Pachter: Publishers Need to Charge for Online Play

[Sniper Team 4]

So, when game developers see that they're losing even more money because some many gamers go, "Oh, I have to pay to play this game? Pass." what's his plan going to be then?

If the PS3 starts charging a once-a-year fee, I will be angry, but I'll pay it. Anything more than that can go jump off a cliff. And I swear that if they decide online co-op needs this too, then I'm done.

 

[veloper]

No, Pachter is actually right as publishers do want to go subscription based.
They're thinking hey WOW is multiplayer and subscription based we want big money too.

The only question is how many gamers will put up with it, outside of MMOs.

 

[Weaver]

Michael Pachter, will you EVER just shut the fuck up? Honestly, I don't understand how this guy has a job. 95% of his statements are things like "Games that are bad don't sell." and common sense stuff like that. The other 5% are insane statements like this.

MW2 isn't the only shooter out there, in fact there are no short of a dozen practically identical to it. If you charge online for MW2 people are just going to jump ship and play the other fucking identical shooters out there.

 

[Worgen]

why is anyone listening to this idiot? I dont think hes been right about a single damn thing

 

[DTWolfwood]

nerd rage time. Implement the subscription. I'm just not gonna play/pay it

 

[Micah Weil]

I can only see this having an adverse effect.

I wish to disagree.

This is being looked at under a purely negative scope. I see a number of ways that this could be good:

1) Consistently paying for multiplayer is going to put more money into the company's pockets...with which they can go and further develop features for the game. Heck, if a subscription means a periodical update - bug fixes, new features, new in-game toys, so on and so forth - then it may just be worth it. Heck, I could live in a world where I don't see people going to pay $60 for the next Madden game when a $5 a month subscription could see a downloadable ROSTER UPDATE (which is what the Madden games more or less amount to anyway).

2) If nobody wants to pay to multiplay, then we could see a resurgence of couch-based multiplayer. It'd certainly cut down on the troll like behavior when you could just reach over and slug someone for telling you to "lrn2ply".

3) If all else fails, we could see an increase in QUALITY single player modes. I see this as an opportunity for that single player mode to become something more than an atrophied limb to appease those of us who don't look at a game because "OMG IT R BEST MLTIPLAYUR!"

...sorry, I seemed a bit better there.

 

[Yeager942]

The only reason I still keep my xbox is so that I can play with my console-tard friends on CoD. If they introduce a subscription for online multiplyaer (mind you, we already pay for xbox live), then I'm retreating to PC gaming forever.

 

[Danpascooch]

Seriously? If they do this, people are just going to buy a game that doesn't require pay-to-play, it's not exactly like most FPS's aren't interchangable...

Anyway, it might work, if they let people have the game for FREE, and then charged $5 a month.

That way people who play less than a year pay less than $60 retail (that's definitely most people) and the people who put more load on the servers pay more, and it covers the cost of continuing online.

 

[Tron-tonian]

"compelling and popular multiplayer"

Beyond most MMOs, what games have given that, exactly? Find me an FPS that has expanded beond the capture-point and CTF games and actually *stretched* the genre and made a playerbase stand up go go "Wow! That's bloody incredible! I'd buy the game *just* for that multiplayer feature!"

The answer is very few, if any.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

PACHTER! SHUT THE HELL UP!

 

[MikailCaboose]

Sorry, no. I don't have the kind of cash flow to warrant constantly paying for online gaming on a game I probably am off-and-on with in the first place. I can imagine that that would hurt new sales instead of being any real "aid".

 

[Covarr]

Worth noting: I play Left 4 Dead 2 more than any other game. I easily play it a good 10-15 hours a week, compared to other games which usually don't get more than 1-4. This has not affected how many games I purchase, only WHICH games I purchase.

Worth clarifying: I still buy games. When I see a game that I don't have, I ask myself a few questions: "Do I want it?" and "Can I afford it?". At no point do I think to myself "I already have Left 4 Dead 2 so I don't need anymore games." Only if the game in question is actually a knock-off of the L4D series would my currently owned or played games even affect my decision.

Worth adding: I'm on a tight budget. I can't afford monthly fees, and I don't play any MMOs because of it. If a company charges for online multiplayer, not only will they not get the additional revenue from the multiplayer service for me, but I won't buy the game in the first place. I'd sooner buy a single player game, or stick with the free-multiplayer games I already own. It's too late to not sell me a game with free online play.

Worth asking: WHY THE HELL DO PEOPLE STILL POST SHIT THAT PACHTER SAYS? He's an idiot, he's usually wrong (except when he's stating the obvious), and his words have no impact. Nothing he says is newsworthy. If Activision actually said they'd be implementing monthly subscription fees to all their future multiplayer games, that'd be worth posting about, but rampant speculation from a known moron is not worth the bandwidth that The Escapist, or any of the other video game news sites, magazines, or blogs devote to it.

Worth signing off with: P.S. Thanks

 

[V8 Ninja]

Umm...no. Just no.

 

[Woodsey]

Oh look, it's that industry analyst again.

Once again he's fulfilling his duties of being either stupid, wrong or pointing out the obvious. Oh well, other things to do.

 

[FloodOne]

2009-2010

The years the games industry started to decline.

If these asshats continue to try and bilk the consumer out of their money at every turn, they're going to bury it with their own hands.

Imagine this. You went to a bookstore and got a highly acclaimed novel for $25, but there are no vowels in the text. To read the book with the vowels, it will cost you another $15.

For (most) FPS titles, they thrive and make their sales off of multiplayer. Continuing to nickel and dime the consumer who made your game the fastest selling game in history (I think), just for the ability to play the game as it was designed, is a bad business move. Let's see how all of their investors like it once their sales decline due to hidden costs.

I'm afraid for my favorite hobby, I think this may be my last generation. I'm a father with another baby on the way, and Pampers and formula are far more important than gaming.

Time to start to build the back catalog, I may not be purchasing videogames five years from now.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

If they want to start charging subscription fees, then the game's quality has to leap forward about 42 billion kilometers.

 

[T_ConX]

So in order to solve the problem of people trying to save money by buying less games (and spending more time with the ones they already own)... is to make, and try to sell, games that require a monthly fee to play online...

Totally not crazy.

Besides, I wouldn't even want to play CoD6 or 7 even if you PAID ME $10 a month.