Pachter: Publishers Need to Charge for Online Play

[John Funk]

Pachter: Publishers Need to Charge for Online Play

Outspoken analyst Michael Pachter thinks that free online multiplayer is hurting new game sales - and publishers need to start charging subscriptions to make up the difference.

While the NPD figures disastrous April numbers [http://www.vg247.com/2010/07/16/npd-june-2010-xbox-360-second-only-to-ds-rdr-moves-963k-units/] - it was still a 6% year-over-year decline for the industry. The Xbox 360 had a solid month thanks to the release of the new "slim" (or rather "short"), but handheld sales were down, and sales of software fell 15%.

In an interview with Red Dead Redemption [http://www.industrygamers.com/news/activision-must-start-charging-for-call-of-duty-online-play-says-pachter/].

"[We] think that the overall decline was due to a very large number of people playing multiplayer online games for free on PlayStation Network, and for an annual fee with unlimited game play on Xbox Live," said Pachter.

[blockquote]We estimate that a total of 12 million consumers are playing Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 for an average of 10 hours per week on the two platforms' respective networks, and the continued enjoyment of this game (along with an estimated 6 million Halo online players, 3 million EA Sports players, and 5 million players playing other games, such as Battlefield, Red Dead Redemption, Left 4 Dead and Grand Theft Auto) has sucked the available time away from what otherwise would be spent playing newly purchased games.[/blockquote]

Pachter noted that the prevalence of free online multiplayer was a great thing for consumers, but said that it was "devastating" to the people putting money into the development of new games. "[Unless] and until the publishers come up with a business model that appropriately captures the value created by the multiplayer experience, we are destined to see a migration of game playing away from packaged goods purchases and toward multiplayer online."

So what can publishers do? Well, in a statement guaranteed to make him Bobby Kotick's new best friend [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/101503-Kotick-Wants-Call-of-Duty-Subscriptions-Tomorrow], Pachter said that game-makers with especially compelling and popular multiplayer should look into monetization - like subscriptions.

"We think that it is incumbent upon Activision, with the most popular multiplayer game, to take the first step to address monetization of multiplayer," Pachter noted. "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."

Though Pachter said he expected Activision to soften the blow by allowing some form of free-to-play multiplayer, he noted that gamers on PSN and XBL had racked up close to 4 billion combined hours of playtime since MW2's launch last November. Assuming that the average game has a playtime of under 30 hours, said Pachter, this means that "a staggering 133 million units of equivalent game play have been spent (so far) playing Call of Duty online."

Pachter is right that game developers and publishers, as businesses, are beholden to their employees and investors to make money. If they don't make money, they don't make games - it's pretty simple. On the other hand, Kotick's plans to monetize Call of Duty's multiplayer have been met with vicious push-back from hardcore gamers. Will the majority of Call of Duty players shell out the bucks to shoot people in the face online? Judging by the sales of the game's map packs, it's not out of the question.

(IndustryGamers [http://www.industrygamers.com/news/activision-must-start-charging-for-call-of-duty-online-play-says-pachter/])

Permalink

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

Yeahhh... no thanks if I wanted to waste money on a specific games online, I'd burn it... or play WOW.

 

[crotalidian]

I Very Much support this Idea. I don't play online and so would prefer the game to be slightly cheaper, but with a well supported robust online Multiplayer.

I assume that this would mean cheaper games. but why not add this to Codemasters play of unfinished games with downloadable components one of which could be multiplayer

 

[Jandau]

The part of my brain that still has faith in the human race is hoping that most people wouldn't want to pay for something they are already paying for (LIVE) and/or were recieving for free up to this point. However, the rational part of my brain is telling me that there is likely a sufficient number of people willing to pay too much money just to teabag people online in Generic Military Shooter Nr.4419.

However, the bright side is that even if some major publishers go through with this, there'll be others who'll jump at the chance to sell their stuff without such extra costs and fill the void.

EDIT:

I Very Much support this Idea. I don't play online and so would prefer the game to be slightly cheaper, but with a well supported robust online Multiplayer.

I assume that this would mean cheaper games. but why not add this to Codemasters play of unfinished games with downloadable components one of which could be multiplayer

Don't make that assumption. Activision has stated they want the price of games to raise further.

Also, you know what else was supposed to make games cheaper? Digital Distribution. Since there's no manufacturing/shipping costs, it would make sense, right? Well, aside from the occasional sale, DD games cost pretty much the same as physical copies.

Pay-to-play multiplayer wouldn't mean cheaper games since there's no reason to make them cheaper.

 

[D_987]

This is something I don't get...what part of that £45 package was worth the £45 I spent on the game if not the multi-player? Because from this Patcher is making it sound like games like Modern Warfare - those that survive on their multi-player - are demanding we pay more for multi-player despite already paying for the experience. Add adverts if you really want to gain some revenue, but people won't accept having to pay money for online gaming for specific games without any real benefits...especially when a terrible 6 hour single player campaign is being touted as worth £45...

But then again when has Patcher ever been right...ever...?

 

[Marmooset]

Is this an "I can't believe they said that!" thread?
Because I CAN'T BELIEVE THEY SAID THAT!!!! RAAAAAAARARARRRRRRARRAGGGGGGHHH(cough).

Sorry, can't really hold the rage. As far as horrifying opinions go, this is fairly low on the list.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

I Very Much support this Idea. I don't play online and so would prefer the game to be slightly cheaper, but with a well supported robust online Multiplayer.

I assume that this would mean cheaper games. but why not add this to Codemasters play of unfinished games with downloadable components one of which could be multiplayer

With Bobby Kotick it would mean more expensive games, and the Codemaster thing was a horrible idea, as DLC is easy to pirate.

 

[Glamorgan]

I've got a feeling this guy ~doesn't~ play online. Or at all.

 

[erbkaiser]

Somebody shoot the guy before he does even more damage to gaming.

Making multiplayer subscription based will only mean that even fewer people will play multiplayer, which in turn will mean games will sell even less.

It will also have to mean an end to modding, since mod servers can't possibly work in conjunction with this scheme.

 

[Knight Templar]

I like MW, but I didn't buy the mapps because I saw the cost not being worth the product, if multiplayer now costs me two subscriptions, I will ditch the game.

I assume that this would mean cheaper games

You can't hear it, but I am laughing.

 

[Azhrarn-101]

I Very Much support this Idea. I don't play online and so would prefer the game to be slightly cheaper, but with a well supported robust online Multiplayer.

I assume that this would mean cheaper games. but why not add this to Codemasters play of unfinished games with downloadable components one of which could be multiplayer

You do know that the price would either stay the same or go up due to the provided "premium service". There is no way that monetizing multiplayer would make games cheaper, all it would do is make profits larger.

 

[Christemo]

this guy sounds like someone id like to smack in the backhead with a frying pan.

 

[uppitycracker]

Hey, it's that Pachter guy, talking out his ass again. This tool really does continue to show just how ignorant he is. If anything, free multiplayer on these kind of games HELP sales. The majority of people wouldn't even buy the game were it not for the multiplayer aspect, I know I sure as hell wouldn't. Not to mention, my rabid love for FPS' gets me to buy pretty much every decent, major release (that doesn't completely fuck itself like MW2 did). Would I do this just for single player? Fuck no. Would I do this if I had to pay a separate fee for multiplayer? FUCK no.


And there is clearly no way that this would ever make retail games cheaper. As someone above me pointed out, digital distribution was supposed to have the same effect, and where are we at? Same exact cost for games. Sales that occur 6 months to a year after release hardly count. The industry is too concerned with making every dime they can right now to consider passing off some of that savings to the customer.

But really, whoever put this guy in the spotlight, and drove people to the misconception that he's worth listening to, should be punished for crimes against humanity. All I ever hear is retard spew out of his mouth.

 

[Cabisco]

If I had to start paying to play all my games monthly, I'm sorry but I'd stop being a gamer. I don't have that much money to spend, I doubt many of us do.

 

[DigitalSushi]

Thanks Pachter, EA's project then dollar, Kotick wanting to charge for online and Codemaster CEO also wanting to do something like Project Ten Dollar and now you tell us this?, well if it wasn't for you I wouldn't know what to think here!.

 

[Metalteeth9]

Let's take a look at his logic!

1) Game makers don't make enough money.
1->We need to make more money.
2)Multiplayer on consoles are free.
2->We aren't making money on multiplayer.
3) 1+2->We can make money on multiplayer.
4) Make people charge for multiplayer
5) ???
6) Profit!

But, in this case, the 5th point actually isn't ???.
5) Sales of the game drop because some people won't pay for multiplayer
5->You make LESS MONEY.

He misses that point 100%. He thinks that, if they charged more, a similar amount of people would still buy and play the game online. Yeah, some people would still buy the latest CoD and play online for a cost, but I think the majority of people would refuse to pay for online. Congrats, you just lost money!

Seriously developers: you want to make more money, cut piracy, and make both gamers and shareholders happy? Make it worth our while to purchase a game. Not buy it used, not rent it, not pirate it, buy it new. I liked the concept of the EA Project $10. Buying the game new yielded good results that you couldn't get by just renting it or buying it used. There are plenty of ways like this to reward consumers while punishing pirates. What you don't want to do, and what most of the PC industry does, is reward pirates and punish consumers.

 

[HarmanSmith]

I would like to offer this verbose and well-reasoned rebuttal: No, and fuck you.

First they make DLC available on release day, and now we have to pay TWICE for online play? Where does it end?
Wait, why is the Call of Duty franchise trying to think of ways to make more money?

 

[Darth Sea Bass]

Yeah fuck it charge for multiplayer maybe the revenue made from the multiplayer tards will go towards making a full length single player campaign instead of the 4-6 hour we get as it stands.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

It is being concluded that people are looking for value when buying games at the moment so the strategy for dealing with that is to charge more? I'll admit that I'm a little slow when it comes to business but that doesn't sound right to me.

 

[RowdyRodimus]

It's easy to say "charge more so they can pay more so you earn more" when you have a nice fat check (probably inflated by grafts sent to him by the publishers once a month) waiting for you for just saying stuff that either the public can see just by looking at what games are in the used section a day after release or what the publishers want him to say.

Michael Patcher needs a reality check. And by reality check I mean a good ass whipping.