• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Pachter Attacks Your Sensibilities (Again): Online Multi To Be Subscription Based

C

Ca1amity

Neo Member
From VG247 via his GameTrailers show:

Pachter's Magic Ball said:
I think EA will migrate to an online subscription model, so instead of paying $10 for an online pass, I think EA will charge $5 or $10 a month which will give the player the ability to play any of the companies sports games online
Click to expand...

Pachter's Ass said:
The moral of the story is game and used game purchasers just have to accept online multiplayer is going subscription. Publishers just can’t afford to give this stuff away for free, its cannibalising new game sales and used game sales.
Click to expand...

Normally we all deride this kind of talk as nothing but idle speculation from people who are paid to speculate idly.

Except Pachter has somehow made himself king of the mountain and a corporate tastemaker. The more people hear this, the more its disseminated and internalized by the broader gaming populace, the easier it is for idle talk to become reality. Self fulfilling prophecy all the way.

So the question is, does this mean (despite the bullshit of the Pachter's reasoning) a shift back to the PC as platform of choice when users throw their hands up and say, "I'm not paying for XBLA and $5 for Madden and $5 for Modern Warfare and $5 for NHL"? Or are we on the path to having a comcast "Gaming" bill along side Internet and T.V. as yet another monthly expense?
 
I'll just stop playing games online if this happens. With MMOs, it's understandable. With shit like shooters and what not... No.

And I expect that pirates will start making private servers to get around this, making piracy even worse.

GG gaming industry.
 
Ca1amity said:
From VG247 via his GameTrailers show:





Normally we all deride this kind of talk as nothing but idle speculation from people who are paid to speculate idly.

Except Pachter has somehow made himself king of the mountain and a corporate tastemaker. The more people hear this, the more its disseminated and internalized by the broader gaming populace, the easier it is for idle talk to become reality. Self fulfilling prophecy all the way.

So the question is, does this mean (despite the bullshit of the Pachter's reasoning) a shift back to the PC as platform of choice when users throw their hands up and say, "I'm not paying for XBLA and $5 for Madden and $5 for Modern Warfare and $5 for NHL"? Or are we on the path to having a comcast "Gaming" bill along side Internet and T.V. as yet another monthly expense?
Click to expand...

He might be right, but at the same time if Consumers have to accept that then companies like EA have to accept that they will lose sales because of this move.

Will the number be that bad? Eh probably not, so no real loss to EA, but I don't see everysingle person taking this and just saying okay.

Also given the decrease in YoY sales for the sports games I can't imagine this coming at a worse time. As it is they are already lossing more and more customers every year, so to implement something like this certainly isn't going to help them get those people back.

Either way good luck to EA, but if they try this with stuff like NFS HP or Cryisis 2 then I will either not buy them at all or only play the single player portion.
 
A lot of ppl are going to complain but if EA charges only $5 to $10 a month to play any IP of them its ok, but charging for each? Thats stealing! Now MS would have to drop lives price a lot or make it free! Sony too! Everything in these days is all about money! They charge for almost anything these days! Dont they see economy is really bad! A lot of ppl are gettingfired! Hell some companies check your credit to see if youre eligible for a job! This would have its ups and down!
 
Charging a fee for used games to play online is just an attack on used games, nothing really to do with multiplayer. This is completely different, and if people have to start paying monthly for XBox Live and also a separate fee for each publisher's service, they'll just stop paying for any of it at all.
 
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the amount companies would lose from fewer unit sales far outweighs the amount of money they would make from a subscription.

Do some people play 10 hours a week of Call of Duty for years? Absolutely. But that is such a ridiculously small percentage of the 20 million people who bought the game that Pachter is inventing a problem where one doesn't exist. Not to mention that the few people who do that are the same people who buy ridiculously overpriced map packs.
 
I can see Activision getting away with this, short term, for the MW range of titles. And that's if they throw free DLC into the equation. The second every publisher tries to hop on the bandwagon however, this whole scheme will collapse. Consumers these days are simply too savvy to fork over $5 per game, each and every month. Not to mention little Timmy will have to sell mummy and daddy on the concept for every game they buy.

I'm sure they'll try it though. Best case scenario, it works out for a handful of publishers, but the overall number of games which will benefit from this scheme will be very small. Most publishers will lose out in the process.
 
:lol

I really don't play online enough to ever justify paying for games like a MMO, especially for a yearly franchise that costs $60 anyways.

fuck these guys.
 
If it means something like bimonthly map packs I wouldn't see it as such a bad deal. But they'd have to keep the map packs coming for at least a year after a game is released.
 
Sorry, but "its cannibalising new game sales and used game sales" is not a valid reason to charge for online play. Consumers are not some kind of feed trough that should be dipped into on a regular basis. If you make a game that has longevity your reward is consumer loyalty. Some of these companies need to take a lesson from Valve.
 
I don't have any opinion on his prediction itself, but, just remember this guy is never right about anything.

Why he's an analyst for this industry escapes me.
 
Crewnh said:
It's my fucking bandwidth. Why should I pay you.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, starting with EA these companies started to fuck around and force the service partially onto their network for rankings and bs like that. Battlefield 2, great game but the start of the end for free gaming.
 
I think they can get away with this with certain sports titles (Golf, Soccer, Baseball) ... but they would take a bath on their bigger franchises (Madden) if they tried this.


I've been playing their Tiger Woods Online product and I must say that I am impressed. But not impressed enough to actually pay money for it. Still needs more carrots for me to jump.
 
There is nothing that would indicate developers are going to be going after this trend. Pachter is just attacking sense.
 
I had a big long post written up on how stupid this whole idea and how I don't support it, but it was poorly written and rambling so I'll just say this. Publisher's are going to have to offer something really special for me to start throwing money at them so I can play their shitty P2P game that costs them next to nothing to keep up. I'm hate paying for Xbox Live, why the hell would I also want to pay for EA Live?
 
Megadragon15 said:
So $60+tax for a game, another $60-$120 to play online, and another $50 (XBox Live only). No thanks.
Click to expand...




Nah .... the (nerfed) game will be free (download) and you can pay 10 dollars a month for complete access to the game, plus microtransactions within the game. Or you can buy the retail product in stores and get 6 months free access.

Something like that.
 
You guys shouldn't be so dismissive of this...

EA's going to purchase one of the big three and all of their sports games are only going to be available on that platform, duders. Aaaaaand, you'll be paying a monthly fee on top of that!!!

:p
 
I'm not really sure I understand paying the extra money to play a feature that was developed as a part of the package. At least say, "Oh well, our online wasn't developed during our release frame so we have to charge extra for what was normally a part of your purchase price."

Even so, an ongoing fee is ridiculous. If this is the way things are going, I feel sad. Back to the SNES.
 
Why do you give him attention?

You do realise that is what attention whores live off?

Cut off the attention, and they cut off the whoredom.
 
Ca1amity said:
Except Pachter has somehow made himself king of the mountain and a corporate tastemaker. The more people hear this, the more its disseminated and internalized by the broader gaming populace, the easier it is for idle talk to become reality. Self fulfilling prophecy all the way.
Click to expand...
yeah, it's a good thing you didn't make a thread on the biggest game forum in existence announcing this
 
Nirolak said:
I'm waiting on the StarCraft 2 subscription fee as well.
Click to expand...

Didn't you hear? They where able to hide the subsciption fee's by spliting it into three games and selling it. This way no one knows any different.:D
 
I will gladly switch to the glorious PC gaming master race at that point. I'm already tired of the subs I have to play consoles online at this point.

With respect to Pachter's comment on it cannibalizing the sales of newer games, it'd help if publishers like Activision didn't try to dump out yearly franchise sequels. We as consumers are not the problem -- flooding the market with the same big budget titles is. Why should I be punished for wanting to play a game for however long I feel I want to continue playing it? The consumer's choice in the "expiration date" of their current games in relation to their upcoming purchases shouldn't spur publishers into charging for subscriptions.

Fuck this shit.
 
Maybe I just read Pachter differently than most people, but he never comes off as saying this stuff to scorn and belittle people. Why do people get so butt-hurt over his predictions? Sounds to me like he's making a valid assessment based on the desires a lot of the big-company execs are expressing. Kotick has said several times he wants to charge people for Call of Duty, somehow it's Pachter's fault for saying that this is something that will likely happen and be beneficial for publishers? I can understand he's a bit off-base saying "publishers can't afford to support it", but some people take that and act like he just said Jesus fucked Mohammad. If he bugs people so much, why keep giving him attention?

Please don't take this as an indication I support this proposition. I buy very few games day one, let alone have any MMO subscriptions or a constant XBL Gold membership. I'm done as soon as publishers charge me just for what they think is the privilege to play their game online (non-MMO or something that actually warrants it).
 
I still find it amusing that people like to make the claim companies are "giving (online play) away for free".

Does anyone in their right fucking mind actually believe MW would have sold like it did without a MP mode included?
 
He's right but I still think that competition will severly limit the ability of publishers to be successful with this model.

They will try though.
 
Kraut said:
Maybe I just read Pachter differently than most people, but he never comes off as saying this stuff to scorn and belittle people. Why do people get so butt-hurt over his predictions? Sounds to me like he's making a valid assessment based on the desires a lot of the big-company execs are expressing. Kotick has said several times he wants to charge people for Call of Duty, somehow it's Pachter's fault for saying that this is something that will likely happen and be beneficial for publishers? I can understand he's a bit off-base saying "publishers can't afford to support it", but some people take that and act like he just said Jesus fucked Mohammad. If he bugs people so much, why keep giving him attention?

Please don't take this as an indication I support this proposition. I buy very few games day one, let alone have any MMO subscriptions or a constant XBL Gold membership. I'm done as soon as publishers charge me just for what they think is the privilege to play their game online (non-MMO or something that actually warrants it).
Click to expand...

Hey I agree we shouldn't post threads about him as if we don't actually want him to get attention, but he is in no way some figure spreading the word to us low life consumers.

He has made jokes several times at gamers expense and done much more to earn the ire he recieves from a large part of the community.
 
Dance In My Blood said:
There is nothing that would indicate developers are going to be going after this trend. Pachter is just attacking sense.
Click to expand...
Well except for EA's vip codes, with other publishers wanting to follow suit - Activision wanting CoD to go the subscription route etc. You might be right about developers but publishers are gonna be all over this.
 
It will definitely be happening, and soon. Kotick already thinks that the Call of Duty series alone is driving a huge chunk of the XBL subscriptions, so of course he's going to think they have a right to a piece of the pie.
 
So if they gonna start charging subscription fees for online does that mean every game will have new contents/maps every month, regular and fast patches, lower starting price plus long continuous developer support? Cause if doesn't have that then sorry, there is no point in paying money.

BTW, how much does online cost publishers? Is it something expensive?
 
poppabk said:
Well except for EA's vip codes, with other publishers wanting to follow suit - Activision wanting CoD to go the subscription route etc. You might be right about developers but publishers are gonna be all over this.
Click to expand...
That's just part of the trend of developers fighting against the used games market though, it's unrelated to charging for online play.
 
TruePrime said:
He might be right, but at the same time if Consumers have to accept that then companies like EA have to accept that they will lose sales because of this move.
Click to expand...

Less games from companies like EA sounds like a win for consumers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Michael Pachter: The solution to expensive hardware will be to stream games to your TV.
2 3 4 5 6
286
2K
Breakfast at Noon replied
Zelda needs to be zelda again
Opinion  2 3 4 5
247
607
Effigenius replied
Why do 'free to play' multiplayer games also not cost an online sub? Why do others charge $40-$60 and ask for another $20+ or so online subscription.
2
55
1K
Melfice7 replied
Final Fantasy XVII is going to be turn based right?
Opinion  2 3 4
167
1K
Kumomeme replied
  • Poll
What's Your Favorite Alien Game? (Games Based Off The Alien/Aliens Franchise)
2
61
364
Robochobo replied
Top Bottom