246
rate

No Subscription Fees for Modern Warfare 2

June 18, 2009 in News comments 26

Despite numerous speculations, one of the biggest games of 2009 will not include any monthly fees whatsoever. Infinity Ward has confirmed that Modern Warfare 2 would be free of charge to play online with no added costs.

RurouniPerporoni via examiner.com »
Favourite this article Add source
| More
Report!
News story attached to:

Comments

Register as a member to subscribe comments.
  • 1
    Bale Fire* Jun 18, 09
    Well I don't really see why it would. No console FPS has had a subscription fee as far as I can remember, most PC ones as well.
    • 0
      auctoria Jun 18, 09
      You're obviously not familiar with a thing called 'money', no?
      • 0
        dwg14390 Jun 18, 09
        IF they want money they would just make more DLC.

        Were already paying Microsoft to play online, IW can't make an Xbox game thats
        pay 4 play. ESPECIALLY an FPS.

        Were already entitled to play all games online if were paying Microsoft. Not someone else.
      • 2
        Goldva_X Jun 18, 09
        Funny thing is that a lot of people would probably pay. Fans are like sheep; You just point and they go.
      • 1
        Bale Fire* Jun 19, 09
        quote Auctoria
        You're obviously not familiar with a thing called 'money', no?
        And what does that mean? I'm not even being sarcastic, I seriously don't get what your point is
      • 0
        Hideo1 Jun 19, 09
        You're obviously not familiar with the basic truth that if they did have monthly subscription fees more people (not the fans, of course, but the wanna-be gangsters that play it wouldn't, the kids may or may not depending on whether they want to rape their parents wallets for lego instead and pretty much everyone who isn't a big fan but just likes the game) would not buy it and lose interest and go back to playing CoD4, then they'll lose money. Basic business.
      • 3
        Mr Gray Jun 19, 09
        Don't think that's the point Bale Fire was trying to make at all. FPS games by large are not pay to play. COD has never been pay to play. MW2's announcement that it also won't be pay to play isn't a shocker, hell, it's not even news to be honest. That's what Bale' was referring to.

        And everybody knows Infinity Ward releases pay-to-own DLC content. MW2 likely won't be any different.
        • 0
          Bale Fire* Jun 19, 09
          Spot on. You know my point of view better than I do Mr Gray
  • 0
    Smoke Jun 18, 09
    Required subscriptions are quickly becoming a thing of the past, I'm surprised that xbox still clings to the model.
  • 2
    Storm* Jun 18, 09
    Eh, $50 a year isn't so bad. And it's not exactly required, you can do online functions with a Silver account, just need Gold to actually play online.

    Pre-ordered the CE of MW2 the other day, got a poster of the cover. ^^
    • 0
      Smoke Jun 18, 09
      Not bad, but not good. No other console is doing this, and to see something like it on PC is laughable. I just don't see why everyone makes the exception that "It's fine because it's the 360."

      The required subscription to Live (to play online) is one of the few things holding me back from a 360.
      • 1
        Storm* Jun 19, 09
        That's not it at all. It's not like a monthly subscription, $50 a year is less than a game. It's reasonable in that sense. And I can tell we are getting the better half compared to my experiences online with the PSN and Wii setup. But to each his/her own. I mean, if 365 days for $50 is keeping you from the 360, then maybe you should...recount the days or something. xD

        Are you a big online gamer though? If not, then there wouldn't be a need for the 12-month subscription, you can just get a few one-months here and there if $50 for an entire year isn't suitable.
      • 2
        chautemoc Jun 19, 09
        PSN is free, but has ads. Personally, I'd much rather pay a measly $50 a year than have another godamn ad in my face, if given a choice between the two.
        (Don't know too much about the Wii's online service so I can't really speak for it.)

        I think I agree though, it doesn't seem to be a genuinely good value. But I don't know too much about the economics here.
        • 1
          Hideo1 Jun 19, 09
          So your core argument for why you prefer LIVE over PSN is ads... you're joking, right?
      • 1
        Smoke Jun 19, 09
        Chautemoc: Ads? I don't remember any ads. Unless your referring to Burnout or Ghostbusters... which I believe both Xbox and PS3 have them.

        Storm: I think you're missing my point. What am I paying for with an Xbox live subscription? Play games online, Communicate with more than 2 people and video chat. Download Windows Messenger or AIM and you have the premier Xbox Live Gold Membership experience at your finger tips that millions of Xbox players pay for. You see the gripe?

        Also, I'm not a huge online gamer, but I play online just enough for me to want to have access. Once Call of Duty comes out, I'll be on it every day for a long time, then it dwindles back down to once a week.
        • 1
          Storm* Jun 19, 09
          Well, I tend to go with the 'you get what you paid for' kind of bit. I find that the quality of the online service with the 360 is better overall, and yes I have played with the PS3 (and Wii) online. They aren't bad, but I do have more lagful experiences with them. Not saying that 360 is lag-free, it has it's moments too, but eh, to me, it's quality seems better. Still, I'm no huge online gamer myself.

          Gold suscribers are getting some more features. I believe we will have access to Facebook, better Netflix quality films, etc., come Fall. But eh, we don't have to pay for it if we don't need to play against online gamers.
        • 0
          chautemoc Jun 19, 09
          Not in the games, on the Network itself. At least, that's what I'd read. Perhaps I've been misled.
        • 1
          Smoke Jun 19, 09
          Chautemoc: Hurm... Well, they do advertise what the latest downloads are. For instance, the main screen shows Metal Gear Solid is available for download; but I'm pretty sure Xbox Live Market does the same thing. The websites you goto on the browser also have ads... but that's about it.

          Storm: I'm not arguing superiority of Xbox Live vs PSN or Wii's outfit. If Playstation randomly said "Okay, now you have to pay to play. We'll offer a few small additions, like talking to people." there would be an uproar. Why? The nearly exact same thing had been given to them before hand. If Windows Live Messenger started charging, less people would use it, if Gamegrep changed its format to charge to register, we would move on.

          However, since it started out with a charge, people aren't upset with Xbox Live costing money. It just seems silly to me.

          And if you want to split hairs, PSN users have always had Facebook access, streaming movies with Hulu as well as billions of websites thanks to it's online browser.
        • 0
          Storm* Jun 19, 09
          I was responding to your questions, or at least trying to, using the quality as an example. Though it cetainly wasn't the best explanation.

          The browser is a bit slow for me on the PS3, and Facebook is a direct kind of feature for the 360, like we can take snapshots on the 360 and upload them directly on Facebook, but eh, I'm not going to use that feature, not a social network kind of guy. But yeah, PSN does have a one-up with a browser, no idea why the 360 doesn't have that yet.

          Yeah, it doesn't seem like much difference between having gold and not having it, with exception to being able to play online, but then if that's the case, how can that stop you from getting the system? If you're not a big online gamer, then just don't get gold, it's not a requirement. Besides, many deals and games are offering trials with gold, can always feed off of that.
        • 0
          Hideo1 Jun 20, 09
          lol, very misled. The most advertising I see is a little unnoticable bar in the top right corner on the main screen (I'm sure you can turn it off as well, but since it only appears when you're not in anything (games, browser, store etc) it isn't a problem) and them advertising in the PSStore, for things in the PSStore... which is reasonable, lol.

          If you like LIVE more because of better performance or whatever else then fair enough, but 'lots of ads'... someone's been telling you porkys my friend xD
  • 1
    Darknet Jun 18, 09
    It better be free to play. There is no way in hell I will pay to play an FPS online. Shit, I don't even want to pay a fee to play an MMO.
  • 0
    dwg14390 Jun 18, 09
    We are already paying microsoft a monthly fee to play online.

    They CAN'T force us a monthly fee since we are already entitled to online gaming by paying through Microsoft.
    • 1
      Tenken Jun 18, 09
      Technically, they CAN. Ever heard of FFXI? Sure, it's an MMO, but you have to pay that on top of Live.
      • 0
        dwg14390 Jun 18, 09
        they did?

        Holy crap thats a low blow.
        But I heard that it hardly has any players online, at least thats what I remember from the reviews.
    • 0
      Hideo1 Jun 19, 09
      Actually Microsoft charge you for the ability to play online; everything else past there is down to the developers. They could charge you $20 a week if they wanted to (they wouldn't and it would be a stupid move on their part, but they can).
  • 0
    Province Jun 19, 09
    It has about 1 Million. Which isnt great for a MMO.

This news story is archived and is closed to comments now.