That Guy Veteran Posted July 16, 2010 Veteran Share Posted July 16, 2010 I bought Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 very reluctantly, 6 months after it was released, when it was on a sale, so if they have the cheek to actually charge for online play I simply won't spend my money with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M4nB3arP1g Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 i said that in another thread once, and got flamed on because "if that was to happen, their would be no innovation". by innovation im presuming they meant money gouching? Most likely. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smigit Posted July 17, 2010 Share Posted July 17, 2010 ?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,? said Pachter. What sort of idiotic statement is that? The same business model was in place previously when the sales were up and has been in place for the past few decades. It's not like last week the game companies decided to flip a switch, test out free online play and realise it wasn't viable. Heck if anything has changed in recent times its been that developers and publishers have taken away dedicated servers for a few games from consumers and TBH I think it'd be stretching it to say even thats had a huge effect on sales when you look at the sales figures of some of the games which have done this. Charging people to play online isn't going to stimulate interest in the medium although I'm sure some people will lay down the cash regardless. That and 6% or whatever it was isn't disastrous and likely could still be a sign of the economic times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Udedenkz Posted July 17, 2010 Share Posted July 17, 2010 I think this will work. I don't see why people can't shell out monthly for an online gaming experience, ex - MMORPGs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smigit Posted July 17, 2010 Share Posted July 17, 2010 I think this will work. I don't see why people can't shell out monthly for an online gaming experience, ex - MMORPGs. Because MMORPG's are a pretty different thing to something like Call of Duty or whatever if you ask me. Firstly they are a lot more involved so I'm sure the typical MMORPG player only plays a single MMORP unlike FPS gamer who will go between Counterstrike, TF2, CoD, Battlefield ect on a nightly basis. The MMORPG has a peristent set of players too, for these FPS you have to actual go to a small amount of manual effortif you want to play with the same people all the time. TBH FPS shooters like those I mentioned already are played on a much smaller scale and I would assume the audience that plays those are far more likely to play multiple games from different series. If each title comes with its own subscription fee then the costs quickly accumulate. Theres another factor too and that is that CoD ect can very easily be hosted on a home connection...hell it is now days on Live ect. Thats in contrast to something like World of Warcraft that would not work at all on a persons home connection given you have to be able to provide a solid connection to hundreds if not thousands of players at once. People aren't going to be nuts on paying to host something they could themselves for free, especially if the companies charging for the game are at this time removing features like dedicated servers ect and as such have offloaded much of the games running costs back to consumers already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kodan Posted July 17, 2010 Share Posted July 17, 2010 (edited) ... It's people like this that are a plague on the gaming industry. Following last night’s NPD results, which showed a 6 percent US sales drop year-over-year, the Wedbush Morgan analyst said it’s time publishers starting looking at plans to monetise online play. You know what I blame on this? The fact they over charge you for games. Even downright piece of **** games that in reality SHOULD be sold for $30 or $40, are being sold for $60 and $70. If it's a AAA title like Halo, Grand Theft Auto, or Final Fantasy (As examples) then they DO deserve a $60 price tag, $70 is stretching it but $70 is still reasonable, because you actually GET what you pay for. Most games these days barely last 15 hours if you're LUCKY. Me? If I sepnd $60-$80 on a game, I damn well expect to get 60-80 hours or MORE out of that game. “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,” said Pachter. Yeah... That would be the POINT of a multiplayer game... HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR DURRRRRRRRRR A Multiplayer should have unlimited gameplay potential. I myself have put about 600 hours into Fallout 3, and about 400 hours into Oblivion. That's a lot of game time. Does that mean for every 30 hours I clock in these games I owe Bethesda an additional $60? Because I'm still only playing ONE game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas-c Veteran Posted July 17, 2010 Veteran Share Posted July 17, 2010 No. Just. No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razorwing Posted July 17, 2010 Share Posted July 17, 2010 All I have to say is screw you patcher. I will see the day that CoD franchise will fall because of this. edit: oh wait, it did already after Infinity Ward left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts