Um . . . . . . am I missing something?
The games that people are playing for hundreds of hours online ARE the ones that have sold a lot and made a ton of money. The ones that are hurting for sales are the ones that don't have a large multiplayer community or are more focused on the single player experience.
So how will charging for these big multiplayer games solve . . . well, anything?
andddd....this is why i don't support Activision.
Follow Me: twitter.com/alkamiststar
Watch Me: youtube.com/alkamiststar
Play Along: XBL & SEN : AlkamistStar
I was just going through my twitter and David Jaffe said something with regards to this issue.
He said that he would be fine with Pay to Play Online Games for let's say $15 a Month on the condition that the publishers sell the actual game for $20 instead of $60
I don't think it's a bad idea but I would still not pay to play COD Games online....
The funny thing is that whoever jumps first in this battle will lose.
For example, if Activision suddenly "tolls" its servers, everyone will shift to an EA game -- and EA will note that it is free. (EA does have a one-time charge for an on-line passport for second-owners, but most people actually understand that).
The sales of the Activision game would tank - and it would have a difficult time making as much money under its new model as under its old one.
New MMOs can charge because they almost all do so -- and the ones that don't are often riddled with bugs and worse or are just plain bad or unfair.
But unless all publishers acted together -- which would be illegal under anti-trust statues in most nations -- unilateral action in this direction is destined to failure.
Mike from Morgantown
 I am Mario.I like to jump around, and would lead a fairly serene and aimless existence if it weren't for my friends always getting into trouble. I love to help out, even when it puts me at risk. I seem to make friends with people who just can't stay out of trouble. Wii Friend Code: 1624 6601 1126 1492 NNID: Mike_INTV |
| mike_intellivision said: The funny thing is that whoever jumps first in this battle will lose. For example, if Activision suddenly "tolls" its servers, everyone will shift to an EA game -- and EA will note that it is free. (EA does have a one-time charge for an on-line passport for second-owners, but most people actually understand that). The sales of the Activision game would tank - and it would have a difficult time making as much money under its new model as under its old one. New MMOs can charge because they almost all do so -- and the ones that don't are often riddled with bugs and worse or are just plain bad or unfair. But unless all publishers acted together -- which would be illegal under anti-trust statues in most nations -- unilateral action in this direction is destined to failure.
Mike from Morgantown |
I never thought of that, but I think that you are completely right.
The 1st company to do so would be committing a sort of commercial suicide
Patcher.... SHUT YOUR FUCKING MOUTH! I'M SICK OF PAYING FOR SHIT FOR GAMES! DLC IS ALREADY REDICULOUS!!! $60 should pay for EVERYTHING IN A FUCKING GAME. :(
I'm not really a chick I'm a dude... I just clicked random 5#17 on the sign-up page and now I can't change it back... -_-
OFFICIAL
1st-place Runner up of the VgChartz MadWorld Contest!!! w00t w00t!!!
no they dont they already do games are $60 from $50 from last gen and most all gmes now release DLC i would never pay for a online fee for any game
Play Me
The moment I have to pay to play online (and not for DLC) is the moment I go all Valve.
I wouldn't be surprise at all if publisher do charge for online pay, the gaming industry got to big and now everyone wants a piece of the pie.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
