-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Pachter on next-gen: "Developers need to charge for multiplayer"
- Thread starter Elginer
- Start date
we.are.the.armada
Member
I am very sure that this will happen and with it more service accounts to sign up for. I prefer the F2P model that TF2 uses though :/
legacyzero
Banned
Shut it, Pachter!
It's bad enough, what the publishers are already doing to the industry.
It's bad enough, what the publishers are already doing to the industry.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
They do.
It's called an MMO.
It's called an MMO.
The Janitor
Member
We need to charge Pachter everytime he says something
This is one of those times I'm glad I have great resistance because what I want to say is totally ban worthy.
But the audacity to call us 'entitled' gamers... Even for those of us that pay for xbox live... the fucking nerve. The fact that he can belittle us 'entitled' gamers and make a living off said gamers is a fucking joke.
I really wish ... I'll just stop.
But the audacity to call us 'entitled' gamers... Even for those of us that pay for xbox live... the fucking nerve. The fact that he can belittle us 'entitled' gamers and make a living off said gamers is a fucking joke.
I really wish ... I'll just stop.
Don't worry, you're among good company and like-minded people here.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
I think people are overreacting somewhat. In the context of what he said "sense of entitlement" isn't a bad thing, change that divisive adjective to another "E" word, expectation, and the meaning is precisely the same but I don't think it carries the same negative connotation.
TouchMyBox
Member
Why would developers be interested in charging fees and subscriptions when they see idiots like me laying down more cash than that for keys in dota?
DisenLedZep
Member
So, what are we paying when we buy the game? The single player only?
Is there a way to buy only the multi player?
I'm guessing not.
So, it's the model that's wrong... not the"sense of entitlement" that gamers supposedly have.
Again... why are we listening to this guy?
You mean world of warcraft.. almost all MMOs are going f2p.
Boombloxer
Member
No, no.
Multiplayer is free.
I'm entitled to a good experience.
Multiplayer is free.
I'm entitled to a good experience.
I don't know if it's been explained, but here is a bit more about what he has to say about the subject. I don't think he'll mind me sharing. Emphasis mine.
With that extra detail in there, I don't think he's off base, really. The dollar-per-unit-time ratio surely feels like it has gone down (my opinion) and that drags down packaged revenue. No reason not to pursue ways to increase the ratio, if the market will accept it.
So, people are having more fun/hour ratios now than they did before. They should pay more.
I don't get the time cannibalizing argument honestly, even if such a thing was actually possible to prove, this generation overall revenues have grown considerably compared to previous generations and the industry has grown as a whole. The problem is that they are spending more money on creating sub par games, that is why they are seeing less money back.
Or maybe I'm wrong and that is why I don't own a multimillion dollar company.
I don't get the time cannibalizing argument honestly, even if such a thing was actually possible to prove, this generation overall revenues have grown considerably compared to previous generations and the industry has grown as a whole. The problem is that they are spending more money on creating sub par games, that is why they are seeing less money back.
Or maybe I'm wrong and that is why I don't own a multimillion dollar company.
DisenLedZep
Member
My GOD... he's just saying: "Don't give more value in your games. Suck more money, add less value."
- We didn't have to pay 60 bucks per game
- We didn't have to pay for DLCs
- We didn't have to pay sometimes (rent)
- There's still the re-sell issue
- PC games had LAN and were best sellers
- Console games had offline multiplayers
He keeps adding nonsense to his speech.
I don't mind the actual bussiness model: "60 bucks... and pay for DLC". But charging for multiplayer is going overboard.
GameplayWhore
Member
"The average player spends an estimated 500 hours annually playing these games, suggesting that revenues per hour of game play are close to $0.15. In past years, players paid $60 for a single player experience lasting a typical 30 hours, or $2.00 per hour."
There's something wrong with this statement. Is he comparing the total number of annual hours per player for online multiplayer games against the number of hours for one single player game?
edit: Yeah, it seems like he's calculating (total hours played of every game added together in one year) divided by (cost of one game) to get his revenue per hour number. That almost seems fraudulent.
K
kittens
Unconfirmed Member
pssshhhhhh
Because it is. He is also ignoring the fact that even before Call of Duty came along there were online games that people played for years, without subscribing or paying a cent more.
What he is basically saying is: There is some untapped potential in your games, if you guys treat your customers like addicts (which going by these numbers they basically are) and charged by the minute you'd be even richer. Why don't you go ahead and do just that.
cleveridea
Member
Pachter is employed to provide advice to investors, on the profit potential of companies.
So his advice for companies to maxlmise their profits is clearly going to annoy gamers, since they want the opposite (pay as little as possible).
His argument seems quite compelling to me. I recoil in horror at what it represents though
So his advice for companies to maxlmise their profits is clearly going to annoy gamers, since they want the opposite (pay as little as possible).
His argument seems quite compelling to me. I recoil in horror at what it represents though
--
'Welcome to Walmart, how can I help you?'
"I'd like this here basketball, please."
'A basketball hey, that will be fun. That will be $19.99....
-- UNLESS ---'
"Unless what?"
'Unless you plan on using it to play with other people.'
"What difference does that make?"
'Well, then it's 19.99 for the basketball, and an additional $1 per day for using it with friends.'
"Sick, that sounds totally legit!"
--
We're spending the $60 frickin dollars on a frickin game for 4 hours campain BECAUSE of the multiplayer. We're paying our ISP, we're playing Microsoft for XBL (if we have any sense, cause PSN is Fing garbage compared to XBL when it comes to partying up for games of NHL, COD etc), and Activision is milking many of you for COD elite. Gamers are paying $60 for the game each year, $50 for elite each year, and now Pach thinks more money can be extracted for still another online fee?
People will balk at this imo. Too much is too much, already. If they want to hike the cost of the game by $10 or something, then that will probably sit better with people than a whole new "online" charge on top of all your other online charges.
Rubbish, Pachter.
'Welcome to Walmart, how can I help you?'
"I'd like this here basketball, please."
'A basketball hey, that will be fun. That will be $19.99....
-- UNLESS ---'
"Unless what?"
'Unless you plan on using it to play with other people.'
"What difference does that make?"
'Well, then it's 19.99 for the basketball, and an additional $1 per day for using it with friends.'
"Sick, that sounds totally legit!"
--
We're spending the $60 frickin dollars on a frickin game for 4 hours campain BECAUSE of the multiplayer. We're paying our ISP, we're playing Microsoft for XBL (if we have any sense, cause PSN is Fing garbage compared to XBL when it comes to partying up for games of NHL, COD etc), and Activision is milking many of you for COD elite. Gamers are paying $60 for the game each year, $50 for elite each year, and now Pach thinks more money can be extracted for still another online fee?
People will balk at this imo. Too much is too much, already. If they want to hike the cost of the game by $10 or something, then that will probably sit better with people than a whole new "online" charge on top of all your other online charges.
Rubbish, Pachter.
It's evident that someone will try that. They are already creating new and different paying habits amongst gamers with Call of Duty, Uncharted, GT5, etc with "fidelity programs" or whatever this stupid shit is called. The reality is that you guys will enroll and swallow the pill when it will come to the point where they will feel ready to charge for multiplayers. They will prepare you slowly and you will see NOTHING.
Basketball's cost don't go up, games do.
Why is he still around? I didn't know people took anything he said seriously.
I'll hold onto my PC. Dedicated servers have treated me well so far.
I'll hold onto my PC. Dedicated servers have treated me well so far.
Hahahaha
Actually I wouldn't mind that some generation of big publishers would crash and burn because of their stupid decision and leave place for some much needed new players with better ideas.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
I don't see what the big deal is. If developers start doing this then don't pay for it. I haven't played COD since MW2 and haven't missed a thin
g. Gaming isn't exactly a necessary hobby and as far as I'm concerned the industry can shit itself and collapse. I know it's a business and they're trying to make money, but the way they're going about it is predictable and tiresome.
g. Gaming isn't exactly a necessary hobby and as far as I'm concerned the industry can shit itself and collapse. I know it's a business and they're trying to make money, but the way they're going about it is predictable and tiresome.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
GameplayWhore
Member
To at least some degree, that's because game makers want to make their games bigger and badder each gen.
I'm sure that a basketball manufacturer could make a ball that lasts twice as long but costs four times as much to make. They don't because basketball manufacturers aren't idiots.
That said, it's important to note that playing basketball multiplayer doesn't cost the manufacturer any money. Playing a video game multiplayer, if online, costs them to maintain the servers.
Diddy Kong
Banned
Please stop talking Pachter.
Starbuck2907
Member
EA and Activision already charge "about a dollar a week" for a full online multiplayer experience. If you want all the maps, skins, etc, you gotta pay.
CoD Elite = ~$50 (52 weeksin a year)
Battlefield 3 Premium = ~$50 (52weeks in a year)
If you include EA's "online pass" fee for used games, they actually average slightly more than $1 per week.
CoD Elite = ~$50 (52 weeksin a year)
Battlefield 3 Premium = ~$50 (52weeks in a year)
If you include EA's "online pass" fee for used games, they actually average slightly more than $1 per week.
I also love how the solution to his made up problem would probably benefit those studios causing the problem more than it would anyone else. All for the health and profitability of the industry of course, and by industry I mean the few big studios that put out those big multiplayer games.
Dance Inferno
Unconfirmed Member
It's not about the cost of games, it's about the fact that Activision can charge people for multiplayer and they will pay for it.
That's it. That's all it's ever been.
Fox Mulder
Member
Fuck this industry. I'll start whittling wood or something instead.