Patcher: Multiplayer is so popular, we need to charge for it.

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

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?

That's a good point. However, there is some aftermarket cost to keep the servers up and running. Possibly at some point, the player does exceed the $60 price tag after playing for 500 or 1,000 hours. On the other hand, the servers probably don't cost that much because the servers probably just kept track of stats in most online multiplayer games (like FPSs, sports games, etc.) because one of the players in the game acts as the host so the game servers really aren't requiring a lot of bandwidth.

they already charge for multiplayer it's called XBL. people take that abuse so they don't get to complain about this.

Doesn't paying for XBL just give Microsoft money for it's online services and servers? I don't think any of that money goes to Activision for CoD or EA for Bad Company.

 

[kouriichi]

PSN needs to charge. Thats really it. XBL already pays for that.

The PSN already have PS+ which would generate more revenue for Sony to improve their overall online services,but that's not my point.

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.

Snip

I hope you're referring to Publishers or Developers,since the Pachter guy is just an analyst who's predicting things.

Snip

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.

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.

Heres the thing about it though, WoW is an mmo.
Were paying for 15 gigs of glorious land to scrawl, constant patches ((balancing and error repair)), and some new content for free.

if they gave all of that for MW2 ((and when was the last time MW2 was patched? xD)) i would gladly pay for online play.

 

[Altorin]

PSN needs to charge. Thats really it. XBL already pays for that.

The PSN already have PS+ which would generate more revenue for Sony to improve their overall online services,but that's not my point.

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.

Snip

I hope you're referring to Publishers or Developers,since the Pachter guy is just an analyst who's predicting things.

Snip

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.

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.

Heres the thing about it though, WoW is an mmo.
Were paying for 15 gigs of glorious land to scrawl, constant patches ((balancing and error repair)), and some new content for free.

if they gave all of that for MW2 ((and when was the last time MW2 was patched? xD)) i would gladly pay for online play.

I would imagine that subscribers would get the mappacks for free, if they charged for them on top of subscriptions that'd be lol

 

[Ashsaver]

Heres the thing about it though, WoW is an mmo.
Were paying for 15 gigs of glorious land to scrawl, constant patches ((balancing and error repair)), and some new content for free.

if they gave all of that for MW2 ((and when was the last time MW2 was patched? xD)) i would gladly pay for online play.

I'm not really trying to compare MW2 to MMO though,just finding an example of a good game that people willing to continue paying to play.

Right now Activision doesn't get any revenue from existing user base of MW2,aside from mappack,so they aren't too hot about fixing bugs and rebalancings,IF they actually charging for Subscription fee then they might be motivate to.

If Valve was publishing MW2 instead of Activision,things might be different.

 

[snowman6251]

Honestly I think if I had to start paying subscription fees for most online games I'd play more RPG's. They too are great fun and are a great way to kill over a hundred hours.

That and I'd probably get more games featuring local co-op play, such as Castle Crashers.

 

[kouriichi]

Heres the thing about it though, WoW is an mmo.
Were paying for 15 gigs of glorious land to scrawl, constant patches ((balancing and error repair)), and some new content for free.

if they gave all of that for MW2 ((and when was the last time MW2 was patched? xD)) i would gladly pay for online play.

I'm not really trying to compare MW2 to MMO though,just finding an example of a good game that people willing to continue paying to play.

Right now Activision doesn't get any revenue from existing user base of MW2,aside from mappack,so they aren't too hot about fixing bugs and rebalancings,IF they actually charging for Subscription fee then they might be motivate to.

If Valve was publishing MW2 instead of Activision,things might be different.

yeah, IW is a horrible company. Im glad Black Ops is going back into good hands.

There are a few things i worry about, but i know its going to be better then mw2 atleast, and thats all im looking for.

But on the subject of them charging, i have to say, they would almost be promoting private servers, pirated copys and hacks. People talk about who online multiplayer is dropping the sales of video games, but its the price. When are they going to get it? The production cost of MW2 was roughly $200 million ((which is completely outragious)). but just on launch day, they made $550 million from the sales, and that number is still going up! youd think they could lower the price of the game by 10 bucks and still do better then break even.

They dont think the $60 dollar price tag is turning people away?

 

[lapan]

I don't know about you, but if every multiplayer game costs subscription fees, i myself will only play singleplayer games.

 

[Unrulyhandbag]

The problems are many with that idea,

on most console games the multiplayer is peer based so there is no upkeep cost for the publisher other than a single server that keeps track of live clients and refers them to each other so it's like trying to licence Frisbee use.

With dedicated servers the developer can charge for server hosting and maintenance so whoever runs the server pays the fee (ie: clans and game fans), charging the players is a bit redundant unless there's another reason to pay.

there's no incentive to pay, a lot of people got into multiplayer because it has no cost. Instead of buying a new game you could get gaming that changes for no further fee.
Ultimatly you get bored and move onto something else and developers already have a way to encourage you to buy a new multiplayer game, not enhancing, patching or altering the game once it's been out for more than a week.

If they made us pay there would have to be a reason like the level of support and patching carried out by valve on team fortress two, a ranking ladder, prize tournaments that can be watched. Then charging for dedicated clan servers would still be worth it which could be used to recoup some costs.

Yes these things wouldn't be cheap but if you want people to play your game for money then they need to have a real incentive to keep playing it for years to come; simply shoving MW4 hardly working edition out of the door with laggy peer based gaming and never supporting and expecting more than the buy in fee for the next year before you kill the service would be an insult to the customer.

 

[Outright Villainy]

I don't know about you, but if every multiplayer game costs subscription fees, i myself will only play singleplayer games.

I second that. Hopefully it would bring a resurgance in split screen multiplayer. That'd be sweet...

 

[Ldude893]

It's stuff like this that almost makes me think that video games and business do not mix.

 

[mad825]

^.^

by the end of the year, this guy is going to be about as popular as Michael Atkinson/Tom Jackson.

 

[ssgt splatter]

This guy Patcher is a troll. Shut the hell up about the game companies charging more money to play MP. I, and I'm pretty sure thousands of others, don't care what you have to rant about...mainly because we don't like to talk about the possibility of this happening.

 

[ssgt splatter]

^.^

by the end of the year, this guy is going to be about as popular as Michael Atkinson/Tom Jackson.

Yeah, no kidding.

 

[Vaccine]

Maybe people don't buy new games because they're too fucking expensive and playing multiplayer is cheaper?

Useless analyst dickhead.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Dollar an hour with the first 20 free sounds good,MMOs could be 1 for 2 hours!

 

[TheAnticNoise]

The problems are many with that idea,

on most console games the multiplayer is peer based so there is no upkeep cost for the publisher other than a single server that keeps track of live clients and refers them to each other so it's like trying to licence Frisbee use.

With dedicated servers the developer can charge for server hosting and maintenance so whoever runs the server pays the fee (ie: clans and game fans), charging the players is a bit redundant unless there's another reason to pay.

there's no incentive to pay, a lot of people got into multiplayer because it has no cost. Instead of buying a new game you could get gaming that changes for no further fee.
Ultimatly you get bored and move onto something else and developers already have a way to encourage you to buy a new multiplayer game, not enhancing, patching or altering the game once it's been out for more than a week.

If they made us pay there would have to be a reason like the level of support and patching carried out by valve on team fortress two, a ranking ladder, prize tournaments that can be watched. Then charging for dedicated clan servers would still be worth it which could be used to recoup some costs.

Yes these things wouldn't be cheap but if you want people to play your game for money then they need to have a real incentive to keep playing it for years to come; simply shoving MW4 hardly working edition out of the door with laggy peer based gaming and never supporting and expecting more than the buy in fee for the next year before you kill the service would be an insult to the customer.

Why pay every month for a pool when they won't even keep it clean.

I'd be game for this happening for the sole reason that better games would come out of it. Instead of a game company spewing out a product and then not giving two shits about it and moving on to something else they would actually fix bugs, add content, create servers and police it a bit.

The only thing is though, there are game companies that do this without the incentive of an extra bit of dollar... Blizz did it with diablo 2, Valve does it with TF2... I mean blizz churned out an update for D2 that basically changed the entire game (see skill synergies) for free.

Would you pay monthly for TF2 if it really came down to it? Well do you think it's worth the extra buck..

 

[strum4h]

I would be fine with that. Then the 10 year olds with no credit cards will not be in my games. I would rejoice, then cancel anything I am not using to pay for it.