Well Michael Pachter does. In the new Xbox Magazine he says that it will be good for gaming even pointing out developers that have closed and ones close. I say that it will have the opposite effect with big companies like Activision getting an even bigger piece of the gaming pie and causing even more companies to go under. What are your views on charging for online on games like Call of Duty and so on.
It's up to the users. No matter how many companies decide to start charging for their online services. If the end user decides that the service is worth it then they will happily pay. I just upgraded my PSN account to a Plus one. Why? Because I believe that the benefit I'm receiving is worth the price. Simple as that.
Fuck no it's the worst trend this generation and I hope to God Sony doesn't try to make it mandatory next generation, though I bet they fucking will...
I think for a game thats being hosted off the companies own servers, and is constantly coming out with new content through patches, its a fair deal. ie. Warcraft. But I think charging to play online like Xbox Live, is a complete rip off considering 99% of games are hosted off somebodies Xbox your in a lobby with.
" I think for a game thats being hosted off the companies own servers, and is constantly coming out with new content through patches, its a fair deal. ie. Warcraft. But I think charging to play online like Xbox Live, is a complete rip off considering 99% of games are hosted off somebodies Xbox your in a lobby with. "
" I think for a game thats being hosted off the companies own servers, and is constantly coming out with new content through patches, its a fair deal. ie. Warcraft. But I think charging to play online like Xbox Live, is a complete rip off considering 99% of games are hosted off somebodies Xbox your in a lobby with. "
^^this "
I have all ways thought of having to PAY to play with others because of xbox gold is stupid. This is where Sony is better. Their online is free..course now if they could just keep my PS3 from revving up every multiplayer match and sound like a tiny lawnmower at times.
Weird. Paying $50 a year for Xbox Live and then paying another subscription for the game? It's not going to work. Besides doesn't Microsoft have rules against that?
@ch13696: Not too sure. I know they charge for XBL and Final Fantasy 11, but that might be a different story than say, a shooter that stays the same through its life, and multiplayer games are hosted off a players own console.
" @ch13696: Not too sure. I know they charge for XBL and Final Fantasy 11, but that might be a different story than say, a shooter that stays the same through its life, and multiplayer games are hosted off a players own console. "
Yeah now I remember, Brad Nicholson did a story on it. How Cryptic was in talks with Microsoft, but they kept turning Cryptic down because of the subscription fee's. Basically their system is so closed off that they want no one else touching it. That's why Final Fantasy XIV won't be on the 360. Anyways, I'm not sure how well it's going to work with a shooter. Activision pops one out every year. There are sometimes that I still catch my friends playing Call of Duty 4 and WaW. So I don't see the subscription to work if they still want to sell on their back catalog. However, a game like Battlefield on PC I can see working because they don't release one every year. For example Team Fortress 2, Battlefield 2, and Counter-Strike Source.
You know what? It's all about the greed for money with the gaming industry these days and who can get the most $ out of the "gamer". The biggest gaming trend on the rise that I see today is subscription models for gaming. Who likes that idea of having to pay for multiple subscriptions at once to play MP in games? Microsoft pretty much led the way for this in consoles with the xbox360 and Live being $50 a year and people bought into that idea. Honestly it wouldn't surprise me one bit to see the devil Mr. Kotick take the Call of Duty games to subscription based either. People will pay for it and god I can see the $15 a month pricetag to play CoD MP already and a company like Activision would do it.
I mean $50 Live, $15 Netflix if you have it, the soon to be released Hulu+ for $10(ridiculous btw), and then the possibility of subscription based MP for separate games. Not to mention the internet bill, that shit adds up damn fast!
I say charge more for the central places like XboxLive or even PlaystationPlus yearly and get rid of the idea to pay for what is the beginning of mindless monthly subscriptions.
I don't buy that argument. For more than a decade now most online games have been free and now, suddenly, game companies are suffering under the weight of their online servers? Does this mean that games that don't have dedicated servers will be free still? Why do I doubt companies won't nickle-and-dime gamers for every experience without providing much added return?
If game companies start to charge monthly rates for each online or group of online experiences, they will price themselves out of the market. Look at MMO's and you'll see "The Highlander Rule" in full effect. By that I mean, "there can be only one". So, some gamers might be willing to pay for Modern Warfare 3 online access, but in doing so, they won't pay for Halo: The Further Adventures of Master Chief or Battlefield: Even Badder Company. Games with multiplayer just won't be experienced because few are going to want to fork out the extra cash on top of the price of the base game to play in the competitive online arena. Who is going to pay extra to play online Bioshock 3 or Uncharted 3: Drake Finds Some Stuff? Sure, the big games will attract players but like WOW gets all the MMO love, all other games will have very small user bases and suffer under those restraints.
It's definitely keeping me away from MMOs right now. I prefer a microtransaction model with ethics (thats is, preventing pay for power) or a better pricepoint than the $15 of WOW (something sub 9.99 would be preferable). APB's model of confusing as hell tiers of access and limitations should be wholly refused though.
I can see paying for a game like WoW or other MMO's monthly. But to ask someone who already pays for XBox Live Gold to also pay for their own multiplayer is a little much. It's just Activision trying to get as much money as they can, as fast as they can.
I'm fine with paying the monthly fee for Xbox Live or even PSN +. But there is no way I'm going to pay a monthly fee to play one game like Call of Duty or Halo, though I believe it will eventually happen *cough* Activision *cough*
" Fuck no it's the worst trend this generation and I hope to God Sony doesn't try to make it mandatory next generation, though I bet they fucking will... "
I pay for xbox live because it's what most of my friends play and I like playing online. That's the only reason I pay for the service. I don't like paying just to pay online, but micro-transactions are fine. Microsoft kind of fucks you in the ass with their service, but the best way to go about any other game/company doing it with their titles is just not paying for it, they'll do this regardless of what any of us think, if they think it's in their best interest. We have a choice and don't have to drop a dime. Unfortunately that is the only way to protest to these kinds of things.
I think its ok to pay for monthly service like xbox live because that covers all games on that platform and they give you new updates on stuff to do on their like netflix and 1 vs 100 every year to use because you pay for a monthly service. That being said, I don't want to pay a subscription for a single game. With the rumors going around with the COD subscriptions would be disheartening considering to play that game on my 360 I would have to pay for the Xbox live gold AND the COD subscription. Paying two fees for one game is the worst thing you could do.
It's all a matter of how they roll it out. I didn't read any specific business model details as to their plans but i could easily see it being a fair deal at least.
Reality: Activision releases a game once a year for $60 plus the DLC...don't wanna pay $5 a month for games? Guess what...'cha already did!
Imagine this (and i'm just pullin numbers outta my ass here) : $10 a month service, you get all the multiplayer ya like, map packs are updated at no extra charge and single player episodic content is sold much like DLC for those who are interested. You buy the Call of Duty hub. Map packs and online game modes grow at no extra charge. No more sequels, just episodic releases.
It depends on what you get out of it. if its charging for the same old multiplayer experience we have now no. if its something like TF2 where there is new content added all of the time added at no extra cost then maybe. said TF2 like multiplayer allowed the APB model of buying hours instead of by the month then sure since I don't play multiplayer that much.
Dude is a businessman, he speaks from the business perspective. He'd think game companies charging $200 for a game was good if they could get away with it.
But anyways I generally consider paying more only 'good' if the service or product warrants that fee. Xbox Live charging isn't really good, but there's no way around it. I pay it, though, because I can afford it and I get pleasure from it. Value is in the eye of the beholder.
But doesn't it seem like that it would have the opposite effect that Pachter is referencing? He is talking about small developers going out of business and that this could be good for them but I see the opposite. If this does prove to be successful I see big games gettting even more money while smaller games are receiving less sales because I don't know about you but I have a limit to how much I can spend.
well considering i don't play mmo's for that very reason, and i already pay 50 bucks a year for xbox live. I would say that would be an extremely bad idea.
Being 'good' doesn't really matter. People are willing to do it and companies work around what people are willing to do while trying to coerce them into doing just a little bit more all the time.
no, i don't think that it is good. it is especially bad that it is only a peer to peer network. when i get xbox live gold i only use it to play online, i don't have a netflix account. i think that facebook thing is stupid for them to use since it doesn't have all the functionality that it does with it being on the computer. playing on the PC with servers there is no lag and if there is than you just find another server. consoles there is a lot of lag.
Log in to comment