Pachter: Publishers Need to Charge for Online Play
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
Geez, are publishers really suffering that much? Or is this a case of "if this gets any worse, we may have to buy smaller private jets from now on"? If they really are getting hurt, then this may be worth a look at, but if it really does come to monetisation of all facets of the online experience then I demand that they spend that extra money making new IP's.
I'm actually interested in seeing what would happen if Activision went through with this. Modern Warfare 2 being horrible couldn't kill the Call of Duty franchise. Gutting Infinity Ward couldn't kill the Call of Duty franchise. Could online multiplayer subscriptions finally kill the unkillable?
Wow, ok this would kill whatever game it was for. It's unlikely that the majority of CoD kids going to be able to get their parents to stump up for monthly fees to play Generic shooter #19238, especially if there is a titanic library of free-to-play AAA games out there. I think that if the next CoD has paid subscription online play you're not going to see people playing 10hrs a week in the same numbers that you got for MW2.
Fuck it, didn't they make enough with MW2's RECORD BREAKING sales?!
Fuck it, didn't they make enough with MW2's RECORD BREAKING sales?!
The way videogames are going and corporations trying to extort it scares me. Especially on console. Activision are just the type of corporation to do this and capitalise off of the franchise. It could be compared to selling heroin, with people having to pay to maintain their addiction. That might be a bit too much, but a one time hefty fee plus subscription is just too much for most gamers. If anything, make the game free, and charge for subscription fees. That's how a lot of PC games do it, like online MMOs.
Call of Duty is making a lot of money with or without subscription fees. I think most players would not appreciate this, as they pay for Xbox Live, and a lot of COD players only pay for Xbox Live for COD.
Call of Duty is making a lot of money with or without subscription fees. I think most players would not appreciate this, as they pay for Xbox Live, and a lot of COD players only pay for Xbox Live for COD.
I think he's onto something, but they shouldn't just charge for multiplayer. A lot of these "gamers" spend a lot of time playing singleplayer games. I've heard of something called Civilization and X-Com that can be played out of sheer enjoyment for hours on end over the span of several years. That hurts new game sales, and they should charge a fee for the singleplayer per hour.
They should also make the hamster the lives in my head the president of the ESA.
They should also make the hamster the lives in my head the president of the ESA.
If every company did this just to play their games on line that will be a lot of money because I don't just stick with one game. I like to mix it up now and again. That and on top of the Xbox live fees will add up to be one hell of a sum of money. It would put me off of multiplayer completely and I would only go for single player games.
If COD went subscription, I'd just play Battlefield exclusively. I don't play Halo, but I would start if it wasn't subscription. I already pay for xbox live. If I had to subscribe to games to play online like WoW, I'd only be able to afford one at a time.
Or, perhaps if they made it cheap (like $5) a month, I might do it for a few games. They'd still technically be making profit.
All this makes me think about in the future I'll be telling my son about "The good ol' days" when multi-player was free with the full game, etc...
Or, perhaps if they made it cheap (like $5) a month, I might do it for a few games. They'd still technically be making profit.
All this makes me think about in the future I'll be telling my son about "The good ol' days" when multi-player was free with the full game, etc...
I'm fine with subs to play on "official" servers. As long as private servers or LAN play are also available to those people who choose not to use the "official servers".
But lately game makers (carebear stare Blizzard) have gotten greedy and want full control over multiplayer.
The nice thing is there are so many open source, free multiplayer games available or older games that are just as good but don't have subscription based multiplayer.
If Activision thinks the average parent will pay for both an xbox live sub AND a sub to each individual game they are in for a rude awakening.
But lately game makers (carebear stare Blizzard) have gotten greedy and want full control over multiplayer.
The nice thing is there are so many open source, free multiplayer games available or older games that are just as good but don't have subscription based multiplayer.
If Activision thinks the average parent will pay for both an xbox live sub AND a sub to each individual game they are in for a rude awakening.
Erm. No. It doesn't work that way. You either release the game itself for free, and then ask for subscription fee for on-line play or you actually provide a multi player environment that deserves a subscription fee.
Provide me with actual persistent, big worlds, with relatively regular, free content updates and some reason to keep me playing other than getting top place on the frag list. Want to make money of it, make good, diverse MMOs that are worth it.
Look at Global Agenda, the game knew it has little more to offer than TF2 in its core, even the land control AvA wars proved to not be enough for customer to pay the fee. They went Buy2Play even before first subscription period because of the feedback they received during the first period of game life.
Provide me with actual persistent, big worlds, with relatively regular, free content updates and some reason to keep me playing other than getting top place on the frag list. Want to make money of it, make good, diverse MMOs that are worth it.
Look at Global Agenda, the game knew it has little more to offer than TF2 in its core, even the land control AvA wars proved to not be enough for customer to pay the fee. They went Buy2Play even before first subscription period because of the feedback they received during the first period of game life.
That... Doesn't sound right. It just seems exaggerated to me. 12 million people bought it, that doesn't mean they all played online. I get a cheating vibe from these stats.John Funk said:
Also, NO! No no no no no. I will never pay more than once for more online play. And that one fee is buying the game.
If there was a game better than BFBC2 for me to play as much as I do I would play it, Iv managed to rack up 5 days worth of my time in teh last two months playing it. The only other game I have played since is ME2. You know why I played ME2 instead of BFBC2, because it was quality. You dont need to force me to pay for BFBC2 you need to entice me to play your game. My game time is extremly flexible in that I will play whatever is best, for example when Dues Ex 3, Fallout New Vegas etc come out so long as reviews are postive I can promise now I will buy and play them. But dont expect me to stop playing Bad Company with my friends because I passed up games like Bioshock 2. I have Bioshock 1 which was a better single player ( I have tried Bioshock 2), and I dont want 2's multiplayer.
Also, has he taken the advertising value created by the various "previews" and whatnot multiplayers have to watch while they connect or whatever (and of course in-game product placement)? no, I don't see those figures up there.
Just another (insert big evil corporation name here) employee trying to manipulate the market.
Just another (insert big evil corporation name here) employee trying to manipulate the market.
Call of Duty was a gift for me. The only reason I played it was extreme boredom, and it ended up growing on me. But I wouldnt pay for the Multiplayer.
Game developers already have quality issues. $60 for 10 hours of Single Player, then unbalanced Multiplayer. Ontop of the $60 I pay for XBL.
Most gamers are either kids or college students. Both arent known for having money. The way to ensure games sell better is not to nickle and dime us, thats a good way to get me to say "fuck you, TF2 on the PC is free". The way to sell games is to cut corners. In game adverts, fine. Cut graphics, PERFECT (note: I believe a lack of quality has come from higher graphics, as it has caused devs to invest more money in making things pretty, which goes away from gameplay elements). Get your asses together and either scrap DRM, or find a way to make it work (have it delete startup programs on PC's when booted up for example. Unless its a PC game, then just release it on Steam). The way to make money is internal, NOT by being cheap.
Game developers already have quality issues. $60 for 10 hours of Single Player, then unbalanced Multiplayer. Ontop of the $60 I pay for XBL.
Most gamers are either kids or college students. Both arent known for having money. The way to ensure games sell better is not to nickle and dime us, thats a good way to get me to say "fuck you, TF2 on the PC is free". The way to sell games is to cut corners. In game adverts, fine. Cut graphics, PERFECT (note: I believe a lack of quality has come from higher graphics, as it has caused devs to invest more money in making things pretty, which goes away from gameplay elements). Get your asses together and either scrap DRM, or find a way to make it work (have it delete startup programs on PC's when booted up for example. Unless its a PC game, then just release it on Steam). The way to make money is internal, NOT by being cheap.