By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Pather - "Subscription fee, F2P & microtransaction is going to happen"

Pyro as Bill on 14 February 2010
Slimebeast said:
Mr Khan said:
Slimebeast said:
It's the piracy and used game sales that has caused this DLC and nickel-n-diming with microtransactions and whatnot. All these awkward and artificial business models.

The only model I support is a platform without piracy like the PS3, where you only release games $60 that are not just digital download but also available with a hard-box at retail. Only in rare cases should they make DLC to big games (small arcade games are different, I don't mind them being DLC).

Xbox should try to make a console next gen that can't be pirated.

I also hate the model where it starts with a free game and then you upgrade or get additional content through micro-transactions.

I also suppert measures to stop sales of used games.

The only way they can stop sales of used games, outside of some really shady practices of intimidation against retailers, would be more pointless DLC, codes embedded with the games

 

Publishers and developers just have to man up and make games that are worth buying new and keeping, or stop complaining.

I think codes are cool. That could stop used game sales.

You are thinking wrong when you say they should make games with even more longevity. They do that already but the problem with those games is that players keep playing them instead of buying new games.

Basically it's unreasonable of consumers to demand games for only $60 that gives them several hundreds of hours without paying any extra.

Bobby Kotick would be proud.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Around the Network
nordlead on 14 February 2010
MontanaHatchet said:
It seems to me that developers want consoles to be like the PC; albeit, without the piracy.

I hope their dreams are crushed.

so you support piracy??

 




If you drop a PS3 right on top of a Wii, it would definitely defeat it. Not so sure about the Xbox360. - mancandy
In the past we played games. In the future we watch games. - Forest-Spirit
11/03/09 Desposit: Mod Bribery (RolStoppable)  vg$ 500.00
06/03/09 Purchase: Moderator Privilege  vg$ -50,000.00

Nordlead Jr. Photo/Video Gallery!!! (Video Added 4/19/10)

NiKKoM on 14 February 2010

Well I kinda starting to like it..
The episodic content for Monkey Island gives me cheap short games and I can quit whenever I want...
On the iPhone it really a mess.. some games come with a good base game for a good price and crappy dlc while others have a bad base game and awesome DLC.. Namco screwed it up with Ridge Racer and Ace Combat.. the base games have to little content but the DLC is good.. While Capcom has a good game whit Ghouls and Goblins while its DLC is crap.. Paying for extra lives and cheats..
a better balance is needed but the basic idea of a good cheaper base game and expanding it with DLC is something that I like..



 

Face the future.. Gamecenter ID: nikkom_nl (oh no he didn't!!) 

Slimebeast on 14 February 2010
RolStoppable said:
Slimebeast said:
Mr Khan said:

The only way they can stop sales of used games, outside of some really shady practices of intimidation against retailers, would be more pointless DLC, codes embedded with the games

 

Publishers and developers just have to man up and make games that are worth buying new and keeping, or stop complaining.

I think codes are cool. That could stop used game sales.

You are thinking wrong when you say they should make games with even more longevity. They do that already but the problem with those games is that players keep playing them instead of buying new games.

Basically it's unreasonable of consumers to demand games for only $60 that gives them several hundreds of hours without paying any extra.

Did you just say that consumers are wrong in demanding games that are worth keeping? Bad dog!

Mr Khan is right. The main problem of developers and publishers is that they are making games that are played through once and sold back to the stores within a few days. That's because most games are cinematic and thus are very similar to movies when it comes to consuming habits. Most people watch a movie only one time, either in the cinema or they rent it once it's out on DVD or Blu-Ray. Consumers don't see much of a point in owning a product that they'll never use again.

Logically the solution would be to make games that are worth keeping, but there's this misbelief in the video game industry that a game's life should be extented through online features (multiplayer, DLC). Local multiplayer trumps all of that easily, but it gets more and more ignored in industry games. I think they believe that they can sell more games if each player has to own his own copy of the game, but that's wrong. Local multiplayer exposes more people to the fun that can be had and that may spawn additional sales (this works wonders on the Wii by the way).

There's also no problem with people keeping to play a game for hundred or more hours. They will still buy new games while keeping their old ones. Ultimately it's up to developers and publishers to provide content that is worth paying for.

Well, a single player game with no replay value, usually cinematic games like u said, that's on the other extreme on the spectrum where the dev doesn't offer full value for those $60.

What I'm saying is that the business model should be designed so that it reflects value better. It's unreasonable that the typical 8 hour single player game and the 200 hour game both cost $60.



woopah on 14 February 2010
ramses01 said:
woopah said:
what the hell? the thread title should clearly be about Rubin's crazy ideas rather than a random Pachter quote.

this was one weird episode. after loving Rubin in episode 1 i heartedly disagreed with him in episode 2

Shane, who i hardly ever like, seemed to be able to read my mind and say exactly what i wnated to say.


Also i wanna say that i now officially love michael Pachter, he is a frikiin legend


Rubin: 'one parent has the money to sen their kid to soccer camp and you dont, is that fair? no

Pachter:'is it fair that i have my job when everyone watching knows more about the industry than I do? no!'


best quote of the entire thing
You do realize that Rubin had the best ideas of bunch right?

how were his ideas the best?  

 

people should be rewarded for putting time into the game not for having more money. the COD players would hate it. The enjoyment from getting the prestieige emblem is that you can show how good you are at the game and how dedicated you are. how would those players feel i suddenly people didnt have to put in all that work, they could just pay money.

 

systems like the one used in farmville only work when the means to the coal is boring. people play farmville to get the satisfaction of being successful, they do not play because they enjoy clicking things. same in WoW, getting gold is boring which is why  people are willing to pay to skip it. 

 

Whats the point in CoD.  in WoW paying money gives you better equipment and allows you to do more quests and instances. in CoD, paying to get to pretiegie level doesnt give you any thing new, your're still playing the same same maps but now you have an emblem. Also how would this work on single player games?

 

 

please explain why you think his ideas are the best and who they asre the best for



 nintendo fanboy, but the good kind

proud soldier of nintopia

 

Around the Network
RVDondaPC on 14 February 2010
Gearbox said:
subscription - biggest scam ever...
microtransactions - even bigger because the content is alreayd in a game u paid for but u still have to pay to use it..

f2p ftw!

You might as well argue that they should only charge you 75 cents for a video game because that's how much it costs to manufacture the disc. I mean all the content should be free right? Get out of here. 

Micro transactions is not a scam. It offers you the bulk of the game for free or a smaller price and if you really enjoy the game and want to purchase features then you have to pay for them and if you don't then you can keep playing the game without them. It's a standard pricing strategy used in games already and in other industries. If you think it's a scam or think it's just nickel and diming then you haven't a clue. 

If they tried to keep the micro transactions a secret and you only find out after you bought the game then I understand but that's not the case. 



Slimebeast on 14 February 2010
RolStoppable said:
Slimebeast said:
RolStoppable said:

Did you just say that consumers are wrong in demanding games that are worth keeping? Bad dog!

Mr Khan is right. The main problem of developers and publishers is that they are making games that are played through once and sold back to the stores within a few days. That's because most games are cinematic and thus are very similar to movies when it comes to consuming habits. Most people watch a movie only one time, either in the cinema or they rent it once it's out on DVD or Blu-Ray. Consumers don't see much of a point in owning a product that they'll never use again.

Logically the solution would be to make games that are worth keeping, but there's this misbelief in the video game industry that a game's life should be extented through online features (multiplayer, DLC). Local multiplayer trumps all of that easily, but it gets more and more ignored in industry games. I think they believe that they can sell more games if each player has to own his own copy of the game, but that's wrong. Local multiplayer exposes more people to the fun that can be had and that may spawn additional sales (this works wonders on the Wii by the way).

There's also no problem with people keeping to play a game for hundred or more hours. They will still buy new games while keeping their old ones. Ultimately it's up to developers and publishers to provide content that is worth paying for.

Well, a single player game with no replay value, usually cinematic games like u said, that's on the other extreme on the spectrum where the dev doesn't offer full value for those $60.

What I'm saying is that the business model should be designed so that it reflects value better. It's unreasonable that the typical 8 hour single player game and the 200 hour game both cost $60.

Which would mean that most games are too expensive today, even though they cost multiple times more to make than in the past. The current business model definitely is broken and the measures that companies are trying to take aren't going to improve the situation for them.

Sometimes I get the impression that these publishers think that people absolutely need them, as if people couldn't live without video games. Why else would they show such anti-consumer behavior?

What do u mean anti-consumer behaviour? The consumer is always unhappy, always whine and bitch. Because people are selfish and their mindset is
"I'm not giving them even one inch, I'll always demand cheaper even though gaming is my life and I could spend so much more, but they don't have to know that lol".



Tanstalas on 14 February 2010
Gearbox said:
subscription - biggest scam ever...
microtransactions - even bigger because the content is alreayd in a game u paid for but u still have to pay to use it..

f2p ftw!

Personally, I don't think subscriptions are a scam, at $15 a month typically that is pretty cheap.

Consider this:
Game costs $60
FPS - Around 15 hours playtime = $4 per hour of play
RPG - Say 60 hours - $1 per hour of playtime

So basically, if you play 15 hours of say (WoW) a month, you are getting your money worth.  And when I played WoW I did 15 hours easy in a week, so I was paying about $0.25 an hour :)  

Wanna talk scams?  Try going to an Arcade and popping in $1-$2 for 5 min of playtime :P 



Unicorns ARE real - They are just fat, grey and called Rhinos

jammy2211 on 14 February 2010

It's inevitably going to be the future of games and is already happening. The MW2 Rubin use's is already present in FIFA 10 with buying better stats, I'd assume is in other EA Sports titles and the pre-order bonus for Blurr is the same sort of thing. Companies are still figuring it all out, as it's a completely new avenue of money making avaliable to them, but come next-gen it'll become much more standard.

They seemed to miss the other big money spinner though, which is dynamic in-game advertising. I think the much more likely model will be something like free to play, but you get adverts thrown at you in loading screens and such like - however you can either subscribe to rid ads and get extra content of 'buy' some sort of DLC to get rid of ads and get new content.

I'm iffy on whether it'll be a good thing or not, the £7 or whatever some of my mates pay per month for WoW may sound expensive but for the time they get out of it it's a bargain, effectively paying what they would at the cinema for 50x the amount of 'entertainment'. It's only a matter of time until longer games cost more - in some shape or form. It makes sense really though, afterall why would a game you play for 5 hours cost the same as something you do for 100?



Slimebeast on 14 February 2010
RolStoppable said:
Slimebeast said:
RolStoppable said:

Which would mean that most games are too expensive today, even though they cost multiple times more to make than in the past. The current business model definitely is broken and the measures that companies are trying to take aren't going to improve the situation for them.

Sometimes I get the impression that these publishers think that people absolutely need them, as if people couldn't live without video games. Why else would they show such anti-consumer behavior?

What do u mean anti-consumer behaviour? The consumer is always unhappy, always whine and bitch. Because people are selfish and their mindset is
"I'm not giving them even one inch, I'll always demand cheaper even though gaming is my life and I could spend so much more, but they don't have to know that lol".

There's the DRM stuff they put in PC games that hurts the gamers who actually buy the game more than the pirates. Companies are complaining about the used games market instead of realizing that it's their fault that people sell their games back so quickly. What used to be complete games in the past are now sold in pieces in form of DLC that comes out in the month of the game's release. Sometimes the content is actually already on the disc, but has to be unlocked by paying an additional fee. Many companies have no intention to make games that people want to keep, instead they want to squeeze as much money out of consumers as possible, as soon as possible.

I disagree on the notion that the consumer is always unhappy. If that were true, nobody would recommend games to other people.

Well, you have some valid points but you also have a few bad points lol.