PDA

View Full Version : How much would you PAY TO PLAY?



zeeEVIL1
07-16-2010, 03:06 PM
Well it seems the rumors from activision are working on becoming reality.
According to this article, (http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/110/1106732p1.html) Because players are spending so much time on a few good games and not spending money on new games, they need to pull more money out of your pockets.

Now me personaly? I think they should lower the price of retail games by about $20 It might cut into profits, or it may help them sell more games in the long run.

what do you think?

pugjared
07-16-2010, 03:31 PM
I think a $20 price cut may be too much for them to recover that profit from long term sales. Sure, as a reliable customer to the game industry you would turn around and spend that savings within their market, but I do not see that being a reliable action from a large portion of their consumers. Their is a point of diminishing returns on prices that are both too high or too low, and it always seems to be a tightrope walk figuring out what those are.

Usually the price cut on good games come from the collectors and hits editions that are re-released later on in the games life. With the prevalence of online gamers that own consoles with larger hard drives, the industry may want to more aggressively release older games as DLC at good prices. This would allow a wide distribution of games without having to sell physical copies which helps maintain a good profit margin. The used game market also provides a price cut on a lot of games. The problem that the industry has with the used market is that they do not see any profit from that area, which is another reason I think that more games should be released as DLC.

Back on topic. I am not opposed to the current price point of new games. In the technology market, as in many other markets, it is on the shoulders of early adopters to pay a heftier price. Of course I do not want to pay more for my new games, but the game companies will try to set the best possible price for themselves. If enough people are displeased with a price hike, and they are willing to show it by not purchasing a product, the companies would be forced to lower their prices. History has shown that a lot of gamers are willing to satisfy their immediate urges over being patient and sensible, me included. I don't think it is on the industry's shoulders to lower their prices just to be nice to me. I need to vote with my money, not my mouth.

When it comes to monthly online fees, I again will vote with my money. I would not pay a monthly fee to play MW2 online, even though I enjoy playing online quite a bit. That type of game is not worth it to me. I have supported Activision by buying their map packs and I feel that is enough. I think many people would agree, but again it comes down to consumers voting with their money.

weaselboy
07-16-2010, 04:23 PM
There are a few possible solutions here: sure, make money off of the multiplayer. But then stop forcing studios to churn out some over-hyped pile of **** every year. One of the reasons I always buy Blizzard games is because I never have to sit back and say, "Well, ****, I only have $60 so spend, which Blizzard game will I get this month?" Guild Wars has shown that a combination of well-timed releases and micro-transactions can be a successful model. This is a win-win scenario. Activision (and other publishers,) no longer have to front as much money as quickly, but that is compensated by the fewer games being released bringing in more money. This also means it is not a discouragement for those of us who only casually play multiplayer, as we won't then have to be snared into monthly fees (and, as pugjared put it, vote with my money and not give any money to them at all.)

On a slightly different topic, maybe they should start making single-player experiences worth a damn. I'm not advocating that SP is better than MP. Just that it's different, and it seems certain types of games are quickly drifting away from that. The article points out something very important: the average SP experience right now can easily be completed in a week by someone holding a full-time job. Throw in good multiplayer, and of course people are going to be playing the MP long after the SP loses its luster. The amount of money being poured into games that have a lackluster SP or MP could be saved by just not doing it, and instead spending time making the important component of the game that better polished. Modern Warfare 2 could have not had the SP, and nothing would have been lost in that one. WoW does not have a SP component, and they've got... how many millions of people paying $15/mo? Torchlight does not have a MP component, and it just sold 500,000 units.

Anyway, I'm ranting and probably dangerously close to rambling because I'm bored. One final note I'd like to mention:

"We've heard that 60 per cent of [Microsoft's] subscribers are principally on Live because of Call of Duty," said Kotick. "We don't really participate financially in that income stream. We would really like to be able to provide much more value to those millions of players playing on Live, but it's not our network."

Wasn't that the point of IW.Net? To get Activision more involved with the "value" of the experience? Do I even really need to go beyond this?

Brimtown
07-16-2010, 04:42 PM
Not sure how this would work, logistically. I can't imagine too many gamers who would be willing to fork over a separate subscription fee for each and every multiplayer game they buy. Especially those of us who are already forking over money to play on Xbox Live.

I've already pretty much stopped playing multiplayer games. Stuff like this would really make me think twice about getting back into multiplayer games, and I can imagine it would actually drive a lot of casual gamers like myself away from gaming.

Angelusjc
07-16-2010, 05:29 PM
The thing about subscription fees for games; people willingly pay subscription fees for MMOs because the typical MMO has several hundred if not several thousand hours worth of content to explore in addition to the social factor which generally makes it worth it in people's eyes.

According to that article, the typical MW2 player plays multi for only 10 hours a week and all you get is a dozen areas (maps) and except for maybe one or two friends (depending on if you're in a gaming clan) virtually everyone you meet is an opponent or one time ally. In contrast, a typical MMO player would probably put in 20-30 hours in a week due to time it takes to dungeon crawl, raid, or socialize in game and over the course of time make dozens of in game friends that they would feel loyal to and wish to keep playing with; all general reasons why people willingly pay subscription fees to play them. For MW to even justify a subscription fee, they'd have to make it attractive enough so that people feel like they're getting hours and hours of entertainment out of it that they wouldn't get otherwise.

Personally though, if I were them I'd go a somewhat more reasonable route and let multiplayer be free up to a point like say level 25 and then charge a small fee to unlock the rest of the levels and items that would come with them. It wouldn't be as bad as charging for full multi but it wouldnt be considered an outrageous ripoff.

mcmax3000
07-16-2010, 05:39 PM
I can see it working if they make it a service. Things such as:

a) Free, consistent DLC for subscribers. Add new maps/weapons/skins etc regularly.

b) Add dedicated servers for better performance.

Etc.

Also, making it one subscription for all CoD titles would definitely help as well.

But paying per title for the same thing we've already got? Nah. Not worth it.

Ninja Kn1ght
07-16-2010, 05:53 PM
I will pay $0

weaselboy
07-16-2010, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by Angelusjc:
The thing about subscription fees for games; people willingly pay subscription fees for MMOs because the typical MMO has several hundred if not several thousand hours worth of content to explore in addition to the social factor which generally makes it worth it in people's eyes.

According to that article, the typical MW2 player plays multi for only 10 hours a week and all you get is a dozen areas (maps) and except for maybe one or two friends (depending on if you're in a gaming clan) virtually everyone you meet is an opponent or one time ally. In contrast, a typical MMO player would probably put in 20-30 hours in a week due to time it takes to dungeon crawl, raid, or socialize in game and over the course of time make dozens of in game friends that they would feel loyal to and wish to keep playing with; all general reasons why people willingly pay subscription fees to play them. For MW to even justify a subscription fee, they'd have to make it attractive enough so that people feel like they're getting hours and hours of entertainment out of it that they wouldn't get otherwise.

Personally though, if I were them I'd go a somewhat more reasonable route and let multiplayer be free up to a point like say level 25 and then charge a small fee to unlock the rest of the levels and items that would come with them. It wouldn't be as bad as charging for full multi but it wouldnt be considered an outrageous ripoff.

That's pretty much exactly where I was going with the subscription fee vs. micro-transaction model. If companies that only half-assed a single player dropped that in favor of more robust multiplayer, they could get away with charging a monthly fee in some instances. MW2 specifically? Probably not. But it is a prime market for micro-transactions. Want a custom logo on your uniform (maybe a guild logo?) $2.00. Want to get a custom gun? $5.00. Etc.

Also along with what Max said: I read another article that quoted Kotick as being willing to support PCs if manufacturers like Dell and HP would make PCs specifically geared towards games (something I've been advocating for years.) If they did that, and ATVI made a big push back towards PC, I could really see them throwing up a competitor to Steam and charging for it in return for free updates content on a certain number of games.

Although when you say dedicated servers, do you mean adding in the functionality for it? Or do you mean that ATVI would host a dedicated server for you for a fee (because there are already companies that do that, and ATVI would be stupid to NOT get in on that.)

mcmax3000
07-16-2010, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by weaselboy:
Although when you say dedicated servers, do you mean adding in the functionality for it? Or do you mean that ATVI would host a dedicated server for you for a fee (because there are already companies that do that, and ATVI would be stupid to NOT get in on that.)

I mean that they host servers for people to play on instead of doing P2P gaming. The Battlefield games do it.

shrubbinator
07-16-2010, 07:03 PM
People wonder why no MMOs can kill off WoW. Thats generally because people would rather spend $30(AUD) on 2 months of WoW then any other MMO. If you start doing that with FPS - thats just asking to doom the games industry. Games (in publishers perspective) already have a 90% fail rate..... for the poor developers making the game, that doesn't need to be any higher :/ . Also, unlike FPS, generally in MMOs people have more of a connection to their characters, enjoy the exploration aspects etc - you possibly couldn't do that with an FPS since sure the compeditive aspects are addictive, but if you look at the structure of the gameplay and reward systems.... probably not.

(Game Theory) Now, if one brand (like Call of Duty) goes to subscription, and no one follows, they're going to loose a ****tone of money, it will also wreck their brand image. If say CoD does it and everyone else thinks its a good idea.... the games industry is pretty much doomed and I can see game piracy probably going up. If no one does it... that would be nice. lol, I like hte fact that there are pleanty of decent multiplayer FPS to choose from (MW:PC, MW2, Halo, TF2, BFBC2, BF2, L4D etc). Sure many of them fail (like fear, bioshock etc) because the games that are more devoted to online take their place....but its at least nice to have a choice...

As for micro transitions thats definatly a posibility to see in the future, ESPECIALLY if there is a type of currancy, ie, lets say you can now buy activision points which lets you unlock either stuff from modern warefare or GT, people would buy into that I think, the same way that people are doing that with DLC which is sad (Since half of the DLC stuff SHOULD have already been included into the game *RAGE*)

Ninja Kn1ght
07-16-2010, 07:21 PM
Activision don't seem to worry too much about wrecking their brand image.

weaselboy
07-16-2010, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by shrubbinator:
People wonder why no MMOs can kill off WoW. Thats generally because people would rather spend $30(AUD) on 2 months of WoW then any other MMO. If you start doing that with FPS - thats just asking to doom the games industry. Games (in publishers perspective) already have a 90% fail rate..... for the poor developers making the game, that doesn't need to be any higher :/ . Also, unlike FPS, generally in MMOs people have more of a connection to their characters, enjoy the exploration aspects etc - you possibly couldn't do that with an FPS since sure the compeditive aspects are addictive, but if you look at the structure of the gameplay and reward systems.... probably not.

I will only respond to this part, because if I start replying to the game theory part I will be here for the next hour typing (I love game theory and you would certainly see me nerdgasm at some point through the words I type.)

I disagree on the grounds that the current model most FPS's follow would preclude them from a monthly fee. However, nothing is restricting an FPS from being an MMO. Huxley (if it ever ****ing gets released,) could prove the validity of having a pay-to-play FPS. Even if it never gets released, the model certainly can't be discredited simply because it hasn't (to my knowledge,) been done before. All a company needs to do is present an experience that continues to offer enjoyment and new content to explore.

And on that note, I'm about ready to get myself on game theory, so I'll stop here.

mcmax3000
07-16-2010, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by Ninja_Kn1ght:
Activision don't seem to worry too much about wrecking their brand image.

Pretty soon they will have to care when their brands start selling like ****. It's already starting to happen to Guitar Hero and I think it's just a matter of time for Call of Duty.

shrubbinator
07-16-2010, 09:21 PM
Heh, I only mentioned it cause we did a case EXACTLY like that in Economics. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

We already know that the head of activision is apparently a ***** (http://kotaku.com/5586641/tim-schafer-calls-activision-boss-a-total-*****).

As for the FPS starting to behave like MMOs, there are definatly some that are going to get released, APB(All Points Bullitin) is looking very much like that, as with Brink. Borderlands and TF2 have some elements of MMO gameplay (Tf2 has grinding, close connection and personification of characters (ie, alot of people on TF2 will stick to that class and generally feel a more connection with that character), borderlands, loot, leveling etc), however neither are massively multiplayer. (I don't know that much about huxley so i can't comment). However I very much doubt some of the most popular shooter brands will go into that style (Halo, CoD, BattleFeild etc). The other side of it is, as much as I'd hate to admit it, PC gaming is almost dead :'( (with the exception of MMOs & Steam), most MMOs don't work on console.... soooo.... not to sure how well it'll pan out........

Brimtown
07-16-2010, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by Angelusjc:
The thing about subscription fees for games; people willingly pay subscription fees for MMOs because the typical MMO has several hundred if not several thousand hours worth of content to explore in addition to the social factor which generally makes it worth it in people's eyes.



I think there's another key difference. I might be wrong about this, but I would think that most MMO players probably only play a couple of MMOs at any one given time - and many probably only stick to one at a time. For instance, if you're a WoW player, you might not necessarily be playing City of Heroes, Champions Online, Warhammer Online, etc. Whereas it's not uncommon for console gamers to switch back and forth between Halo, COD, Gears of War, Madden, Guitar Hero/Rock Band, etc. If you suddenly have to pay to play online, most gamers would probably just stick to one or two games, which could really hurt game sales.

weaselboy
07-16-2010, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by shrubbinator:
Heh, I only mentioned it cause we did a case EXACTLY like that in Economics. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

We already know that the head of activision is apparently a ***** (http://kotaku.com/5586641/tim-schafer-calls-activision-boss-a-total-*****).

As for the FPS starting to behave like MMOs, there are definatly some that are going to get released, APB(All Points Bullitin) is looking very much like that, as with Brink. Borderlands and TF2 have some elements of MMO gameplay (Tf2 has grinding, close connection and personification of characters (ie, alot of people on TF2 will stick to that class and generally feel a more connection with that character), borderlands, loot, leveling etc), however neither are massively multiplayer. (I don't know that much about huxley so i can't comment). However I very much doubt some of the most popular shooter brands will go into that style (Halo, CoD, BattleFeild etc). The other side of it is, as much as I'd hate to admit it, PC gaming is almost dead :'( (with the exception of MMOs & Steam), most MMOs don't work on console.... soooo.... not to sure how well it'll pan out........

Huxley is an MMOFPS. Think of Unreal Tournament, but with 100 players. Also, PC gaming won't die in the foreseeable future. Steam and MMOs alone are a pretty hefty force to contend with. Yes, the numbers are not there like they are on consoles, but the money is still on all major platforms, and that's what talks right now. The previously aforementioned shift in PC builders moving to a philosophy of "business" vs "gaming" PCs would, I'd wager, help immensely in bringing up PC gaming's numbers (as opposed to "one size fits all, and that size is ****ING BLOATWARE!")

ATVI has already stated they wanted to branch out with the CoD franchise. I'm calling it right now: CoD in some sort of MMO format (and I'm not joking, I think ATVI is crazy enough to do it) with a pay-to-play structure, while the core games in the series go to micro-transactions.

Brim: that's pretty much in line with what the article said, though. If 60% truly are on the 360 for MW2, what difference does it make if they play a different game? IF ATVI can produce a game with a monthly fee that has the same draw, that just means 60% of the players are only paying for an ATVI game instead of, I dunno, that and another Halo or GoW. (And, as I pointed out previously, I'd be okay with overall game sales being hurt if that means the overall quality in games rises. Let's face it, right now most games are somewhere between "decent" and "****.")

shrubbinator
07-16-2010, 10:05 PM
Yea... I don't want to say its dying either, however when a exCEO of a games company came to talk to our uni (who used to work alot on PC games before they got shutdown by midway) I aksed him whether he thought it was dying, and he replied "Dying? Its pretty much dead", thats when it hit home http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif. And as much as I'd hate to admit, there WAS no PC conference at E3, at a major lan 50% is console, and most of my friends own all the games that I wanna play online with them on 360 rather then PC. :'(.

Half the reasons why most of the games are between decent and ****, is because most publishers like to stick their neck in and there ARE NOT RISKs being taken. Sadly games like Halo (as one of the Bungie employees said, microsoft pretty much just gives them what they want and leaves them alone) are one of the few exceptions, most smaller developers have a publisher hounding douwn their backside to try to cram 1000000 features into a game that doesn't need them when they can't perfect the unique ones. *sigh* the games industry really needs some reforms -...-

mcmax3000
07-16-2010, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by shrubbinator:
most MMOs don't work on console....

Yet.

Rest assured, someone will eventually figure out MMOs on a Console and when they do, I think that will finally be what kills PC gaming for good...

Trust me, there is way too much money in the MMO space for somebody not to figure it out. All it will take is an MMO designed specifically for consoles. So far, all of the console MMOs have been crappy PC ports.

I still have this gut feeling it will be Bioware with a Mass Effect MMO that gets console MMOs to take off.

shrubbinator
07-16-2010, 10:28 PM
:'( Please Bioware, if any of the devs are listning, as much as I love you! Don't do this to us! Think of the old baldurs gate days!

RTS are the other genre that DO NOT WORK (99% of the time on PC).

I also think the peripherals and motion gaming will have something to do with the end of PC gaming. That and the cheaply avalible consoles http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

weaselboy
07-16-2010, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by mcmax3000:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shrubbinator:
most MMOs don't work on console....

Yet.

Rest assured, someone will eventually figure out MMOs on a Console and when they do, I think that will finally be what kills PC gaming for good...

Trust me, there is way too much money in the MMO space for somebody not to figure it out. All it will take is an MMO designed specifically for consoles. So far, all of the console MMOs have been crappy PC ports.

I still have this gut feeling it will be Bioware with a Mass Effect MMO that gets console MMOs to take off. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This. I can't buy the "PC gaming is dead," argument because it just isn't true if you look at all the genres. Yes, PCs are no longer the champion of FPS's. RPGs, I think could be argued depending on style, although I'm not well-versed at all with Wii games outside of what Yahtzee tells me. But until a console does an MMO and in-depth RTS well (I'll exclude a particular breed of casual games that have cropped on the PC, because I personally don't give two ****s about them,) and as long as platforms like Steam leverage indie developers, PC gaming will not be dead. The paradigm has definitely shifted. I would not argue if it was posited that it is a negative shift and the PC will soon be a niche platform for games (that being MMO and RTS.) But niche is not dead.

NOW, having said that, I completely agree that it is the publishers that are the main culprit. That's why this move makes perfect sense. From a publisher's perspective, if they can release less games but make more profit (and I have not actually crunched any numbers--estimate or otherwise--so that is pure conjecture,) it makes complete sense to refocus their efforts on making current PC releases more... MMO-like. It doesn't even have to be a bonafide MMO. Max's comment really is brilliant in that way, it takes the "micro" out of "microtransaction" and says, "Hey, pay us x dollars per month, and you'll get x new map packs, new content, and etc. for free!"

Which, I guess, I feel hugely dirty and *****-like for saying all of this, because I think I just argued that PC gaming's saving grace (from a business standpoint) will be when the publishers shift their focus to better monetize gamers via fewer, (hopefully) higher-quality games. Or when they stop being ****ing ******s and take some risk. Valve did it. And we got Portal.

I stopped playing TF2 to reply to this. Madam, you have done well in piquing my thought and debate bones (and you can take that however you like.)

Brimtown
07-16-2010, 10:58 PM
Keep in mind that Michael Pachter is the same guy who's given us these wonderful words of wisdom:


Publishers have probably done themselves a disservice by giving us way too much value for our money with each of these games


(from 2007) Ultimately, we see Sony winning the console war with 36 percent of the market, with Nintendo capturing second place at 34 percent and Microsoft finishing third at 30 percent.

Here's what he said in 2005 about MMOs:

I don't think there are four million people in the world who really want to play online games every month…. eventually it will come back to the mean, maybe a million subscribers.

and this about Red Dead Redemption:

a game where the most powerful weapon is a Gatling gun will not be particularly appealing to U.S. audiences. I remain skeptical that the game will be considered a “blockbuster franchise,” and certainly do not expect sales to rival those of GTA.


So I would take what he says with a grain of salt.

Angelusjc
07-16-2010, 11:30 PM
I'm with weaselboy, PC gaming may noot be dominant as they once were, but they will always be around. As long as there's MMOs, Starcraft, Counterstrike, Diablo, DOTA style games, and RTS's, there will be PC games. Even games released across console and PC, some work better on the PC than their console counterparts. I mean hell, I have the Orange Box for 360, but I prefer my Half Life games on a PC, that type of FPS was never made to be console control orientated.

mcmax3000
07-17-2010, 08:04 AM
Brim: While he was pretty off on the MMO comment, the market share comment and the RDR comment were pretty valid at the time. I don't think most people saw RDR or Nintendo doing as well as they did (especially not Nintendo).

With regards to the first comment, whether we like it or not, he's right. From a business perspective (and remember, that's his job is to analyze these things from a business perspective), the companies do put too much value and replayability into their games that it makes people feel like they maybe don't need to buy that hot new game that just came out, which is the whole thing that prompted this CoD Subscription Service comment in the first place.

That said, I think the actual bigger problem with June sales is that nothing worth a damn came out on the software side. The only even remotely big game that came out that I can think of was Lego Harry Potter and that came out on the 29th day of a 30 day month so of course it's not going to have huge sales.

When you look at the top 10 sales chart, only two of the top 10 games were June releases.

zeeEVIL1
07-17-2010, 08:34 AM
I like playing MP, but honestly I prefer a solid single player or co-op experience even more.
Developers need to decide how they are going to support and develope a game and stick with it.
Many fail because the developer tries to force the kitchen sink into the package without fully deveoping a way to make it work.

Games are to expensive. It causes people, especially in todays economy to pick and choose what they want. So based on player preferance, Single player (Mass Effect) Or MP (Halo COD et;al) peple are going to go with the ones that A. appeal to them
B. Get really good word of mouth
or
C. Get supported the best
In the case of SP games, that is the only place you get a unique experience.
MP generally offers the same 3-4 options. That right there is a major problem. If you only get 3-4 things that are the same in every FPS, you just wait until word of mouth builds enough to see which is the most popular. Then you buy it knowing that it will get supported by either players or developers.
That means no guessing games with what to buy.

If the price of a game was lowered, but felt like a complete package, Developers coul support it by releasing chapter based SP expansions that introduce NEW things to the game. They could then release DLC that would introduce the new stuff to the MP side of it.

People would buy this stuff because the SP pack created a new experience for them. But its main purpose would be to introduce concepts that would beef up the MP with new weapons, characters skins mission types or MP game types.

some would succeed some would fail. that is just how it goes.

Take R6 for example. It is a Robust game both in SP and in MP with some solid RPG elements.
Now Imagine they released a DLC pack called Nicuragua NARCO for example where the R6 Squad is sent down to Nicuragua to take down a heavily armed and suppported Drug Cartel. Some new gameplay mechanics could be installed. Some new mission based gear like different camo or whatever.
Then their could be a MP component that would require one team to protect and deliver their goods to transport or suppliers while the other team had to stop them.

Now this is just a tip of the Iceburg thing I am talking here, but for $10-$15 dollars the game franchise could be continued without having to develope a new game and could still offer players new content that would increase sales and keep people employed.

Fable is an example of where it needs to go.
they give the first chapter for free, about 3 hours of game and then charge $5-$10 for each additional chapter.
Episodic content. It is much more cost effective to contnue to build upon a system that has been created instead of re-inventing the wheel every single time.

MMO's could work on Consoles as long as it played towards the interests of the Console players, which is more action than social interaction.

FALLOUT 3 could work as an MMO and an FPS. Let people create factions based upon the protagonists in the game worlds and developers create missions for each group that would would constantly bring them up against another rival faction.
With some kind of payoff structure of both XP and in game money it would work.

I myself though would not pay an additional fee to play a single game that I might not touch for a month at a time though.

mcmax3000
07-17-2010, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by zeeEVIL1:
Fable is an example of where it needs to go.
they give the first chapter for free, about 3 hours of game and then charge $5-$10 for each additional chapter.
Episodic content. It is much more cost effective to contnue to build upon a system that has been created instead of re-inventing the wheel every single time.

Agreed. I'd love to see more games go that way, though maybe not so much like two years after launch where it's cheaper to go out and buy the disc then to buy the remaining chapters because that's what I did with Fable II but honestly, if I hadn't had that free chapter to try out, I never would've given it a look and I really enjoyed it to the point where I bought & finished the full game & both DLC packs.

zeeEVIL1
07-17-2010, 10:04 AM
I think its the way to go.
Molyniux has already stated that Fable III will release that way on the same day it hits stores.
Maybe it will be what proves to people that that is a viable method to consider.

z0mbieMUFFinz
07-17-2010, 12:23 PM
For people with a limited income, I see how they are extremely restricted in playing a huge variety of games.

It may not be affordable for them to buy and try out new games that come out [ Until WAY after they aren't 'new and exciting' anymore. ] Which sort of takes away the appeal of waiting to play all the new big named franchises that are released.

While I do think that many of the games out are worth the average retail [60$] MW2, Halo, Fallout, Borderlands, and other very popular games with quite a bit of game play, I also think that the other games that don't reach these standards have prices that drop relatively quickly and of course people can always buy used.


As far as a twenty dollar price cut - it would probably devastate a lot of companies and they probably wouldn't be able to recover or thrive with the franchise again. There would probably be an initial jump in sales just over the advertisement and excitement of game prices dropping - but as all things in marketing do it would eventually become a normal standard and sales would probably go back to being just about the same as they are now. Also, then if they tried to re-raise prices ever people would probably be up in arms protesting it.

As far as offering purchasable DLC, it's an amazing idea to have this option available for some games but to make it a standard for every single game not only raises the costs for game companies and gamers but also restricts people without access to the internet or additional funds from enjoying games in full.


The gaming industry is so competitive. I think those companies out there that aren't doing as well as some of the bigger franchises should really take some notes and plan their future projects to better appeal to their audiences. I know for myself, and most other gamers I know - it doesn't take pulling teeth to get me interested in and buying new games.

shrubbinator
07-17-2010, 07:03 PM
Anyone wonder why steam is as popular as it is? They actually have games at decent prices. I remberer Mirros Edge, sure at fullprice it didn't go to well, but people have lapped up the specials on it!

I'm not in favour of the DLC content model, basically its saying "Heres the game that we forgot to finish, now you can pay for the extra bits". Like borderlands, (As much as I loved that game), apparently the game DID have an ending, they just cut it out for DLC. To be fair - I would have rather seen all of the DLC in one pack then a monthly relase of DLC. Sure if its DLC a year after relase fine, but to have DLC out months after when you know it could have / should have been included in the game!? Yea... no thanks.



In Australia, you guys might complain about $60 but we're paying DOUBLE that amount for any new release console game. To be honest, I think the emphesis we stick on graphics is ruining the games industry. The more complex the graphics and game and visuals - the more people that need to be employed, the more attention to detail that you need to place AND the more money it costs. 600 people for Crysis 2? No wonder games are $60 - $120 each. Arguably a $20 pricecut wouldn't be that devestating for any of the smaller development teams, as there is already an oversaturation on the games market (and they need another USP) - even though games have a 90% fail rate. I REALLY like the indie model of "How much are you willing to pay" - people like me (who love the indie games market) are willing to pay more, then say a person who may have pirated but then thought they were worth $5. I also love the idea of the 4 pack mode, new release games are $38 instead of $100, you get 4x the sales? Whos complaining?

The games industry really needs some reforms...
so far the publishers are handing out money to game developers to develop game. If a game is not deemed worthy enough OR the developers miss their mile stone, the game project will get shutdown (50% rate in Australia I belive, not to sure on US), so theres ALOT of wasted money flying around everywhere...

The publishers also have choices to buy out studios (Generally so they don't have to pay devlopers royalites and other things), and at any time can shut them down, if they deem unprofitable (When EA bought out DICE, the almost imediatly shutdown them montreal development team). Why don't they (instead of shutting them down!) shift those people to working on another game (ie double the people one one game, less crunching!)? Instead of making them lose their job (AND MORE MONEY WASTED)

Instead of bidding the rights to IP for movie games - which generally arn't THAT profitable unless its kids movies or a REALLY popular movie (ie starwars) not that many apreciate movie games (unless they are lego). Couldn't they be maybe supporting more origional titles?? And whats the average salery of a top CEO in a publishing company? Probably too much.

They should think about these things before they impact on consumers & developers by either price rises, the subscription fees (that they may /maynot bring in), DLC, micro transitions etc. Not to mention blowing huge $ on marketing (some of it IS uncalled for... Dante's inferno anyone??).

mcmax3000
07-17-2010, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by shrubbinator:
I'm not in favour of the DLC content model, basically its saying "Heres the game that we forgot to finish, now you can pay for the extra bits". Like borderlands, (As much as I loved that game), apparently the game DID have an ending, they just cut it out for DLC. To be fair - I would have rather seen all of the DLC in one pack then a monthly relase of DLC. Sure if its DLC a year after relase fine, but to have DLC out months after when you know it could have / should have been included in the game!? Yea... no thanks.

I've always had a big problem with this argument. Just because it comes out later as DLC, doesn't mean that it "should've been in the game".

Stuff got cut from games long before DLC came around. It's just that now, we have the technology where after the game is completed, the dev teams can re-visit that content, polish it up, make it work and release it as additional content for people that want to play more.

Plus, you have to remember that, aside from some final bug testing & fixes, most games are finished a couple of months before they're released. So if DLC comes out one or two months after release, that could be four or five months after the game was actually completed. That's plenty of time for them to put significant work into that content, whether there had even been intentions to have it on the disc or not.

If the devs were to spend time putting everything they come up with onto the disc, games would never get finished as they would have to keep delaying them every time they come up with another idea.

Are there developers that hold content back that's done in time? Sure. Some of them even sell stuff that's already on the disc (see: Bioshock 2) but the vast majority of the content is new stuff or stuff that had to be cut from the game due to time constraints.


Instead of bidding the rights to IP for movie games - which generally arn't THAT profitable unless its kids movies or a REALLY popular movie (ie starwars) not that many apreciate movie games (unless they are lego). Couldn't they be maybe supporting more origional titles??

Oh, if the movie is even remotely popular, I can assure you those movie tie in games are profitable. Especially since they generally don't cost as much to make.

If original IPs were more profitable, don't you think there would be more of them?

Melonie
07-17-2010, 07:36 PM
I've actually thought a lot about this before as well. There are more and more gamers trying to go pro now, and going pro means dedicating A LOT of time into a single game. This definitely has to cut into profits for developers.

However, I still think there are more than enough people who still play a variety of games anyway. I don't think it's necessary to charge more, but then again, I'm not all knowing about how sales are going, either.

mcmax3000
07-17-2010, 08:18 PM
I'd say people are buying less games and playing the same games more & more because games are pretty expensive and they can't afford a new game or they can afford it but they don't see a reason to spend the money when they're still getting so much playtime out of their current game.

The number of people that are trying to go pro is probably less then a quarter of a percent of the number of people that are playing something like MW2 or Halo 3. I don't think it's going to have a huge effect on sales.

shrubbinator
07-17-2010, 08:50 PM
Actually :P, I was sort of pointing the finger at Borderlands and Bioshock (Though I did not account for the time it takes between the game finish / release XD). I remember a quote by a notable developer (might have actually been molyneux) saying that a game is never finished when shipped, its just at what milestone completed at (I can't find the exact words).

I think Melonie has a point there, though not everyone wants to go pro - theres ALOT of good players out there, even though they might not be professional or considering that, they still have to compete (and who doesn't like winning?), Skill = no of Hours (usually). Is the reward for winning against real players and topping the chart more entertaining / rewarding then playing a single player game? It is for a lot of people (not all)

zeeEVIL1
07-18-2010, 07:29 AM
I think it comes down to the fact that If you are still having a good time with a game, there is no need to rush out and purchase ANY game.
I am still playing through ME2 and RDR for the first time. bought ME2 in May. For $24 what a bargain. I have no need to go and buy a game.
In the past I used to buy 1-2 games almost every month. It only became apparent when I realized that I was not finishing these games because I was always moving on to other games.

Money is tight. especially for those of us with responsibilities.
that means people are making smarter choices in their purchases.

UbiFan20037
07-20-2010, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by weaselboy:
There are a few possible solutions here: sure, make money off of the multiplayer. But then stop forcing studios to churn out some over-hyped pile of **** every year....

On a slightly different topic, maybe they should start making single-player experiences worth a damn. I'm not advocating that SP is better than MP.

I agree. There has been too little innovation in games lately. It's the same old thing over and over. The only thing new is the polish. UbiSoft has done some new things, like with the Assassins Creed engine, but even then they didn't flesh out the game until ACII.

I will argue that SP is better than multiplayer -- I haven't seen anything new in the MP arena in years. Fight your friends, fight with your friends. OK, now what? The world of SP provides much more room for experimentation and new ideas. Innovation will come from the SP world and then maybe find its way into MP.

Personally, I now only buy about three games a year. As good as Red Dead Redemption was, it was also very repetitive in the side missions. Needlessly, in my opinion. It took away from the overall game. Searching for the three lost settlers in the exact same location seemed really lazy to me.

The three last games I really liked were Red Dead Redemption, Uncharted 2, and F.E.A.R 2. Of the three, on Uncharted 2 was truly a unique playing experience. All three had very compelling stories and had very immersive environments, as well. The new Splinter Cell was up there too, but I didn't find the story quite as compelling.

I'm really sick of add-ons like turret mini-games where you're forced into a vehicle and have to shoot something for some reason. This seems to get added on to every game at this point. I don't want a turret mini-game in my first (or third) person shooter. I don't want to escort some idiot through a dangerous area, I don't want to chase after someone and have to stop him before he gets away in a helicopter, and I don't want to run through an area full of bad guys before the bomb explodes in 5 minutes. These are hackneyed cliches at this point and any developer who uses them should be as ashamed as a writer who has the villain tie a girl to the railroad tracks (unless it's in Red Dead Redemption, in which case you should get a skill point)

If you want me to buy 10 games a year at $60, stop selling me the same old crap.

Oh! If I could return a game within 24 hours, I would take a lot more chances too. I'd probably buy a game a month in that case; returning maybe half.

Arumi
07-20-2010, 01:50 PM
Alright, figured I'd weigh in on this topic.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif These are all just my opinions, and may or may not be based on actual facts. Don't eat me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

I'm more than willing to pay extra for features of a game, IF (and only if) I deem it to be worth my while. Some of you know this, but when I was in my teenage years, I spent a RIDICULOUS amount of money on in-game items, extra features and online game subscriptions. Financially, it may have been a bit irresponsible of me, but I don't regret it. At the time, being completely dedicated to a specific game, I was willing to spend the extra money to enhance my gaming experience.

Another point that I'd like to make, is that I truly believe that if a game is well-made, even if it takes over 100 hours to finish, it will do very, very well. If a gamer is completely enthralled by a game, they're more likely to recommend it to their friends ("You HAVE to play this game, it's amazing!"). If its immersive qualities are combined with other well-made features, it will also receive positive reviews, which will also exponentially increase sales, therefore increasing profit.

I'm not certain of the statistics on this, but you do have to remember that 'used' games in Gamestop came from somewhere. A game that's short, has little replay value and doesn't cause the gamer to become attached to it will quickly become a trade-in. A lot of people ask me about my game collection, such as, "Why do you keep this game?" or "Why don't you just sell them all?". Though some games I keep for personal reasons, I like to collect games that I find to be innovative, expansive, and with enough features to keep me going back for more.

As an example, the crafting system in Star Ocean:TTEOT (PS2) is extremely varied, allowing you to make hundreds of different items. It also has a variety of entertaining mini-games, an ever-changing endless dungeon to go back to, new challenges, an interesting story, different endings, character 'relationships'... etc. Every few months I take it off the shelf, and am always able to find a new experience. A game that is dynamic in its qualities will keep its place on a gamer's shelf, and won't be traded in for the latest awesome new game.

I've had trouble finding new games that can really 'capture' me in a way that allows me to become significantly attached to them. That's one of the reasons that my static game collection largely consists of games for past-gen consoles.

In reference to the article - Activision must take into account that some people are incredibly broke (myself included), and simply can't afford to purchase many $60 games in a year. The economic situation hasn't improved much for many people, forcing them to make difficult choices about how they spend their money (Hrm... buy noms, or buy a game?). For some people, that means spending a lot of time playing a handful of games, or buying a game that they know can entertain them for a significant amount of time. In some cases, yes, this means that people may buy 'cheaper' used games.

Anyway... I could ramble on (and on) about this, but that's just my opinion(s). Be nice! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif