Pachter: Publishers Need to Charge for Online Play
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
For Activision's sake- hell, for gaming in general! -I hope this moron's advice goes ignored. The first game to impliment this is going to see one of two things:
1) Horrifically low sales numbers if it's not a AAA-title.
2) A mind-numbingly high return rate if it is, as kids learn Mommy and Daddy aren't going to shell out monthly for an extra subscription for a single game's sake. At some point, the costs far outweigh the benefit.
Besides, why the hell would you think paying extra for an FPS would be worth a damn? Are the developers going to add new maps for free? New weapons? New playmodes? At least with an MMO, you have a consistently progressing world. Always there, always moving, always thriving and changing. Well, if the MMO doesn't suck, anyway, but I digress.
One thing this moron is REALLY not getting as well is the culture gap. Let me explain; 360 owners? If they play online, they've already accepted the idea of subscription fees. It's a hard sell to convince them to pay more on top, but not impossible. PS3 owners? Oh good gravy no. How many of them picked the PS3 BECAUSE there's no subscription fee for online play? I know several myself and I've seen others on here. Worse still, you'd basically be asking the average PS3 gamer to change their whole outlook on the cost-value of the game... while other studios could be offering online multiplayer free of charge. Guess where the gamers would go then?
The ONLY thing that made any sense was the idea of pay-to-play tournaments. THAT might work. And it MIGHT keep the game from being a massive flop. Anything else would require a lot, including making a title people would want to buy, content strong enough to make people want to subscribe, and in the case of cross-platform games or PS3 exclusives, you'd have to completely change the culture perception on pay-to-play costs... which it's probably too late to do to that extent.
1) Horrifically low sales numbers if it's not a AAA-title.
2) A mind-numbingly high return rate if it is, as kids learn Mommy and Daddy aren't going to shell out monthly for an extra subscription for a single game's sake. At some point, the costs far outweigh the benefit.
Besides, why the hell would you think paying extra for an FPS would be worth a damn? Are the developers going to add new maps for free? New weapons? New playmodes? At least with an MMO, you have a consistently progressing world. Always there, always moving, always thriving and changing. Well, if the MMO doesn't suck, anyway, but I digress.
One thing this moron is REALLY not getting as well is the culture gap. Let me explain; 360 owners? If they play online, they've already accepted the idea of subscription fees. It's a hard sell to convince them to pay more on top, but not impossible. PS3 owners? Oh good gravy no. How many of them picked the PS3 BECAUSE there's no subscription fee for online play? I know several myself and I've seen others on here. Worse still, you'd basically be asking the average PS3 gamer to change their whole outlook on the cost-value of the game... while other studios could be offering online multiplayer free of charge. Guess where the gamers would go then?
The ONLY thing that made any sense was the idea of pay-to-play tournaments. THAT might work. And it MIGHT keep the game from being a massive flop. Anything else would require a lot, including making a title people would want to buy, content strong enough to make people want to subscribe, and in the case of cross-platform games or PS3 exclusives, you'd have to completely change the culture perception on pay-to-play costs... which it's probably too late to do to that extent.
That would just cause a downward spiral. Lets say you charge for all online (twice then for XBL gamers). Now WE have much less money to spend on MORE games, we buy less games altogether, then devs still lose out AND also are plagued with bitterness and hate from the gaming community. Yeah, THATS totally the best way to go. Maybe we just have a Kotick Jr on our hands (though a bit more tactful)
What will it take to shut this damned moron up? Seriously, he's almost as annoying as Kotick. How is it that his word gained any kind of authority in the gaming world? Does he actually have any real qualifications to critique the gaming business, or is he just pulling this stuff out of his ass? I'm going with the latter, cause it sure stinks like it.
How about we give developers more money, instead of the people that take and sell their creations.
Try reading next time he is talking about the sales of newer titles not being brought because everyone was too busy playing online on old games rather than looking at any new releases.uppitycracker said:
you make people buy newer games by making the newer games BETTER... not by setting a 'self destruct' feature on the games once they are outdated... if anything, this is going to hurt sales. right now I'm careful over games i buy, BUT I have often bought a game, then decided.. wait a sec.... I dont like this game, and never played it again, but simply knowing that maybe one day, should i decide to give it another go, i'll always have the option to do so... but if I have to pay a subscription, then I'm going to stick with what I know works.