Treyarch: Beat Used Game Sales With Great Multiplayer

[FloodOne]

What's funny is that people keep screaming about games being too expensive, and they should lower the price of new software either out of the gate, or over time. But I'm willing to bet if new games were $40 all over again, millions would still buy used games at $30 a pop.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Or they could just reduce the price of games at regular intervals. That would cause more people to buy the games, and put the squeeze on the used games market.

But don't ***** about consumers trying to save as much money as they can in a bad economy. Games are expensive, so don't ***** when people are buying new to save money. Reduce your prices at regular intervals, and more people will buy new.

Of course thats logical and smart so it'll be ignored.

Yea, logic doesn't seem like their thing. In fact I bet what most publishers walked away from this article with is the notion that if they come up with a good enough multiplayer portion of a game, they can charge separately for it like Capcom tried to.
Lowering prices would be a good start. It worked for dvds; it even helped the movie industry combat piracy too. $60 is pretty steep so I can't exactly blame someone for buying used or even pirating if they're really that strapped for cash. Not saying I condone piracy, but I understand why it happens; I used to be that poor.

Considering that many games are getting harder and harder to justify paying full price for a "full" game experience, they need to look at the cost versus game content. Simply because multiplayer is popular, does not mean it is often that spectacular to be treated almost as a completely new game or game's worth of content to garner the desired interst. In contrast to an engaging single player campaign with variation, how long until death matches begin to carry the same overall feeling? The game loses its appeal because multiplayer is being used as an easy filler, so the price can feel overwhelming for what one gets.

I find that Xbox 360 games are even worse because that $60 does not even include multiplayer without the Xbox Live fee. Adding more multiplayer equates to more content unavailable to silver 360 users.

A game doesn't just have to have great multiplayer to be a keeper. I could never get rid of Fallout 3. My wife would kill me first of all (she never finished point lookout) but it's the kind of game that is so populated and compelling that I feel like popping it in at least once a month. And I'm not entirely convinced I've seen everything in the Capital Wasteland. Some people like single player games and Fallout 3 isn't the kind of single player game you can play through in one weekend like most other titles. Even really good ones like Uncharted 2 or God of War 3 are over way too quickly and I don't really see a reason to keep them. The rental satisfies my curiosity.

That is exaclty why I bought Uncharted 2 used. Let's see, $35 or $55 (new), well, that's just too easy! Single-player focused games need to offer more replayability, without tacking on just multiplayer, and something a little more creative than "Even HARDER" modes. People would be more inclined to keep these types of games if they offered either a notably greater length, more side-question/missions, or dynamic choices that could allow different experiences. In turn, people would be more willing to pay full price because the game does not feel like a waste.

I think that?s why I pop in Fallout 3 about once a month (and last generation, San Andreas): because there really is so much to see and do, it?s always a little different and there?s a wide variety of gaming to take part in. Those epic games are definitely worth $60. I think the problem with the publishers adapting the kind of pricing that would balance the price with content, is that some of these games that are built on existing engines and tech (such as San Andreas). So then developers will be pushed to keep using the same engines and tech in order to create games with a lot of content in a short amount of time. It?ll be fine for a little while but it will probably also stunt the overall progression of the art if they do this any more than they do already.
And then it also depends on perspective. I?m fine with playing through God of War 3 once but if that?s your favorite game, it?s worth $60 or more to play it as many times as you want. And I think that?s it, the reason game prices keep going up across the board is because people are willing to pay it. I think that if gamers started getting really stingy or started pirating more, we would probably start seeing some of these yearly milking franchises like Madden, Raw, and Halo start to come down in price. They would probably release a new $60 one every few years when they update the engine or break in a new console but a range of prices would still be cool.
It?s kind of like going to a restaurant: of course the skirt steak is going to be more expensive than the burger. However, you have to remember that one man?s burger is another man?s skirt steak: some people will pay $30 for a burger.

 

[SalamanderJoe]

It's a good plan. Decent multplyer games like Halo Reach, Call of Duty. Battlefield etc always do well. It's just that many games tack a very poor multiplayer on as a last thought. Examples, Turning Point: Fall of Man, Turok...

 

[SelectivelyEvil13]

I think that?s why I pop in Fallout 3 about once a month (and last generation, San Andreas): because there really is so much to see and do, it?s always a little different and there?s a wide variety of gaming to take part in. Those epic games are definitely worth $60. I think the problem with the publishers adapting the kind of pricing that would balance the price with content, is that some of these games that are built on existing engines and tech (such as San Andreas). So then developers will be pushed to keep using the same engines and tech in order to create games with a lot of content in a short amount of time. It?ll be fine for a little while but it will probably also stunt the overall progression of the art if they do this any more than they do already.
And then it also depends on perspective. I?m fine with playing through God of War 3 once but if that?s your favorite game, it?s worth $60 or more to play it as many times as you want. And I think that?s it, the reason game prices keep going up across the board is because people are willing to pay it. I think that if gamers started getting really stingy or started pirating more, we would probably start seeing some of these yearly milking franchises like Madden, Raw, and Halo start to come down in price. They would probably release a new $60 one every few years when they update the engine or break in a new console but a range of prices would still be cool.
It?s kind of like going to a restaurant: of course the skirt steak is going to be more expensive than the burger. However, you have to remember that one man?s burger is another man?s skirt steak: some people will pay $30 for a burger.

I finally had the chance to play God of War after getting a PS3 and never knew what I was missing. A game with Greek Mythology that is actually good thrills me because I absolutely love Greek Mythology (I'm part Greek, so go figure ha ha). I could buy the game any time I want, even for $24.99 used, yet I am still hesitant because I know it will go down again.

I find that what holds me back on buying new games nowadays is that they are relying so heavily on multiplayer to bulk up the game, while others like God of War 3 do not stack up to likes of Fallout 3 or Oblivion in the back of my mind. On the quality side though, I will grant God of War great credit and as far as a personal choice, it's me trying to save a buck. But when a game is a vacuous, sixty-dollar mess, I begin to question an across the board approach to pricing. A Triple-A title of high quality can garner the fanbase and interest to put in the cost, while a lower-grade game loses interest of buyers because that $60 could have gone towards the Triple-A game! I wonder if some of the later type of games would do better at a lower price so that their resale alone would not be worthwhile early in its release. Even though it is not a Triple-A game, at least it would not be that Triple-A cost that make make buyers hesitant.

 

[hyperdrachen]

Yeah great plan for multiplayer focused shooters genius. I've seen alot of great games in the used bin. People get done with games, and the codes aren't penalizing used players, theyre rewarding customers. Remember if you buy a game used you're not a customer of it's developer, not really alot of reason for them to keep you happy.

 

[GonzoGamer]

I think that?s why I pop in Fallout 3 about once a month (and last generation, San Andreas): because there really is so much to see and do, it?s always a little different and there?s a wide variety of gaming to take part in. Those epic games are definitely worth $60. I think the problem with the publishers adapting the kind of pricing that would balance the price with content, is that some of these games that are built on existing engines and tech (such as San Andreas). So then developers will be pushed to keep using the same engines and tech in order to create games with a lot of content in a short amount of time. It?ll be fine for a little while but it will probably also stunt the overall progression of the art if they do this any more than they do already.
And then it also depends on perspective. I?m fine with playing through God of War 3 once but if that?s your favorite game, it?s worth $60 or more to play it as many times as you want. And I think that?s it, the reason game prices keep going up across the board is because people are willing to pay it. I think that if gamers started getting really stingy or started pirating more, we would probably start seeing some of these yearly milking franchises like Madden, Raw, and Halo start to come down in price. They would probably release a new $60 one every few years when they update the engine or break in a new console but a range of prices would still be cool.
It?s kind of like going to a restaurant: of course the skirt steak is going to be more expensive than the burger. However, you have to remember that one man?s burger is another man?s skirt steak: some people will pay $30 for a burger.

I finally had the chance to play God of War after getting a PS3 and never knew what I was missing. A game with Greek Mythology that is actually good thrills me because I absolutely love Greek Mythology (I'm part Greek, so go figure ha ha). I could buy the game any time I want, even for $24.99 used, yet I am still hesitant because I know it will go down again.

I find that what holds me back on buying new games nowadays is that they are relying so heavily on multiplayer to bulk up the game, while others like God of War 3 do not stack up to likes of Fallout 3 or Oblivion in the back of my mind. On the quality side though, I will grant God of War great credit and as far as a personal choice, it's me trying to save a buck. But when a game is a vacuous, sixty-dollar mess, I begin to question an across the board approach to pricing. A Triple-A title of high quality can garner the fanbase and interest to put in the cost, while a lower-grade game loses interest of buyers because that $60 could have gone towards the Triple-A game! I wonder if some of the later type of games would do better at a lower price so that their resale alone would not be worthwhile early in its release. Even though it is not a Triple-A game, at least it would not be that Triple-A cost that make make buyers hesitant.

Then I think we?re getting down to ego. Makers of lackluster games (or even decent games with little content) don?t want to believe they?re making an inferior product and don?t want to make that impression either. It could make a difference with things like Dante?s Inferno which had the chronological jump on God of War 3 and probably would?ve sold a lot more if it cost less than God o War 3. But I agree that they need to start acting and pricing more realistically. It?s hard to take a chance on a new franchise or a game you?ve heard mixed feelings about when it?s $60.
With DLC it gets even more complicated. To someone who already played through gta4, paying $20 a pop for a new act with some new toys is pretty overpriced while to someone who hasn?t played gta4, the $40 Episodes disc is an excellent value. Otherwise, the industry has a very rigid pricing structure that might work well with those blockbuster games but I think hurts the industry overall.