free to play\microtransactions

[Giga IV]

1- what if treyarch puts zombies behind a pay wall like exo zombies? meaning that zombies will not come free with the game but be a dlc. i personally believe there is a very small chance of this happening, but i wouldnt put it past activision.

 

2- what if there is a microtransaction system similar to the advanced supply drops from advanced warfare except instead of a  gun or camo you get a raygun mk2 or perma-perk or somthing of the such?

 

3- is there a possibility that zombies could go "free to play" or the dreaded "pay to win"? (using real cash to purchase max ammos, extra lives etc)

 

would you support any of this?

 

1- i would be very dissapointed, but yes.

 

2- only if the perks were purely cosmetic.

 

3- pre-order canceled,

 

 

[Chopper]

I would move on, never play zombies again outside of customs and would give up my staff position.

[Guest]

I wouldnt get why they would do that. Zombies is fine how it is and if Activison ruin how they sell it now then they know they will lose money. Also it means we wont get it day one which is the worst move they could do.

[Cheesegrater28]

1. Would never happen. Sledgehammer only did it this way since they thought having zombies was going to be a big surprise that motivated people to get the season pass. They gave us the bot survival mode on the disk. Treyarch wouldn't waste their time trying to incorporate a different coop mode on the disk and then giving us zombies in DLC. If they did, people would be pissed. 

 

2-3 would also never work in the mode. I could see them making characters and weapon skins purchasable, but game features wouldn't work. And even if they did come up with a way to make it work, no one would buy them. 

[Matuzz]

I'm here balancing even if the zombies are worth it to buy the next CoD. If there was pay wall to the zombies that would definetly mean I wouldn't buy the game.

[Slade]

1. Would never happen. Sledgehammer only did it this way since they thought having zombies was going to be a big surprise that motivated people to get the season pass. They gave us the bot survival mode on the disk. Treyarch wouldn't waste their time trying to incorporate a different coop mode on the disk and then giving us zombies in DLC. If they did, people would be pissed. 

 

Here's the scary part. Exo Zombies was pushed to DLC to increase DLC and Season Pass sales. Activision has confirmed DLC sales are increasing year-over-year.

They could just as well "suggest" to Treyarch to make their Zombies DLC only, too.

 

Also supporting pay to win? This has to be a meme, no one actually does this.

[Guest]

The reason Exo Zombies was in a DLC is because it wasnt actually developed enough when the game came out. They put a round in exo zombies because they had an idea then got raven to make them a mode since they didnt have the time but knew they needed one due to fans wanting zombies in the game. Thats how I always saw it anyways.

[The Clay Bird]

 

1. Would never happen. Sledgehammer only did it this way since they thought having zombies was going to be a big surprise that motivated people to get the season pass. They gave us the bot survival mode on the disk. Treyarch wouldn't waste their time trying to incorporate a different coop mode on the disk and then giving us zombies in DLC. If they did, people would be pissed. 

 

Here's the scary part. Exo Zombies was pushed to DLC to increase DLC and Season Pass sales. Activision has confirmed DLC sales are increasing year-over-year.

They could just as well "suggest" to Treyarch to make their Zombies DLC only, too.

 

Also supporting pay to win? This has to be a meme, no one actually does this.

 

 

 

are you sure?  I was still under the impression that it really was because of the backlash to their "reveal" of exo-survival as the co-op mode, and they realized they were going to lose a ton of sales if they didn't have a legit 3rd co-op mode..

[Slade]

@Nightmare Voyager @the_clay_bird The "Sledgehammer put in Exo Zombies because of the reception to Exo Survival" story is most likely not true.

Even before the game goes Gold, which is a few months before release, they're already working on the DLC. And even before any of that, they're presenting Activision with their DLC plans. Because remember, Sledgehammer doesn't actually develop most of the DLC content, that's usually outsourced to Raven and more recently, High Moon Studios. So way before the actual product is in our hands, Activision has already assigned those studios to work on X map and X modes for the DLC season.

 

It's way more plausible that Activision told Sledgehammer to deliberately put Exo Zombies on the DLC to give people more incentive to buy the DLC and Season Pass, as it now comes with a "brand new" exclusive mode. Then have a teaser of the mode in Exo Survival as icing on the cake.

 

You also don't make a full fledged motion captured teaser cutscene in just 2 weeks before release, let alone come up with a brand new mode and add that in your DLC plan a few weeks from your games release.

[Guest]

No, not what I said. I said they added it because of people wanting it as a mode even before the game came out but by then it was too late to make it good quality and available upon release. To be honest it is very likely that Activision told them to add it in due to fans responses.

[The Clay Bird]

@Slade

 

 

Although that may be true, i just don't understand why.   I mean if instead of the exo-survival reveal, they had done a full on exo-zombies reveal in September, dont you think that would have created far more hype around the full game and generated a bunch more sales of the whole product?  And then there would still be buzz around the DLC because of how popular zombies is in general.  I just feel like it was a real rookie move, and I can't imagine it had much effect on season pass or DLC sales

[Chopper]

I gotta agree with what @the_clay_bird said.

 

I bought Ghosts early entirely for Extinction.  

I would have more than likely done the same for AW if this mode had been their from the start.

 

TBH, I'm so happy they did it like this as it saved me money.

But they would have gotten my money if they had done it differently.

 

I'm in a tiny minority for sure, but I totally agree that it was a Rookie move on their part they way they went about the whole thing.

[Slade]

@the_clay_bird @Chopper The answer is simple really, the majority of people who buy CoD don't buy DLC. Instead, they just play that one Zombies map that came with the disc. This move was clearly done to persuade as many of those people into buying the DLC anyway.

 

Now only buying the main game is no longer an option because you have to get at least one of the DLCs in order to play Exo Zombies. And hey if you're going to buy one why not just get the Season Pass for this amazing price, right?

[Cheesegrater28]

@the_clay_bird @Chopper The answer is simple really, the majority of people who buy CoD don't buy DLC. Instead, they just play that one Zombies map that came with the disc. This move was clearly done to persuade as many of those people into buying the DLC anyway.

 

Now only buying the main game is no longer an option because you have to get at least one of the DLCs in order to play Exo Zombies. And hey if you're going to buy one why not just get the Season Pass for this amazing price, right?

 

But if someone buys the game for the zombie content on the disk, those same people would buy the DLC anyway. DLC has been up in sales because all CoD titles now offer these extra coop maps and stories and not just MP maps like MW3 did. If they didn't put Zombie material on the disk and waited for DLC, they might hurt their sales. People like me wouldn't buy the game, like I didn't with Ghosts and AW. Then when the DLC comes out, it makes the decision of buying it that much harder since now I have to consider spending $60 for the game and then $15 or $50 for DLC. In AWs case, the zombie content does look fun, but there's not enough there for me to invest that much. Had their been zombie material on the disk and I spent the money then, the DLC would have been a no brainer. 

 

Also, Activision puts a lot of importance in their release sales. Hence why they push pre-orders and in Ghosts case, tried to juice up the numbers. So putting Zombies on the disk and advertising it is the best way to make sure those sales go back up to where BO2's were. 

[Stop Mocking Me0]

Micro-transactions are the best way to distribute cosmetic appeals. But pay-to-win or a supply drop system would break zombies.

[Giga IV]

@the_clay_bird @Chopper The answer is simple really, the majority of people who buy CoD don't buy DLC. Instead, they just play that one Zombies map that came with the disc. This move was clearly done to persuade as many of those people into buying the DLC anyway.

 

Now only buying the main game is no longer an option because you have to get at least one of the DLCs in order to play Exo Zombies. And hey if you're going to buy one why not just get the Season Pass for this amazing price, right?

 

easy way to solve this would be to seperate the zombies from the game but instead of requiring you to have both the disc and dlc, make it a stand alone dlc that would be playable without the actual game. they would have to add more zombies content than usual but they could jack the price up.

 

i would gladly pay 100$ for this, but making me pay for multiplayer

(wich i do not touch EVER) is not cool.

[Giga IV]

 

@the_clay_bird @Chopper The answer is simple really, the majority of people who buy CoD don't buy DLC. Instead, they just play that one Zombies map that came with the disc. This move was clearly done to persuade as many of those people into buying the DLC anyway.

 

Now only buying the main game is no longer an option because you have to get at least one of the DLCs in order to play Exo Zombies. And hey if you're going to buy one why not just get the Season Pass for this amazing price, right?

 

But if someone buys the game for the zombie content on the disk, those same people would buy the DLC anyway. DLC has been up in sales because all CoD titles now offer these extra coop maps and stories and not just MP maps like MW3 did. If they didn't put Zombie material on the disk and waited for DLC, they might hurt their sales. People like me wouldn't buy the game, like I didn't with Ghosts and AW. Then when the DLC comes out, it makes the decision of buying it that much harder since now I have to consider spending $60 for the game and then $15 or $50 for DLC. In AWs case, the zombie content does look fun, but there's not enough there for me to invest that much. Had their been zombie material on the disk and I spent the money then, the DLC would have been a no brainer. 

 

Also, Activision puts a lot of importance in their release sales. Hence why they push pre-orders and in Ghosts case, tried to juice up the numbers. So putting Zombies on the disk and advertising it is the best way to make sure those sales go back up to where BO2's were. 

 

 

i didnt like the dirty zombies paywall tactics of advanced warfare either, its why i never bought the game until i found it online for 30$. i got a dlc and will get the better of the next 2 dlcs. either way i will not be spending more than 60$ on this game.

 

when did 60$ become not enough?

[Stop Mocking Me0]

About 2007ish I beleive...

[Rissole25]

I would be very disappointed but I'm sucker for the Treyarch Zombies, so I would probably buy it.

I am fine with cosmetic things though. Gun skins, character skins, etc. But if it gets into game changing territory like a new weapon in the Mystery Box, new Perk, starting with extra cash, I'll be furious. I believe they already did this with Black Ops Zombies on iOS/Android. From what I remember, you got CoD points, and use them to continue the game if you went down, or to start with extra cash or something. And I believe you could buy CoD Points with real money or something (haven't played it years so I could be completely wrong).

If the bank is back (please no), they could even charge to fill it up like GTA's Shark Cards.

[The Clay Bird]

 

 

@the_clay_bird @Chopper The answer is simple really, the majority of people who buy CoD don't buy DLC. Instead, they just play that one Zombies map that came with the disc. This move was clearly done to persuade as many of those people into buying the DLC anyway.

 

Now only buying the main game is no longer an option because you have to get at least one of the DLCs in order to play Exo Zombies. And hey if you're going to buy one why not just get the Season Pass for this amazing price, right?

 

But if someone buys the game for the zombie content on the disk, those same people would buy the DLC anyway. DLC has been up in sales because all CoD titles now offer these extra coop maps and stories and not just MP maps like MW3 did. If they didn't put Zombie material on the disk and waited for DLC, they might hurt their sales. People like me wouldn't buy the game, like I didn't with Ghosts and AW. Then when the DLC comes out, it makes the decision of buying it that much harder since now I have to consider spending $60 for the game and then $15 or $50 for DLC. In AWs case, the zombie content does look fun, but there's not enough there for me to invest that much. Had their been zombie material on the disk and I spent the money then, the DLC would have been a no brainer. 

 

Also, Activision puts a lot of importance in their release sales. Hence why they push pre-orders and in Ghosts case, tried to juice up the numbers. So putting Zombies on the disk and advertising it is the best way to make sure those sales go back up to where BO2's were. 

 

 

i didnt like the dirty zombies paywall tactics of advanced warfare either, its why i never bought the game until i found it online for 30$. i got a dlc and will get the better of the next 2 dlcs. either way i will not be spending more than 60$ on this game.

 

when did 60$ become not enough?

 

 

 

honestly, when adjusted for inflation, and factoring in the incredible things we get with games today, $60 is a bargain compared to what they could justify selling games for.  NES games were $60-$70 back in 1990.  we should be paying $100 for games today based off of inflation alone, much less the crazy amount of content we get compared to NES/SNES times.  I understand people not liking the microtransaction system. I really do.  Stuff is expensive.  Im just saying, the alternative could be a lot worse. 

[Cheesegrater28]

 

honestly, when adjusted for inflation, and factoring in the incredible things we get with games today, $60 is a bargain compared to what they could justify selling games for.  NES games were $60-$70 back in 1990.  we should be paying $100 for games today based off of inflation alone, much less the crazy amount of content we get compared to NES/SNES times.  I understand people not liking the microtransaction system. I really do.  Stuff is expensive.  Im just saying, the alternative could be a lot worse. 

 

 

Exactly. Its also amazing that NES games were around the same price and when you beat them, they'd have about 10-50 names in the credits. Now, video game sound departments have more names then that. So its amazing that they can keep the price where its been thanks to games being so popular now. I'll admit though, that if a game tried to raise the price to $65, I'd be out. Don't want give in to any price increase because once we do it will sky rocket. And this will be the argument they make to shut us up. As long as they are still making profits, I don't want to see that number change. 

[The Clay Bird]

 

honestly, when adjusted for inflation, and factoring in the incredible things we get with games today, $60 is a bargain compared to what they could justify selling games for.  NES games were $60-$70 back in 1990.  we should be paying $100 for games today based off of inflation alone, much less the crazy amount of content we get compared to NES/SNES times.  I understand people not liking the microtransaction system. I really do.  Stuff is expensive.  Im just saying, the alternative could be a lot worse. 

 

 

Exactly. Its also amazing that NES games were around the same price and when you beat them, they'd have about 10-50 names in the credits. Now, video game sound departments have more names then that. So its amazing that they can keep the price where its been thanks to games being so popular now. I'll admit though, that if a game tried to raise the price to $65, I'd be out. Don't want give in to any price increase because once we do it will sky rocket. And this will be the argument they make to shut us up. As long as they are still making profits, I don't want to see that number change. 

 

 

They are still making profits, but this is why I can't complain about DLC or microtransactions.  They could definitely justify raising the standard price for full games, but i'm content with maintaining the $60 price point and giving in to optional content being offered to supplement their bottom line

[Stop Mocking Me0]

Thing is, a video game is a limitless resource. Once it's been produced it can be re-created a thousand times for as long as they can still afford to buy discs to put the game on. And with the new download abilities one doesn't even need to pay that! I doubt the games will change to more then 60-70$