post-launch map packs as part of their subscription.

Call of Duty is one of the only video game franchises that can pull this off, having an enormous player base that seems content to drop sixty plus dollars on the titles every year. Call of Duty Elite is said to be an enormous investment for Activision, despite the fact that similar services are provided by Bungie for the Halo franchise for free.

So it’s finally happening, folks: Activision is taking the plunge, seeing exactly how much they can milk out of the Call of Duty franchise before it crashes. At this point the Elite add-on is totally optional and it looks like you can get by without it as long as you are content to play fifteen dollars for map packs if the trend continues that way. It’s a slippery slope from here though, as other publishers may be inspired to try a similar venture if Elite succeeds. So, what are your thoughts? Is Activision crewed by Satan’s unholy minions, or does this sound like a good idea to you?

Update: Looks like the Wall Street Journal jumped the gun on their details and a bit of the information wasn’t entirely correct. Infinity Ward’s Creative Strategist Robert Bowling confirmed via Twitter that Call of Duty Elite is free for all players with some paid aspects. Further details will be unveiled tomorrow AM.

Source – Wall Street Journal

Written by

mitch@gamersushi.com Twitter: @mi7ch Gamertag: Lubeius PSN ID: Lubeius SteamID: Lube182 Origin/EA:Lube182 Currently Playing: Stardew Valley, Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam, Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords, Battlefield 4, Tom Clancy Double Feature: Rainbow Six Siege and The Division

12 thoughts on “Today’s WTF: Call of Duty Elite Will Add A Monthly Subscription”

  1. GEHEEHEHEHEHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAaaaaa!

    Oh Activision.

    Further proof that NOBODY will buy MW3 unless they’re a CoD fanboy who doesn’t know any better. Battlefield 3, come hither and caress me with your 5 maps available simply by pre-ordering the limited edition.

    1. Eh Cossack, I’d disagree. While I’m not crazy about this, I’ll probably buy MW3 just for the SP and traditional multi. The thing that really concerns me about this piece of news is that it’s only a matter of time before someone tries to charge to play multiplayer at all. Until then, I don’t know if it’s worth being concerned about with this particular game, but I’m still a bit troubled.

  2. A subscription method has been rumoured of the Call of Duty series since MW2 and Call of Duty Elite was suspected as the culprit on the day of the massive leak from Kotaku.
    Shows that Activision really wants to milk this cash cow into the ground, which I’m fine of because it’s going to die soon if it doesn’t change the formula.

  3. Im getting both BF3 and MW3. Its what people who work get to do.

    Also thank God it was not all a pay for service. Waiting for more details

  4. Glad to see that not all their information was correct. There is no way in hell I’d ever pay to play a game every month. CS/CS:S/TF2/Battlefield should be enough to satisfy any shooter fan’s cravings. I’m sure the campaign will be a fun 6-8 hours. But that’s it.

  5. I’ll no doubt still pick this up, after BF3 of course! I always enjoy CoD’s multiplayer (except W@W’s, it was shit) and their campaigns are always a blast (except W@W’s, it was shit yet I still keep it for collection purposes : / …).
    I find Battlefield and Call of Duty different enough to enjoy both so I’m looking forward to both outings. I’ll reserve judgement on this Elite thing before writing it off.

  6. Personally I don’t think activision will ever charge for online multi-player. If they did then their target market would shrink down to the most loyal of call of duty players.

    At this point Activision wants to maintain their current hold on the market as best they can and make the online experience more accessible to new customers. The current online experience has already been established as a standard feature for the $60 you pay up front. For a lot of COD customers what comes with the game is just enough. This monthly fee for a premium online social network experience is targeting the segment of COD customers that put in 8+ hours of COD a week.

    Activision is building on the basic product that has come to be expected from a call of duty game and offering additional services that might be valued enough by the Hardcore COD customers to warrant the monthly fee.

  7. After the update:

    I think this is worse than Kotaku’s leak article that you guys jumped all over. I mean, Kotaku’s a blog, but the WSJ is real piece of journalism that needs sources to back their stories up. It’s pretty shameful, then, that they jumped the gun on this. If it was held to only the WSJ, than not so much damage done (not sure how many gamers go there for their gaming news, but I would guess not many), but since this was probably picked up by many major video game sites, I’ll bet there were a lot of gamers who took the oppurtunity to jump on Activision, like Cossask up there, and to a lesser extent Skuba.

    I will reiterate that I have no love for Kotaku – or Activision, or CoD, or BF for that matter – but they just print what comes to them. It’s WSJ’s job to actually report news and use facts.

  8. [quote comment=”16666″]After the update:

    I think this is worse than Kotaku’s leak article that you guys jumped all over. I mean, Kotaku’s a blog, but the WSJ is real piece of journalism that needs sources to back their stories up. It’s pretty shameful, then, that they jumped the gun on this. If it was held to only the WSJ, than not so much damage done (not sure how many gamers go there for their gaming news, but I would guess not many), but since this was probably picked up by many major video game sites, I’ll bet there were a lot of gamers who took the oppurtunity to jump on Activision, like Cossask up there, and to a lesser extent Skuba.

    I will reiterate that I have no love for Kotaku – or Activision, or CoD, or BF for that matter – but they just print what comes to them. It’s WSJ’s job to actually report news and use facts.[/quote]

    I personally have no love for the WSJ

  9. [quote comment=”16671″]I personally have no love for the WSJ[/quote]

    Haha, neither do I. Just pointing out the difference between a publication with supposed journalistic standards (WSJ) and one without (Kotaku).

  10. I do think they messed up, but that’s bound to happen. Kotaku could also be wrong about the many details they leaked and those details were much more in depth.

Comments are closed.