Extra Credits' idea of cheaper games where you pay to access part of it, e.g. the multiplayer.

[random_bars]

I don't understand how something like this would work. And for one simple reason. What's to stop stores charging normal price for it?

 

[Rough Sausage]

Extra Credits, not Extra Punctuation. Easy to get the two mixed up I suppose. I thought it was a pretty good idea tbf, like all of Extra Credits' ideas now that I think about it. But yeah, Xsi pretty much hit the nail on the head.

 

[Netrigan]

I think they were driving at you purchasing MP as a DLC.

The problem being is that multi-player isn't nearly as popular as people assume. A game series like Halo probably has far more single players than it does multi-players (not counting the folks who pop in, scope it out, then never bother with it ever again). To make it economically viable, they'd probably only be knocking like $10 at the most off the price... but you'd probably only end up needlessly pissing off the on-line crowd.

Personally, I think companies should create a couple of different tiers of pricing. Your big AAA games with a lot of marketing money behind them. Put them out at full price. New IPs that you're trying to nurture, maybe drop it down to $40.

 

[Rough Sausage]

I think they were driving at you purchasing MP as a DLC.

The problem being is that multi-player isn't nearly as popular as people assume. A game series like Halo probably has far more single players than it does multi-players (not counting the folks who pop in, scope it out, then never bother with it ever again). To make it economically viable, they'd probably only be knocking like $10 at the most off the price... but you'd probably only end up needlessly pissing off the on-line crowd.

Personally, I think companies should create a couple of different tiers of pricing. Your big AAA games with a lot of marketing money behind them. Put them out at full price. New IPs that you're trying to nurture, maybe drop it down to $40.

If I remember correctly, in the video they specifically stated that you wouldn't need to download anything; the information would already be on the disk, but you'd have to pay a little extra to access it.

 

[MrGalactus]

I've struggled with the idea too. They don't make a huge profit from $60 games as it is. Making them is not cheap. What happens to games like Fallout that have no multiplayer at all? Do they go down in price, and make a much slimmer profit? If that happens, you can bet that the quality and attention that Fallout gets from Bethesda will drop. Or, do they stay at full price? Tat way, won't they seem like they're ripping you off? Nobody will buy it new if they can get other brand new games for $20 less.

 

[Netrigan]

I think they were driving at you purchasing MP as a DLC.

The problem being is that multi-player isn't nearly as popular as people assume. A game series like Halo probably has far more single players than it does multi-players (not counting the folks who pop in, scope it out, then never bother with it ever again). To make it economically viable, they'd probably only be knocking like $10 at the most off the price... but you'd probably only end up needlessly pissing off the on-line crowd.

Personally, I think companies should create a couple of different tiers of pricing. Your big AAA games with a lot of marketing money behind them. Put them out at full price. New IPs that you're trying to nurture, maybe drop it down to $40.

If I remember correctly, in the video they specifically stated that you wouldn't need to download anything; the information would already be on the disk, but you'd have to pay a little extra to access it.

It's still considered DLC even if all you're downloading is an unlock code. Fair number of Day One DLCs are on the disc.

 

[Axolotl]

What's to stop stores charging normal price for it?

They'd be massively undercut by online retailers? Hell even with physical stores I don't think that level of price fixing is possible.

 

[Katana314]

Going off the idea that not everyone will actually finish even a single player game, I had the idea of developing a single, super-long singleplayer game, finishing it all at once, but still releasing it as a series of episodes. That way, you would only pay for the parts of the game you end up playing through.

 

[Rough Sausage]

I think they were driving at you purchasing MP as a DLC.

The problem being is that multi-player isn't nearly as popular as people assume. A game series like Halo probably has far more single players than it does multi-players (not counting the folks who pop in, scope it out, then never bother with it ever again). To make it economically viable, they'd probably only be knocking like $10 at the most off the price... but you'd probably only end up needlessly pissing off the on-line crowd.

Personally, I think companies should create a couple of different tiers of pricing. Your big AAA games with a lot of marketing money behind them. Put them out at full price. New IPs that you're trying to nurture, maybe drop it down to $40.

If I remember correctly, in the video they specifically stated that you wouldn't need to download anything; the information would already be on the disk, but you'd have to pay a little extra to access it.

It's still considered DLC even if all you're downloading is an unlock code. Fair number of Day One DLCs are on the disc.

I did not know this. Live and learn eh?
And also, I hadn't considered single player games, like THEJORRRG said, and yeah that is something to be considered if this ever happens in the future. It probably won't though.

 

[EBHughsThe1st]

It's a good idea. I don't buy certain games for multiplayer because I'm not good at it and not interested. Battlefield Bad Company w and Modern Warfare 2 would be good for this. The people interested in the multiplayer would probably have the online and be willing to shell out the money.

 

[Rednog]

Going off the idea that not everyone will actually finish even a single player game, I had the idea of developing a single, super-long singleplayer game, finishing it all at once, but still releasing it as a series of episodes. That way, you would only pay for the parts of the game you end up playing through.

Telltale games actually does this, I don't think most developers would embrace the idea because it essentially means that if you're game is mediocre and not great odds are you will only sell the first or second part of the game, whereas releasing the full game in one package forces the consumer to buy all of it whether amazing or not.

 

[Steppin Razor]

quality and attention that Fallout gets from Bethesda will drop.

Spoiler

On topic: It's a fucking stupid idea. It's also something that is incredibly unlikely to ever be attempted.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

quality and attention that Fallout gets from Bethesda will drop.

Spoiler

On topic: It's a fucking stupid idea. It's also something that is incredibly unlikely to ever be attempted.

This. Just give me my complete game. Hacking a game to pieces to make the initial purchase cheaper is just stupid. I'll pay the 60$ up front, thank you.

 

[MrGalactus]

quality and attention that Fallout gets from Bethesda will drop.

Spoiler

On topic: It's a fucking stupid idea. It's also something that is incredibly unlikely to ever be attempted.

That's one line taken out of context. I gave an example.

 

[Fr]anc[is]

In EC's example the 'main' game would be ~$30, and unlocking multiplayer would be ~$25. Total cost of the 'whole' game would end up being the same. I really like this idea. Believe it or not some people don't give a flying fuck about multiplayer and think $60 for a 3 hour campaign is bull.

 

[Katana314]

Going off the idea that not everyone will actually finish even a single player game, I had the idea of developing a single, super-long singleplayer game, finishing it all at once, but still releasing it as a series of episodes. That way, you would only pay for the parts of the game you end up playing through.

Telltale games actually does this, I don't think most developers would embrace the idea because it essentially means that if you're game is mediocre and not great odds are you will only sell the first or second part of the game, whereas releasing the full game in one package forces the consumer to buy all of it whether amazing or not.

The only difference between my idea and Telltale's is that I actually finish the game all at once, and maybe even release it all at once.

It would be worth a try, since people who can't quite bear to spend $50 will be able to pay, and play, whatever they can afford. It would effectively throw out the pirating excuse "I don't think it's worth the money I pay"

Also, I might just technically treat each part besides part 1 as DLC (so that the gameplay isn't split up, and you don't have to quit/switch game to continue)

 

[EzraPound]

I've struggled with the idea too. They don't make a huge profit from $60 games as it is. Making them is not cheap. What happens to games like Fallout that have no multiplayer at all? Do they go down in price, and make a much slimmer profit? If that happens, you can bet that the quality and attention that Fallout gets from Bethesda will drop. Or, do they stay at full price? Tat way, won't they seem like they're ripping you off? Nobody will buy it new if they can get other brand new games for $20 less.

OR console manufacturers and game developers could devote less attentions to graphics and, say, intricate physics engines, thusly lowering the costs of development and easing the strain on the consumer. Suffice to say, the games wouldn't be worse--they just wouldn't look as good.

But anyway, this is sort of a moot point--developers won't seize creating graphically expansive mega-projects because doing so would reduce barriers to entry, thus potentially opening the floodgates for more competitors to enter and for the quality of games to be broadly improved (and for it to potentially grow faster, BTW). As it stands, developers and publishers reinforce their own hegemonic stranglehold over the industry by initiating massively expensive projects, then inflame anyone--pirates, used retailers, etc.--who try to avoid paying the premiums they demand. At the end of the day, it's their fault.

 

[Steppin Razor]

That's one line taken out of context. I gave an example.

The amount of bugs and other issues that exist in Bethesda's games make me unsure if you're serious about your example.

 

[MrGalactus]

That's one line taken out of context. I gave an example.

The amount of bugs and other issues that exist in Bethesda's games make me unsure if you're serious about your example.

Yeah, once again, one sentence out of context. I used Fallout as an example for a single player only game. It was the first one I thought of. It applies to any single player only series.