Well, I'm interested in seeing how this goes. Personally, I don't plan on getting MW3, I'm just burnt out on CoD, and didn't like MW2 much. Though even if I do end up with the game, likely that I'll get it for Xmas or as a birthday present, pass, I refuse
to pay 15 bucks for a map pack, and I refuse to pay a monthly fee.
And before anyone else points it out, I have Black Ops as my last played game because I still do like zombies, adversarial though, I don't have any desire to play any more of it.
"Consumers are used to paying $60 each for videogames that run on consoles like the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. Now the publisher behind the industry's biggest videogame franchise— "Call of Duty"—is about to find out whether it can get them to pay
a monthly bill, too."
The last sentence makes me want to slap them and tell them people are tired of the economy and the loss of jobs, now you think that's a great idea?
I see why they would attach the map packs to the service. You get 2 map packs at $15 each that is $30 total. But if you get gamers to pay $5 a month (on top of a $60 game) you get another $60 that year from them. And the ones who do not pay do not get
the content. Would not surprise me at all it the maps were not available separate. And stat tracking and extra weapons not available outside the service makes sense for them also. And this is just the beginning. If this works the next game will have less
features with even more tied to the paid service.