The future of online gaming... more payment?

[Leo]

Fellow gamers, check this out :

http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/110/1106732p1.html

I understand companies produce games for money, I was always a defender of that fact against certain people who failed to understand it. But I believe this is unfair... They capitalized on online multiplayer function already, by making it as rich as possible in this kind of games (and thus increase the lasting appeal of the game significantly; which in turn made more people buy it). We even started getting games like Battlefield : Bad Company 2 which have a single player campaign that is there for the hell of it and focus heavily on multiplayer.

Now they realized they have defeated themselves by their own strategy. So we have to suffer for it by paying monthly fees to a game that repeats itself worse than an MMO does and does not have quarter the diversity and freedom an MMO has?

I think I'll quit playing games altogether if I will be charged for my 1-2 hours fun in the evenings, in a game that I already paid the amount all its features are worth.

[Nyarly]

I think I'll quit playing games altogether if I will be charged for my 1-2 hours fun in the evenings, in a game that I already paid the amount all its features are worth.

Do you only play online games?

[Leo]

Mostly, yes.

Single Player games that I care to play are scarce as it is, I doubt new ones will show up any time soon (except a few sequels). Most of the time I spend with games is spent online and if I have to pay for that, I'll just find myself a new hobby... however difficult that may be after 20 years of gaming *sighs*

[Inkidu]

I personally saw this coming.

[Heaven Sent Blossom]

Pachter? Really? for every one thing right he gets about five woefully wrong, and most of those are due to his obsession to be "right" about how Nintendo were going to fail this generation.
However if any company was going to pull this right now then it would be Activision--however if you buy Activision games? Then you deserve whatever you get.

[Leo]

however if you buy Activision games? Then you deserve whatever you get.

I'm pondering if I should take offense or not. I'll most likely go with not taking offense, but I think it was harsh to say that.

what's so bad about Activision anyway? They're not the best out there in some respects, but Modern Warfare & Modern Warfare 2 are good enough imo. At least it accomplishes what it set out to do.

[Heaven Sent Blossom]

The list of horrible things Activision have done in the last couple of years is pretty long, my personal favourite is probably when their managing director stated that they would prefer to concentrate on franchises that they could "exploit" (his word, not mine). Although I was a big fan of how they withheld royalties from the developers of Modern Warfare, that was a good one.

[Nyarly]

However if any company was going to pull this right now then it would be Activision--however if you buy Activision games? Then you deserve whatever you get.

So people who play Activision games are all idiots? Well, I think I keep my opinion of Fan Haters for myself.

[Leo]

So?

It's business, mate. Exploit is the right word, because they are making money off of our desires from gaming and they've been doing it in the dirtiest way possible since the dawn of 3D.

But monthly fees for games like Modern Warfare? Please... that's like a British spy wearing a shirt with UK flag on it next to Hitler and expecting him to be fooled.

[Paladin]

So people who play Activision games are all idiots? Well, I think I keep my opinion of Fan Haters for myself.

I happen to play activision games. Some of them are quite good.

[Heaven Sent Blossom]

But monthly fees for games like Modern Warfare? Please... that's like a British spy wearing a shirt with UK flag on it next to Hitler and expecting him to be fooled.

My original point about how often Pachter is wrong still stands, however if this comes to pass then people will just need to vote with their wallet I guess. Heck shouldn't prove too hard if they let Treyarch develop their future CoD games.
I wouldn't be surprised if Activision gave this some serious consideration as an option, I would be pretty surprised if they actually implemented it, and I would be flat out astounded if it proved worth doing twice.

[Leo]

Let's just hope we are never expected to pay on a regular basis for games like CoD.

[Heaven Sent Blossom]

PLANETSIDE!!!!

Sorry, couldn't help myself. It's like a sickness.

[Leo]

I said games like CoD  ;)  ;D

[Heaven Sent Blossom]

It was a shooter, it totally counts ;-p

It also had less balance issues than Modern Warfare 2---maybe.

On a more serious note I think we'll see Activision go the "multiplayer code on new copies, has to be purchased if you buy preowned" model before they hitch their wagon to this concept since that's pretty popular right now, especially with the sports titles.

[Leo]

In my country, there's a saying. "Has to eat forty bakehouses of bread" or something like that in a mot a mot translation.

That is valid for Planetside.

[Paladin]

Why does anyone care? People will always pay for shit like this because the truth is we want to be ditracted from how shitty our lives are.

[Leo]

Why does anyone care? People will always pay for shit like this because the truth is we want to be ditracted from how shitty our lives are.

Because we like to pretend we're rich and important people by debating about everything like it was international politics  ;)

[HairyHeretic]

PLANETSIDE!!!!

Sorry, couldn't help myself. It's like a sickness.

Roll on Planetside Next :)

*chambers a round in the bolt driver*

[GeekFury]

Well trust Activision to go for fee's on games that by all rights should be free to play online, any chance they got the idea from Activision-Blizzard? But really is it's only for FPS' then won't bother me, I rarely play online games on my 360 if ever, but as a former Unreal player I think it should just be the law that online FPS' should be free multiplayer, otherwise you're heading into MMO territory and no FPS, Call of Duty or otherwise is THAT addictive people will pay to play.

[Nyarly]

Quite a naive view. As much as people complain, they WILL pay for it.

The question is not, why Activision does that, but why they start with it only now. I would have expected that years earlier.

But if this prevails (and most likely it will), it won't stop with Activision, of course. All the other companies will want to have a piece of that cake too, after all.

[HairyHeretic]

Well trust Activision to go for fee's on games that by all rights should be free to play online, any chance they got the idea from Activision-Blizzard? But really is it's only for FPS' then won't bother me, I rarely play online games on my 360 if ever, but as a former Unreal player I think it should just be the law that online FPS' should be free multiplayer, otherwise you're heading into MMO territory and no FPS, Call of Duty or otherwise is THAT addictive people will pay to play.

Planetside. Pure FPS, though with vehicles and aircraft, and a monthly pay MMO.

[Brandon]

Ya know Ive been saying for awhile how companies are getting away with making awesome multiplayer but then not putting work into single player aspects yet still expecting us to pay the full price. When I can go into a single player side of a game and finish it in less time then it takes to make a cup of coffee something is seriously wrong and thats pretty much the way all FPS's are going. Awesome multiplayer with bland, predictable, and criminally short single player experiences

However Ive already been voting with my wallet because I consider not giving me worthwhile single player while still charging full price is pretty much trying to steal my money. I dont tend to buy many FPS games anyway, although I do rent them to see if theres anything special about them. In fact the last one I bought was Battlefield: Bad company 2 and I really do enjoy the multiplayer but the story is imaginative and more importantly funny enough to keep me playing it over and over again

If the games industry wants better games then they need to step it up a notch and make the single player side better. Besides charging too much more for multiplayer is just going to make people go to free 2 play multiplayer. Its already bad enough that for XBOX live you have to pay for your internet and the live account, how much more are they going to try and bleed out of us?

[Lithos]

Monthly fees at very least make us being far more selective in games we play, and that might actually lower the sales quite a bit. I have more or less accepted pay to play mmo:s and have played quite a few of them - enjoyed too so it has been money well spent.

Shooters i play only occasionally, and when I do it is for the most part at occasional lan party or such. If I play couple nights every other month, that is something I would rather not pay any fees for. Then again, gamer who enjoys the shooters the most might want to pay small monthly fee for their entertainment, specially if it keeps the kids out.

All in all a sad developement - it is never fun to lose money after all - but expected one with how much money companies have been making with MMO franchises. At least I would expect that if they expect you to pay monthly fees for a shooter with not much single player appeal - at least distribute it free. No matter how you look at it, first buying a game and then paying for playing it feels like a rip off.

[Leo]

Let's grab torches and march to Activision HQ if it happens.