Polite & Friendly's

in

Pay to PLay

MisterMaddTue Jul 20, 2010 6:34 pm

To judge someone is to form an opinion towards that person.

Someone stating that he/she would not purchase the game on the sole principle that any cost not pertaining to the original purchase of the game would be involved, for example the monthly service fee, is being hypocritical since he/she already pays a monthly fee for internet access to play the game.

Being hypocritical or an oxymoron whatever word you choose, my statement does not form an opinion towards you. It simply puts the above actions into context if a monthly service fee was implemented.

Take from it what you will, however I know my statement is not judging you or any other pc gamer.
Quote Post

DFMhellboyTue Jul 20, 2010 7:23 pm

Quote Post

RaptorWed Jul 21, 2010 1:27 am

WannaB wrote:

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! )





WoW, Is quite fun, the graphics, are good, its not all about graphics, and when your sub is done, you can pay again, your characters dont get deleted, you loose nothing. OR, you can  go download a private server, and go own the entire realm with your sexy looking gear, and kill all the bosses, for free, with a other people. Lawl... It only gets boring when you have the highest gearscore, done ALL the raids/instances. I used to play Diablo when I was around the age of 6. It was fun, then got boring, because the gameplay itself isnt that fun, not much going on.
(:
Quote Post

CapZacWed Jul 21, 2010 2:26 pm

MisterMadd wrote:

As far as I know once a game is put onto the market then the developer doesn't have to do anything to fix the game.  Why should they, their not making money off it.



Sure they do. You paid a price for the game with the expectation that it would play according to the manufacturers intent. When you encounter bugs (symptoms preventing you from experiencing the gameplay as advertised by the manufacturer) they have the responsibility to correct those errors. This is no different than when you buy a car/truck; you pay the manufacturer for certain make/model/features, and if those features are missing and/or don't work, are you expected to pay the manufacturer to correct their design intent? I think not! This is warranty in the automotive world and customer service in the gaming world. Think about it, if EA/DICE release a game with bugs/glitches/broken features contrary to design intent (what you paid for), and refuse to correct their mistakes (w/o payment), are you going to buy their next product? This would be short term thinking, give me your money now, damn the future.

When I worked at GM, it was well known inside the rank and file to not buy a GM product in the first year. In an effort to expedite the vehicle to market to gain market share, final design/validation fixes were 'shelved' with the intent to make 'running changes' once the vehicle hit production (sound familiar). And we did just that. This was called 'continous improvement' engineering changes, essentially design tweaks/enhancements to make/keep the vehicle reliable. So, like a game, this would go on for the life cycle of the product, without the customer paying a monthly fee for 'continous improvement'. This is long term thinking, providing positive customer experience to retain, and capture future business.

As far as the reality of monthly fees, like others have said, all publishers would have to be onboard at the same time, otherwise would serve to alienate themselves.
Quote Post

AuToThu Nov 04, 2010 2:28 pm

obviously an unpopular viewpoint.

no one wants to be charged more after they've paid $60 for a game....

usage of a 1980's phil donahue liberal catchprase "who are you to judge (insert whatever here)" was priceless, though.
Quote Post Goto page Previous123

Forums ©