Pachter: Publishers Need to Charge for Online Play

[Dexiro]

It's funny coz, actually gamers don't have an endless stream of money coming out of their arses, unlike the people that are asking for more of it.

Subscriptions for online would just mean that NOONE would play online. Games that are made for online wouldn't get bought in the first place.

 

[GodKlown]

I thought they had already done this concept on a smaller scale with DLC. You want to continue to enjoy your favorite game, but want to add a little something new to it? Pay and download new maps or weapons or costumes in order to squeeze a little more life out of an aging title. Judging by what people invested in the Stimulus map pack for MW2, this model doesn't appear to be keeping people from investing.

In a time where the economy isn't still as strong as it used to be, this is like kicking the consumer while they are down. For 360 gamers, this is a double kick in the ass. So why would people want to pay for the standard online subscription when they still have to pay to play their games individually? I think someone is pissed that Blizzard didn't attempt to port WoW to the consoles so they could get a piece of that action from monthly subscription fees. Not many games on PC have been able to follow the financial success of WoW, and to institute a similar system on consoles would result in the opposite effect this guy is looking for. Be happy people are still investing in new games and get enjoyment out of a product instead of trying to devise ways of screwing them out of every possible penny you can get.

Now, if developers didn't attempt to invest millions upon millions of dollars in a game over the course of three to eight years for one game, they wouldn't exactly be hurting to produce an instant profit when said game hit the market. Sure, we enjoy a game that simulates reality, but only to a certain extent. Somewhat outdated graphics have not kept people from playing independent games. Look at Plants Versus Zombies. Would anyone say that game features mind-blowing new-age graphics and physics? No, but just on the IPhone that game has generated over a million dollar in sales. I'd rather they produce something that has the least amount of glitches and graphical defects rather then the latest version of the Unreal game engine. Perhaps they could invest further in stronger servers to reduce lag and crashes. Take your cue from Hollywood: you can make a diamond-studded turd that some people will like, but it doesn't mean you'll always get your investment back with interest just because you stick a popular name it.

 

[Kuilui]

I wonder if game developers think gamers are endless money pits that enjoy exploitation. Some of them must I suppose. Oh well glad I don't bother with call of duty games and if any other game tries to charge me to play their multiplayer I just wont buy that either. Good luck to whatever publisher tries that I look forward to watching it bite you in the ***.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I can see his point, and I can certainly see something like this working if it were given added incentive beyond just server access. You get your first month of online play free, then if you pony up your $10 a month from that point on you get both online play but also access to the kind of stuff that TF2 gets (maps, updates, weapons, etc.). This may not sound appealing to many people here, but the player numbers for the big online titles speak for themselves. Certainly not all of them would pay to play beyond their first month, but I'm sure a lot would.

The biggest impact this would have would actually be on MS and the 360. People with Gold Subs already essentially pay for online multiplayer access so it would be tough for them to explain it there.

 

[Upbeat Zombie]

Does this guy think that somehow everyone will be fine with paying a subscription for each multiplayer game they have?
As soon as I have to start paying for CoD online, is as soon as I stop playing.

 

[squid5580]

First off does this guy not pay any attention to what games are released when? Gee the numbers are down when there is nothing good coming out. What a surprise. Not to mention it is summer and people tend to go outside more during summer.

Second then why is there such a big focus on investing a septillion hours online? Look at most achievements/trophies in a game that has MP. Get to level 50 (which will take 100 hours easy), win 100 matches, play it 6 months later. Not to mention the we will have DLC announcements at day 1 encouraging players to keep playing. You don't get it both ways. Either you want us to keep playing the same game forever or you don't. But no fucking way in hell am I forking out to pay for your mistakes.

 

[TOGSolid]

I don't get it. Why does this guy still have a job? He's easily the most blitheringly idiotic industry analyst I've ever seen. He's so incredibly ignorant about video games and the video game industry in general that I'm really surprised he hasn't been fired.

It's pretty simple, if you make multiplayer subscription based, you are going to lose a lot of customers. And in case he hadn't noticed, people who DO play a subscription based game tend to not play anything but that one game due to them feeling like they have to since they're paying a monthly subscription.

Christ this guy is a fucking moron.

 

[Doclector]

Yes, people are playing games online more than in single player NOW, but when you add a fee to play the online, I can bet those figures would change, especially among xbox 360 players who, in a way, already pay around £40 a year (not counting those buying it in individual installments of one or three months at a time, which works out even more expensive in the long run) and would therefore be even more unwilling and possibly unable to shell out more for online in particular games. What's more, if every game, or at least every publisher, was to have a subscription fee, for most average gamers that would mean the prospect of shelling out for subsription to (shot in the dark) at least five games at a time, and I think most would only be willing and able to subscribe to one or two at a time.

Basically, on the surface, subscription seems a great way to keep making publishers money long after gamers have already bought the game, but I feel it would, in the long run, make them a loss as gamers either refuse or become unable to keep shelling out subscription for new games.

 

[USSR]

LMFAO.

*cough* Tell me how well that goes.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I don't play games online, but I'd still like to punch that guy. He seems to have made a hobby of buttfucking the consumer base.

 

[The Hairminator]

Activision is digging its own grave. I hope that not many developers are stupid enough to do this. There is a line somewhere, and it has just been crossed.

 

[PhunkyPhazon]

*Slaps Pachter* NO! Bad Pachter, bad! There's several reasons I opted for a PS3 over a 360, and not having to pay for a basic feature was one of them. What you're proposing is just overkill. I will NEVER pay for online multiplayer. Not even if it becomes required across all systems.

(Well, excluding MMO's. Those subscription fees are understandable.)

 

[ad4m101]

well, if they did this this is one customer who wouldn't stay for long.

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

What's this? Customers are playing old games and not buying new ones? How horrid! Clearly the solution is to take away the features they buy your games for now and only give them back if they pay you subscription fees - highway robbery to the rescue!

Really, I have never needed reasons to think Pachter is a jackass who talks out of his ass, as that's technically the job description of an "industry analyst" in the first place, but seriously - does he not understand that something can be "profitable in theory" and yet "likely to have former customers burning effigies of you in public squares"? Public reaction is an important consideration to factor into recommendations like this, unless you're just a jackass who says things and gets taken seriously because you're an "industry analyst" (qualifications for such a role mainly involving calling yourself an industry analyst).

Essentially what Pachter is saying is that all those customers playing Modern Warfare 2 right now are morons who will happily pay through the nose for the same service they have now, so he's both insulting you (if you play that) and giving anyone with a greater sense for the bottom line than popular reception more ammunition to implement their terribly anti-consumer bullcrap. Way to go monseigneur jackass.

 

[tehroc]

Video games are a luxury to guys like Patcher. Something only the privileged should have access too. Most of us he would consider living beyond our means. Pfft of course we have unlimited money to pay for multiple subscriptions.

Hell let's go another step forward, how about we only lease the license of the game so in a year later time it can't be played until a new lease is purchased. That will really boost sales of new games wouldn't it?

 

[Buccura]

I can only see this having an adverse effect.