Quantcast
Pachter: Publishers need to charge for online play

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Pachter: Publishers need to charge for online play

dahuman said:
Slimebeast said:
tube82 said:

about games giving too much value nowadays: i disagree. DLC is usually a joke: 1-5 hours additional gametime doesn't mean anything in the long run... in fact, those usually are the most expensive hours per dollar/euro of the games.

my average time per game used to be WAY higher in the 90s or early 00s than it is now. i played games like Grand Prix 2, The Settlers 2, Starcraft, Diablo 2, Football Managers, Dungeon Keeper etc. for YEARS. If anything, these new cinematic games lack the replay value of the classics and are played a lot less by me. The other difference between those classics and games nowadays is that there have not been sequels every single year, making last years game obsolete. of course there have always been sequels, but nowadays every big IP releases at least one title per year. i am not surprised fewer players are buying them with each year. actually it surprises me that so many are still buying them each year.. and day 1 when the price is very high, too.

Then obviously you aren't the type of gamer that the publishers have a problem with. You pay your $60 for a cinematic game, mostly for the single player and that's it, that's all fine.

But this is about the people who put hundreds of hours into one single game due to the addictive online. Should these gamers also get away with just paying $60 for a game that gives them ten or twenty times more hours of entertainment than the single player guy gets? All resulting in a big segment of the consumer market buying only one or two games per year because they simply don't need more. That's the question.

And the pricing of a 2-3 hour DLC is actually an effort by the publishers to try to reflect the "real" value measured in hours. It's their way of trying to increase revenue and to address this "problem" of the gamer market (on average) getting too much value for their buck nowadays.


so on top of Live Gold, you'd be willing to pay money on top of that to play games online on your 360? being grabbed by the balls for no reason much? I dare they even try it.

don't know how exactly they would design the payment models, but yes, since the money for XBL Gold goes into Microsoft's pockets and not to publishers.

$60 for Xbox Live ain't that much though. It's no more than one new game.

But if they gonna charge more for online, obviously they have the charge us PC guys too.



Around the Network

 It's only a matter of time, I think the only reason it's not already the standard is the question of 'how'. Will it be $10 a month to play COD? Will it be spread over all Activision games? Will it be just pay to play tournaments with prizes? etc.

 I personally think we'll see a month subscription to a publishers network service, say $10 a month to join EAlive or something. For that we can play any EA game online but all the DLC stuff would now be offered for free too and maybe give game discounts and stuff. 

 It's a tricky question, but when you look at what people are paying for on various Facebook apps clearly they can squeeze alot of money out of the millions of people playing games online.



I will tell you thisd if this happened then Only one game from each genre would actually be succesfull.

I cant see people paying money to play online for like 3 different Shooters. Only one would someone pay for in my opinion. Same goes for other genre's

 

Doing this would kill the gaming industry in my opinion.

 

 

This is just stupid. What next? People who watch movies have to pay extra if they watch it more often then someone who can only watch a film once ot twice then gets sick of it?

 

Fucking perfetic. If that was the case then i would be bancrupt from the amount of times i have watched harry potter



Nobody's perfect. I aint nobody!!!

Killzone 2. its not a fps. it a FIRST PERSON WAR SIMULATOR!!!! ..The true PLAYSTATION 3 launch date and market dominations is SEP 1st

I get the feeling that if something like this were to be implemented, it would be the beginning of a downward spiral. At first, charging a subscription for online multiplayer might seem innocent enough, but then some publishers will get the idea to start forcing people to use their subscriptions by gimping the single-player mode even further, maybe even removing it entirely. Then they might even do away with splitscreen or local multiplayer as well, meaning you would now have to pay $60 for an online-only game that you would also have to pay a regular subscription for, and that's not counting things like map packs and new content.

Yeah, this is really the worst-case scenario here, but knowing certain publishers, it wouldn't surprise me if this ends up being the route they take.



The day Nintendo force a 'pay to play' service for Mario Kart, is the day that I turn my back on online gaming almost certainly never to come back




Around the Network

Oh well. If this happens it means the focus will shift back to story based, immersive gaming which imo, was much better. I'll take a great 30 hour story with achievements/trophies then playing the same game month after month on the same maps while having to endure 14 year old racist idiots.



Slimebeast said:
dahuman said:
Slimebeast said:
tube82 said:

about games giving too much value nowadays: i disagree. DLC is usually a joke: 1-5 hours additional gametime doesn't mean anything in the long run... in fact, those usually are the most expensive hours per dollar/euro of the games.

my average time per game used to be WAY higher in the 90s or early 00s than it is now. i played games like Grand Prix 2, The Settlers 2, Starcraft, Diablo 2, Football Managers, Dungeon Keeper etc. for YEARS. If anything, these new cinematic games lack the replay value of the classics and are played a lot less by me. The other difference between those classics and games nowadays is that there have not been sequels every single year, making last years game obsolete. of course there have always been sequels, but nowadays every big IP releases at least one title per year. i am not surprised fewer players are buying them with each year. actually it surprises me that so many are still buying them each year.. and day 1 when the price is very high, too.

Then obviously you aren't the type of gamer that the publishers have a problem with. You pay your $60 for a cinematic game, mostly for the single player and that's it, that's all fine.

But this is about the people who put hundreds of hours into one single game due to the addictive online. Should these gamers also get away with just paying $60 for a game that gives them ten or twenty times more hours of entertainment than the single player guy gets? All resulting in a big segment of the consumer market buying only one or two games per year because they simply don't need more. That's the question.

And the pricing of a 2-3 hour DLC is actually an effort by the publishers to try to reflect the "real" value measured in hours. It's their way of trying to increase revenue and to address this "problem" of the gamer market (on average) getting too much value for their buck nowadays.


so on top of Live Gold, you'd be willing to pay money on top of that to play games online on your 360? being grabbed by the balls for no reason much? I dare they even try it.

don't know how exactly they would design the payment models, but yes, since the money for XBL Gold goes into Microsoft's pockets and not to publishers.

$60 for Xbox Live ain't that much though. It's no more than one new game.

But if they gonna charge more for online, obviously they have the charge us PC guys too.


they'd prolly end up making less money than they do now if they do that on PC, but console supporters love being sheeps as far as I can tell.



i would stop playing games online if this were to happen



-Newcloud- said:

i would stop playing games online if this were to happen


I don't think i'll stop playing games, just the ones that have multiplayer.



SOLIDSNAKE08 said:

its been confirmed today that GT5 has a weather system, track editor and go karts! seriously i think this is going to be the best selling in the series even beating GT3 sales of 14 million plus!

Patch is so dumb i doubt most WOW addicts who pay Blizzard to play go out and buy new games all the time, Activision-Blizzard makes 1.5 billion a year on WOW subscriptions, if WOW was free there would be 1.5 billion more $ in consumers hands to spend on new games



I Hate the fact that all these pillows are contaminated by retard!!