"Analyst - Activision must begin multiplayer fees. Publishers must find a way to profit off online multiplayer, says Pachter."
So, what you gonna do if this comes into fruition?
Link
This has been talked about for years. The problem for the game companies is they all must do it or no one can. If just one company dose it people will by the other companies games. So until they all team up they and do this together which would be a legal issue I think it will be some times before this happens.
GOA.Luke*BK*
Honestly with as many hardcore COD fans there are out there if activision does it, it wont matter much; People are just willing to pay to get something.
@ Luke: I believe you and feel better.
well i will never pay a subscription to play a computer game. so if this does happen i will be playing single player games from that point onwards.
they cost enough as it is, they put all this unnecessary anti- piracy stuff on them like securom, online activation, having to be constantly connected etc etc and some one cracks it with in an hour of release or even before. some games even say you need the disk in to play but if that disk then become unreadable from over user or cracks from the heat of the drive, they will not replace it.
more and more games are also coming out with DLC which you have to pay for. now in some cases i think this is ok considering the price has to be right but in others it think it is wrong like when they have basically ripped it form another game or previous series ect.
anyway that's my rant about this particular issue
I know alot of gaming companies want to do the same thing WOW does. But I think to myself that we(BK) pay for dedicated servers, we pay for the game itself and we pay for expansion packs. Honestly, what else is there to pay for? The only way they do this is if all the gaming companies do this at the same time and I believe that would kill the online gaming community. On the other hand, if that did happen, Im sure the gaming community would rebel by finding a way to create its own dedicated servers.
My two cents.
Its kinda stupid.. Im not going to pay from anything but the game.
In true when u think about it, its waste of money all of it.
When you buy the game u waste your money anyway. Thats the true.
Thats all i say.
Well idk if i would call it "wasting" lol but its definitely something you could live without ;P Hmm but without games i wouldn't have any hobbies.... i guess i could pick up the exciting world of stamp collection! :D
i wouldn't last long
id be like one of those stock market guys " SELL SELL SELL! "
When you go on vacation you spend money along the way. Games and television are a cheap and quick vacation from reality. We already pay a recurring fee for these types of vacations, each month a bill arrives for the cable and internet. Adding a monthly fee onto a game that we play on a regular basis would be more in the norm with our daily lives.
MisterMadd wrote:
Adding a monthly fee onto a game that we play on a regular basis would be more in the norm with our daily lives.
The Obama administration loves people like you...
lol xD
Quote:
open quote
The Obama administration loves people like you...
so true so true ^_^
Well said T.
Quote:
open quote
Following the recent NPD sales report, which revealed software sales plummeting 15% for the month of June, Wedbush Morgan Securities analyst Michael Pachter tried to figure out exactly what the heck has been going on. June marks the fourth negative month of decline this year, but why?
Pachter said part of the problem stems from Nintendo now bundling two games in with the Wii, and many consumers buying clearance software with their new, cheaper Xbox 360s. The bigger issue, however, is the rise of online multiplayer gaming, which obviously gives any game more replay value, which in turn means that those players are less inclined to go out and buy new software.
"...we think that the overall decline was due to a very large number of people playing multiplayer online games for free on PlayStation Network, and for an annual fee with unlimited game play on Xbox Live," Pachter noted. "We estimate that a total of 12 million consumers are playing Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 for an average of 10 hours per week on the two platforms’ respective networks, and the continued enjoyment of this game (along with an estimated 6 million Halo online players, 3 million EA Sports players, and 5 million players playing other games, such as Battlefield, Red Dead Redemption, Left 4 Dead and Grand Theft Auto) has sucked the available time away from what otherwise would be spent playing newly purchased games."
He continued, "We see this as a continuing problem, and think that unless and until the publishers come up with a business model that appropriately captures the value created by the multiplayer experience, we are destined to see a migration of game playing away from packaged goods purchases and toward multiplayer online. While the shift has been great for consumers, who are enjoying an unprecedented, and largely free, game experience, it has been devastating for publishers and shareholders, who are seeing sales and profits decline."
Ultimately, Pachter says Activision will have to lead by example and push the industry and its online games in the paid direction. Gamers will not like it one bit, but if the experience is as compelling as Modern Warfare 2, then gamers will probably pay. Pachter's advice is no doubt music to Bobby Kotick's ears, who's already said that he'd like to turn the entire Call of Duty business into a subscription.
"We think that it is incumbent upon Activision, with the most popular multiplayer game, to take the first step to address monetization of multiplayer. It is too early to tell whether that will be a monthly subscription, tournament entry fees, microtransaction fees, or a combination of all three, but we expect to see the company take some action by year-end, when Call of Duty Black Ops launches," Pachter commented.
"The company has the greatest experience of the Western publishers with multiplayer subscriptions, given its huge success with World of Warcraft, and we expect Activision to apply a WoW-type model to its Call of Duty franchise. It is likely that Activision will ease the pain of consumers, and will continue to offer some form of free multiplayer, at least for a while, but we believe it is imperative that the company begin to capture some value from the huge number of hours spent – 1.75 billion hours on Xbox Live alone through mid-April, and we estimate that this figure is approaching 4 billion hours combined through today on Xbox Live and PSN. We are quick to point out that the average single player game has an expected play time of under 30 hours, suggesting that a staggering 133 million units of equivalent game play have been spent (so far) playing Call of Duty online, with Activision only seeing revenues from the original 20 million units sold, plus an estimated 8 million map packs sold."
That is directly from an analyst from activision;
Thats just SAD; The MAIN reason people arent buying games is there is something happening right now... its called a global recession... geez to be an analyst and to completely over look something as simple as that is just ... wow.
The reason people pay to play WOW is just .. beyond my comprehension. The game itself isn't all that grand and neither are the graphics? As a Diablo fan since the original Diablo if they decide to charge like they do for WOW iv already decided im just not going to buy the game. The main reason i liked to play diablo is once a buddy bought it for 20 bucks we could play the game for hours and never get bored doing random things together. If i had to worry about " oh geez my subscription is about to run out! " it would make the game a lot more boring to me. Knowing that once it did run out all the time you put into the character would be wasted.
As for them charging consoles to play the multiplayer i could care less. I dont own one and never plan to own one. As a PC gamer we have to buy or rather rent our servers from ONLY the hosts they let us buy from... ( more money.. ) then we have to buy the game ( more money... ) then 90% of the time the game ends up being a console port that is horrifically optimized for the PC so we end up having to update our systems to put up with the burden of the game... ( EVEN MORE money.... ) Of all the processes ive described they make money off of every one of them.
By making us use there server hosts ( they sell the companies the server files completely overpriced ) thus we pick the tab up for that money by renting the servers; Buying the game is pretty explanatory. By making us update our rigs is actually saving them money so in return there actually making money. Instead of spending money ( more developer time ) to make the game run a lot better they simply push the game out and hope to god the patches can make it run at least decent.
All i can say is if they decide to not charge us a monthly fee but a single " multiplayer " fee; Its only going to multiply itself in the future; We gotta stop this now or its gonna escalate to "per minute" charging lol ^_^ ( Better pull out those check books! )
Quote:
open quote
The Obama administration loves people like you...
1) Who are you to judge me.
2) Who are you to say who the Obama administration loves or doesn't love.
I was simply stating that the ppl who said they would be against monthly fees and wouldn't buy the game are being hypocritical. As I am pretty sure we all pay monthly fees to have the internet. No internet no online gaming community.
We buy a game and expect for it to be patched and new content added. This is a service and where else can a service in the entertainment industry be purchased without a recurring fee.
Monthly service fees are the norm and In the end it is only a matter of time. It could happen tomorrow or it could be years from now.
Oh and for your info I'm not a lefty...