Patcher: Multiplayer is so popular, we need to charge for it.
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
Recommended Videos
RowdyRodimus: Industry Analysts are so useless, they need to be euthinized. Remember, you can't spell analyst without "anal".
I have to agree with him even though I would hate to pay. I really hate the subscription model. Maybe something like you get the 1st 25 online hours free then if you really like it, pay like $20-30 for unlimited play. Of course the initial free hours would vary per game where games like MAG and Warhawk would give at least 100 hours free since they are online only. Some games greatly focus on MP and quite a bit of your $60 goes towards that (like COD) whereas most of your $60 went towards single player in Uncharted 2. So, COD would give more free online hours than Uncharted.
Is he the same Pachter as Micheal Pachter? He's already has a show of his own on Gametrailer.com, it's called Pach-Attack! a less-than-10-minutes-answer-your-question show.Saucycardog said:
*In the latest Episode. He says a really interesting "insight?" about Kinect.
*OT: Here,you can hear him actually talking about it Link [http://www.gametrailers.com/video/episode-125-pach-attack/701911] around 1:40 of the vid.
The day I hand over a dime to anyone offering subscription-based multiplayer services will be a sad day indeed.
You buy a frisbee. You throw the frisbee around in the park by yourself. This doesn't last long. You stop playing with the frisbee. Suddenly you discover playing frisbee with friends! Re-playeability just went through the roof! But be careful. Someone out there feels like this is infringing on the time those other outdoor games are getting. So remember kids, don't be caught playing frisbee with your friends without your license or you'll be going to court...
What's the difference exactly...? Someone didn't spend a few years making the frisbee?
What's the difference exactly...? Someone didn't spend a few years making the frisbee?
What a fucking prick. Make games because you want to make games, because you have ideas that you want to share with others, not for profits you souless douche.
If he were in my town id smack him around with a bag of wet rice.
And not a small bag eather. one of the overly big ones that could feed an average family for a month.
To be honest, that would probably turn more people away from games. MW2 has enough problems, if they started charging for it, the game would be deserted.
And not a small bag eather. one of the overly big ones that could feed an average family for a month.
To be honest, that would probably turn more people away from games. MW2 has enough problems, if they started charging for it, the game would be deserted.
Is there something I'm missing here?
DAMMIT PATCHER! I think you're awesome and wicked smart, and I love your show on GT, but FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD IN GAMING, could you please STOP GIVING BOBBY KOTICK IDEAS!?!?!
Whatever. It's not like a give a possums ass about Call of Duty anyway. Why should I when I've got Team Fortress 2? Shame more people aren't playing that instead...
Translation: People are buying a game for $60 and getting a lot of enjoyment out of that single $60 purchase. This make us FURIOUS! Do these plebs really expect Bobby Kotick to live on anything less then the finest imported caviar?The Article said:
We will DELIBERATELY remove features from a game while still charging full price, and then sell those features back to consumers for a lovely profit.
DAMMIT PATCHER! I think you're awesome and wicked smart, and I love your show on GT, but FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD IN GAMING, could you please STOP GIVING BOBBY KOTICK IDEAS!?!?!
Whatever. It's not like a give a possums ass about Call of Duty anyway. Why should I when I've got Team Fortress 2? Shame more people aren't playing that instead...
So, if a game only offers a single player mode, and still has people playing it for hours on end for years and years, will they start charging people per section of the single player game?
I already paid to get the game. I'll be damned if I'm gonna continue paying to play it.
I already paid to get the game. I'll be damned if I'm gonna continue paying to play it.
Why would Sony need so charge? They'd be making the money, not the developer of the game you're playing. That really wouldn't fix anything at all.Terminate421 said:
yes, yes, he's a prick for keeping an eye on the business part of games instead of the creative/fun part :s
He is also very right in his predictions. And you can whine all you want, you will pay what they ask. After all: your also paying for your XBL allready. Not to mention all those CoD players on the PC that still bought the game even though it came neutered which just shows that gamers are prepared and ready to pay more for less.
Did you honestly believe that a multi-BILLION industry did not pick up on that and run with it?
He is also very right in his predictions. And you can whine all you want, you will pay what they ask. After all: your also paying for your XBL allready. Not to mention all those CoD players on the PC that still bought the game even though it came neutered which just shows that gamers are prepared and ready to pay more for less.
Did you honestly believe that a multi-BILLION industry did not pick up on that and run with it?
I'm very against paying subscriptions for online play. I don't like the idea of having to pay over and over again for the same game, I'll buy it once if its reasonably priced, then its mine and I should be able to play it when and however I want. It would take a very good game to make me crack on this position. I've got Xbox360 and don't have live, and never will.
The direction the gaming industry is going I'm probably going to be gaming less and less (especially the nonpirated variety). The only series I NEED to play is Zelda, so as long as Nintendo doesn't get greedy with subscriptions, they can pile out as much gimmicky crap as they want and I won't mind at all.
The direction the gaming industry is going I'm probably going to be gaming less and less (especially the nonpirated variety). The only series I NEED to play is Zelda, so as long as Nintendo doesn't get greedy with subscriptions, they can pile out as much gimmicky crap as they want and I won't mind at all.
I disagree with him. Multiplayer is not something you should charge for. We already paid for it when we bought the game. WoW can charge because they constantly update the game and run tons of servers. Unless Multiplayer heavy shooters are going to add new modes, maps, weapons, and gear for free (like WoW does in its updates) then they can charge some, otherwise I paid for online when I bought the game for $60.
The PSN already have PS+ which would generate more revenue for Sony to improve their overall online services,but that's not my point.Terminate421 said:
The point is: monthly subscription fee is for the game itself: you already pay for XBL,but you also need to pay for the game's online fee too...according to the analyst.
From the publisher viewpoint:You buy a MW2 and you can play for the rest of your life isn't sounds like a good deal to them.
I hope you're referring to Publishers or Developers,since the Pachter guy is just an analyst who's predicting things.The Amazing Tea Alligator said:
Hypothetically,If Activision actually imposed a Subscription fee on MW2,i don't think most existing users would migrate. They're gonna pay to play the game they love.kouriichi said:
Like WoW: that game's subscription fee is expensive,and they charge you for expansion packs,but millions of people are still playing it.
Maybe the subscription fee might give parents a reason not to let their 12 years old play MW2.
