Should Activision charge for the privilege of playing CoD multiplayer? Well, most of us probably don't think so, but Wedbush Morgan analyst Michael Pachter begs to differ.
Yes, you read that correctly: Pachter apparently believes the commercialization of multiplayer titles could help jumpstart the flagging game industry.
"We think it is incumbent upon Activision, with the most popular multiplayer game, to take the first step to address monetization of multiplayer," Pachter opined in a note to investors obtained by Industry Gamers.
"[But] it is too early to tell whether that will be a monthly subscription, tournament entry fees, microtransaction fees, or a combination of all three, but we expect to see the company take some action by year-end, when Call of Duty Black Ops launches."
Pachter also noted that Activision will likely "ease the pain" of consumers by offering some form of free multiplayer - at least for a while.
"[Still], we are quick to point out that the average single player game has an expected play time of under 30 hours, suggesting that a staggering 133 million units of equivalent game play have been spent (so far) playing Call of Duty online.
"[Yet], Activision only sees revenues from the original 20 million units sold, plus an estimated 8 million map packs sold."
Meanwhile, Destructoid's Conrad Zimmerman predicted that Pachter's controversial model for multiplayer gaming was an inevitability.
"Of course, Activision CEO Bobby Kotick has already had the idea and it's only a matter of time before such things transpire. When (not if) it does, I'm looking forward to the supernova of rage on the Internet and declarations from people claiming they'll never buy another Activision game again.
"Then the industry will move as a whole, such subscription models will become the standard and the vast majority of boycotters will wind up forgetting their lofty ideals. [So], get a firm grip on your ankles kids, because it's coming."
Yeah, well, maybe it is, but why the hell do we have to pay for it?