180°

Are Multiplayer Fees On The Horizon?

Virtual Reality:

"The problem for publishers is, they’ve stumbled into a vast wellspring of value, but they haven’t yet figured out how to monetize it. Multiplayer modes increase the recurring worth of games. No longer do we expect to play games for a mere 10-20 hours and then never touch them again. We expect them to entertain us for that long, and then to continue to entertain us for months and years afterwards by allowing us to play with our friends online. We expect, in other words, that games provide ever increasing amounts of value.

And yet, up until now, we haven’t been expected to pay for this value. Even though multiplayer vastly increases the worth of a game to consumers, publishers haven’t forced us to pony up for it. But with multiplayer becoming the primary mode of gameplay for many games, this model is probably on its last legs."

Read Full Story >>
virtualrealityblog.com
nadiap5039d ago

I think we'll definitely see them... there's no way companies are gonna pass up that kind of money.

cobraagent5039d ago

MS made a lot of money out of XBOX live and so did Blizzard out of WoW.
Activision is up next

bubbyjoan5039d ago

yep, followed by everyone else. /mourn my wallet :(

rdgneoz35039d ago

MMO's have charged for playing for years, MS charging for live is just stupid. Reason why MMOs tend to get away with it, is because the create new content / raids to extend the game play and are free (besides the monthly subscription and expansions). For WoW, the Lich King expansion has had a bunch of raids and instances added to it since it first started. Burning Crusade had a ton of content added to it throughout its life as well.

Only way other multiplayer games (non MMOs) could get away with it with their player base not minding too much, would be to deliver new content continuously for free. But I don't see COD giving away 15 dollar map packs for free anytime soon.

And seeing as FFXIV (subscription based) was somewhat blocked from the 360 due to a a closed environment for Xbox Live, "they want to have a closed environment for Xbox Live" - http://www.eurogamer.net/ar... , it might be tricky with others.

karl5039d ago

soo can we blame this on MS aswell?

evrfighter5038d ago (Edited 5038d ago )

MMO's get away with it due to hardware and bandwidth one needs when you're playing in a server with thousands of people.

but to pay to play on a peer2peer server or an GSP server is just ridiculous. On the pc side most teams and alot of people do pay on a monthly basis for their own server for practices, matches, or pubs already.

a game is doomed to fail if they wish to try it as an experiment. god help the poor souls of the dev's who's game is sent out to die.

the only pro I'll give console gamers is that they don't know any better when it comes to MMO's. They believe it should be free as most are kids that don't have credit cards. With that in mind there's no need to worry about multiplayer fees.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 5038d ago
tinybigman5039d ago

I like single player experience more then competitive online play. Its bad enough they already charge for dlc now you wanna charge for me to play online if I feel the need to.

I don't do it with Live and I sure as hell won't be doing it with this if it comes true.

Jerkstore815039d ago

If that happens, it will kill console gaming. The majority of console gamers aren't going to pay a subscription per game to play online.

Lightsaber5039d ago

I dont think this would work. One XBL already has a fee to play online. I dont think there are to many games that plays would even bother to play online you add another fee to it. Maybe Halo, CoD and gears could get away with it. I think most players would drop ther gold memberships. The sales of DCL would fall drastically. Even on the PSN were its free to play how many people would pay 10-15 a month to play CoD and then buy all the map packs ? If you are willing to paying that how many game would you pay it for ? I have around 30-40 games that I can play online. If it was 10 dollars per game it be 300-400 dollars a month. Hell if I had to pay a fee to play online I would not even own half of those games.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 5038d ago
alphakennybody5039d ago (Edited 5039d ago )

if acti pulls it off with COD(I have no doubt about it, since sheep will always be sheep), EA and others will too start asking for fees with teir key Ip.

beavis4play5039d ago (Edited 5039d ago )

it's the gamers you have to worry about acting like "sheep".
too many younger people who don't understand how to prioritize their finances (or handle money in general) will probably pay. so will the adults with no lives who stay shut in their homes/apartments.......which will then lead to EA and other devs charging for their online play.
as i stated below - this can only work if people are dumb enough to pay. and judging from how many are paying for xbox gold membership or playstation plus.....this is going to happen.

i know i won't pay. i would suggest everyone else do the same.

claterz5039d ago

"the only way activision "pulls it off" is if people start paying"
Of course people are going to pay for it, if they introduce fees to CoD pretty much every single CoD player will sign up, they just gotta ask their parents to use the credit card lol.

oldjadedgamer5039d ago

If that happens, I can't say I enjoy MW2 enough to pay double for online play. Probably won't renew live then. Just have to force myself to finish FF13.

matthewschrager5039d ago

Yeah, I wonder how many people will feel the same. It could really backfire if many do... but I don't think it will. Of course, a lot of this depends on the exact pricing scheme.

PirateThom5039d ago (Edited 5039d ago )

"Greed, for lack of a better word, is good."

And, in this case, I think it may well benefit everyone more if it does backfire to the point it will be very damaging to the people who bring these changes, initially, but then the industry will see a recovery as companies try to figure more innovative ways to keep us playing.

Honestly, as big as the video game industry is, I think it's heading towards an 80's style crash, it's because too big and too money focused rather than software focused.

tdrules5039d ago (Edited 5039d ago )

you won't be paying for what you already have, you will be paying for consistent new features.
Imagine for example, the past two CODs never happened, instead you paid a subscription since COD4 in 2007, and you received WaW and MW2 as well as every map pack as part of your subscription

Imperator5039d ago

While that would be great, I seriously doubt Activision would do that. They'd probably charge per game.

MysticStrummer5039d ago (Edited 5039d ago )

No way it's worth a monthly fee to get what you're talking about. Not to me anyway. If I'm paying a monthly fee there'd better be a huge persistent world with many factions to join and many classes to level up. Not to mention a large amount of customizing options for your character, both in looks and abilities.

asyouburn5039d ago

i don't like Mdub, so good for me!

midgard2295039d ago

and thus the end of online gaming comes. its cool i like split screen better anyway :)

and damn its gonna suk for Xbox users, jus wouldnt be right if they charge for online play then have to pay for activision etc.

in MMO's it makes sense and is fine aslong as tons of content updates are made and maintained, but to charge just to play is just stupid.

shooters should never have to be pay to play, nor shud fighters

matthewschrager5039d ago

But really, what's the difference between an MMO and COD multiplayer? They both offer you endless amounts of replayability, and it's that replayability that you get charged for. Also, if games get subscription fees, then developers can afford to push out "tons of content updates." In that way, it's kind of a win-win.

Of course, whether or not it's worth it depends on the actual price.

asyouburn5039d ago

you can get mmo's practically free, and COD costs 60 bucks up front. i dont think kotick is gonna wanna lose that initial 60

Show all comments (70)
540°

Microsoft Losing to Sony Is a Wrong Perception, Says Pachter; They Want to Win Business, Not Console

Wedbush Securities analyst Michael Pachter believes it's an incorrect gamers' perception that Microsoft has lost to Sony.

Read Full Story >>
wccftech.com
Christopher70d ago

"If we change what our goal is, we're not losing" attitude. Kind of like how Microsoft didn't lose to Valve, they just changed their business model. And they didn't lose to Android and iOS, they just changed their business model. They 100%, after spending 3 generations competing heavily in console hardware, aren't losing to Sony, they're just changing their business model.

You can't ever lose if you just 'change your business model'!

Jin_Sakai70d ago

Pachter is full of crap. Always assume the opposite of what he says.

Cacabunga70d ago

This clown is still around? I cannot remember he ever got one prediction right

Profchaos69d ago

Patcher predicted that take two would be brought out by ea he knows very little about the content of games and is so numbers focused

Petebloodyonion69d ago

Yet I remember that he predicted perfectly that there was no way the acquisition of ABK would not go through and that the FTC and the CMA would fold when all the media had It's basically over kind of news.
He mentioned that MS would outsource COD streaming rights (or deny COD from appearing on GP) in UK.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 69d ago
crazyCoconuts70d ago

What's kinda crazy to me is - if they retreat from consoles they're left with a business model that depends on making great games that people want to buy.
What has been Xbox's biggest issue over the last decade or so?
It's not like they're falling back to a strength...

GamerRN70d ago

They didn't retreat and even promised the biggest generational leap! Where did you get retreat from?

crazyCoconuts69d ago

@Gamer if you don't see it yet, there's nothing i can say to convince you.

FinalFantasyFanatic69d ago

And just think of all those game franchises that are trapped with them, especially those they bought instead of creating.

Charlieboy33369d ago

@Gamer Yeah, just like the One X was a leap. Just like Series X was a leap. What did they bring to the table.....a leap in games? No, they brought sweet f all. Guys like you just never learn or are just dumb, falling for MS' talk talk talk over and over again.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 69d ago
PhillyDonJawn70d ago (Edited 70d ago )

Business is all about money not actual sales. If I sell 1 thing for 1 million and you sell 10000 things for 900k Who really won.

remixx11670d ago

The person who sold 10000 things because he has developed a consumer base and consistent revenue stream while simultaneously showing that he has the capacity to obtain market share.

The person who sold 1 thing for a million hasnt proven much outside of the simple fact that he can get an idiot to pay a copious amount of money for a single product. Holla at me when he has proven he can do it consistently overtime.

This is a nuanced subject matter

The Wood70d ago (Edited 70d ago )

How about the gamers perspective

Xbox as a console business is last in the gamersphere. Pivot after pivot, swerve after swerve. If it wasn't for pc the xbox console would died a while back. Console owners need to choose what's best for them, their experiences or the console owners profits

Christopher70d ago (Edited 70d ago )

Great. Guess who is in third place (just talking the main console market, not even including mobile and PC) both on software sales, hardware sales, and video game revenue?

PhillyDonJawn69d ago

Chris you might wanna do ya research

Christopher69d ago (Edited 69d ago )

***Chris you might wanna do ya research ***

You're right! It's only 2nd place on revenue. Good on you.

"Based on these revenues, we can see that: PlayStation made $11.3 billion more than Xbox, and $14.7 billion more than Nintendo. Xbox made $3.4 billion more than Nintendo."

Now, do you want to find me proof that Xbox isn't in third on hardware and software sales? They've literally cannibalized their own sales via subscription services and their hardware is well known to be last place.

But, hey, Microsoft is okay losing in every category here, why would they get rid of a part of their business that they are in turn (and wasn't accounted for in 2023 numbers totally since it was distributed over 5 years, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026, and 2027, the cost of their latest purchase) spending more than 7x their annual revenue on.

PhillyDonJawn69d ago (Edited 69d ago )

@Chris I'm glad you did ya research seen you were wrong but you also forgetting this. Revenue isn't everything my friend, remember business is about money
https://www.essentiallyspor...

DarXyde69d ago

Oh my days, this is a terrible analogy...

If it was just about money, Microsoft wouldn't be doing a sub model, would they? They are literally making it cheaper than game purchases to get more uptake from more people. The goal is to have enough recurring subs over time to increase revenue (and eventually profitability), but that doesn't work in your assessment because they literally need to "sell 10000 things".

Good grief...

Christopher69d ago

***Revenue isn't everything my friend***

Yeah, you know what that TweakTown report doesn't include? Any of the cost to buy ABK. That makes it a massive loss. Massive.

FinalFantasyFanatic69d ago

@DarXyde

That analogy still works, they need to consistently sell those subs to maintain/gain revenue, if they can't constantly sell those subs.

Switch "things" with "Subs", and it still works, but they need to constantly convince people to keep buying that subscription, other people will drop their subscription and revenue will decline.

DigitallyAfflicted69d ago

ou can do math... well done.... you win

DarXyde69d ago

FinalFantasyFanatic,

I don't think that quite works:

The argument this guy is making actually sounds supportive of Playstation selling a game over Game Pass subs.

Let's take a practical example, Persona 3 Reload.

If Atlus sells you the game at $70 on Playstation and "gives it away" on Xbox as long as you continue to pay for Game Pass, well... Following their logic, wouldn't it be better if fewer people buy it for a higher price than basing it on engagement via more people on XGP? How many people would you need to play P3R on Game Pass to get the same revenue?

Eventually, the latter *can be better*, but there is the matter of a larger install base on Playstation and XGP subs are a fraction of Xbox gamers.

It's a bit ironic and I think biases are on full display because what Philly boi is saying is, in principle, more supportive of the PlayStation model, but the thing is, PlayStation has both a higher price of access AND a larger pool to pull from.

If we want to talk about the manufacturers themselves and hardware, Xbox can be purchased cheaper than PS5, but it is still getting trounced in number of sales and price of admission.

I don't really see how this argument works.

crazyCoconuts69d ago

The console war we've been watching for the last two decades has been what I find interesting. I don't really care how much profit MS can make by buying King and running Candy Crush any more than I care how much money they make bleeding businesses for MS Office licenses. That's boring. The fun thing to watch has been the work these companies have put in to try to win the console market.

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 69d ago
70d ago Replies(4)
Eonjay70d ago

The obvious rebuttal to Pachter's cray cray notion is that you wouldn't have to change your model if you were winning.

senorfartcushion69d ago

Or "those who win get to change their business model."

Fanboyism ends at a brick wall of "big company no care about whether you like or hate them, get a life."

Reaper22_70d ago (Edited 70d ago )

Sony said similar things when their Walkman was beaten by Apple and when Samsung surpassed them in the TV market. I can go on and on but I'm sure you get the picture. Business is business. All companies take a whippen every now and and then. The difference is how you bounce back. Microsoft net worth has grown over the years. Business wise they are very successful and no matter what, sony would love to be where they are financially. Sony isn't the competition microsoft worries about. That been clear for a long time now. Microsoft wants gaming to be a part of their ecosystem. Sony needs it. Big difference there.

Christopher70d ago (Edited 70d ago )

There's a lot wrong here.

First, the attempt to turn this argument into one about other failed businesses. Which, surprisingly, you make the argument I'm making but then...

Second, the attempt to confirm that Microsoft isn't competition when Microsoft admitted in court that they are.

Third, the attempt to act like Microsoft, from a business perspective, doesn't need what they spent over $100b to acquire but Sony does? Laughable.

Businesses are about profits. If you stop earning enough profit in a division, it goes away. Simple as that. Xbox is a division competiting against Valve, Epic, Sony, Nintendo, Android, and iOS. Simple as that. Xbox, to remain 'part of the ecosystem' needs to not cost the company more than it brings in. Simple.

69d ago
Rude-ro70d ago (Edited 70d ago )

They actually won.

The whole point was to force Sony into playing ball so that they could not put “windows” in more jeopardy than it was at the time.
Apple, Google, then Sony innovating while partnered with Linux…

When will people realize it has never been about gaming as to why Microsoft got into gaming?

Trojan horses people.

FinalFantasyFanatic69d ago

With the way Linux and Steam Deck are going, Linux might one day catch up to Windows, it's doing pretty well for gaming these days compared to say, 10 years, or even 5 years ago.

crazyCoconuts69d ago

I don't understand who u r saying won...
But I agree in that I wouldn't be surprised if Windows was part of the calculus for MS supporting Xbox. The OS was based on Windows at first and Xbox One kinda had two Windows instances if you count the hypervisor.
But, like the console space, I think MS is walking back on OS domination. Apple and Google completely ate their lunch because....surprise surprise they innovated. I'm 100% confident the reason Phil talks (and shows) about the Asus ROG Ally more than Steam Deck is because of Windows. The Steam Deck has to sting for them.

senorfartcushion69d ago

Well, yeah, that's the point. They're too big-a-company for fanboy stuff to be at-all relevant.

badz14969d ago

If Pachter said MS is not losing, it means that MS is losing.

Petebloodyonion69d ago (Edited 69d ago )

Well last I checked a company goal is to make more and more money,
Nintendo could be an example of how they stopped trying to compete with Sony (during the Gamecube day) and decided to focus on a different market and reinvented themselves with the WII.
They reinvented themselves with the Switch by bringing 2 markets together when ppl said that portable consoles were doomed thanks to cellphones and tablets.

Sony's business models also changed when they decided to port games to PC something that was never supposed to happen.

crazyCoconuts69d ago

If Xbox exits a market (consoles) to focus on another (games) I guess I don't care anymore. They lost the console market and pretty much the same companies that have been there before making games are still there flying a different flag. If they suck, other companies will eat their lunch by making better games.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 69d ago
shinoff218370d ago

How's this guy still around. According to him consoles were dying after ps2, ps3 Era.

Christopher70d ago

Analysts are never wrong, the market just had a swift change for which no one could account.

shinoff218369d ago (Edited 69d ago )

Aka wrong lol

VenomUK69d ago (Edited 69d ago )

In his Gametrailers past I’ve found Pachter to be friendly and entertaining. However he’s always blindly predicted Xbox success even up to the start of this generation. Now Pachter has adopted and repeated the new terminology of Microsoft, that it hasn’t lost the console war, it just wants more business. This is illuminating because it suggest he, like Tom Warren at the Verge, is inline with Microsoft’s PR strategy.

Tedakin69d ago

He was the only person who completely nailed how the ABK court case would play out. When everyone said the deal was dead, he said no and stood firm and said MS would do exactly what they did.

MrNinosan69d ago

Did everyone say the deal was dead?
Most analytics said it would go through, but be delayed, which actually was the case.

Christopher68d ago

Almost everyone said the deal would go through.

70d ago
stonecold370d ago

michael and his bs view just give me headache wish he would go and retire

senorfartcushion69d ago

Thing is, if fanboys understood business, they wouldn't be wasting their time commenting on gaming websites.

S2Killinit69d ago

And you are here to lecture the rest of us because you understand business and MS is doing great?

neomahi69d ago

senorfartcusion....... So what brings you to the house of Pachter?

FinalFantasyFanatic69d ago

Technically Microsoft is doing great, it's just not in gaming, OS and software (e.g. Microsoft Office) is where they're doing great business. I can't think of many other ventures they've had that has worked out for them, despite resorting to some of the same tactics that made them the dominate OS for computers.

69d ago
senorfartcushion68d ago

Microsoft own things like Microsoft Office and Windows, games are secondary to them. If Xbox shut down the computer company will be ok

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 68d ago
MIDGETonSTILTS1770d ago (Edited 70d ago )

They only way that plan works is if people still want to play in their ecosystem.

Eventually, they’re ecosystem needs more games.

Helldivers 2 could swing Xbots to ps6 if it isn’t countered by the end of the gen.

Abnor_Mal70d ago (Edited 70d ago )

Supposedly some well known Halo modders will be making a mode similar to Helldivers.

https://gamerant.com/halo-i...

MIDGETonSTILTS1769d ago

Without procedurally generated levels, they’ll face the same problem as Destiny: fighting the same enemies in the exact same arenas does get repetitive eventually.

Helldivers succeeds as a GaaS because of its unusually well implemented use of procedural level creation. That, paired with its fun enemies to kill, makes it a GaaS with a long lifespan.

darthv7270d ago

There is a pretty good chance that those with XB also have PS, but not the other way around.

shinoff218369d ago

I do. Always get an xbox just varies on when during that Gen

cooperdnizzle69d ago (Edited 69d ago )

What kind of Jedi mind tricks do you have to come up with to get through your day?

What is the point of always having to lie or make shit up just to win? It's like cheating to win how can you feel like you accomplished something?

FinalFantasyFanatic69d ago

I haven't bought an Xbox since the 360 days, just stuck with PC and PS, sometimes Nintendo.

Show all comments (118)
130°

Judge Delays Ruling on FTC's Attempt to Exclude Evidence in Microsoft's Favor in Activision Case

The legal battle for the acquisition of Activision Blizzard continues, with Microsoft countering one of the FTC's latest moves and the Judge delaying a relevant ruling.

Read Full Story >>
techraptor.net
thesoftware73076d ago

Look, to be honest the FTC should just stop.

MS has A/B and nothing has really changed yet...if you are worried about 5-10 years from now...just drop it cause the future is unpredictable.

Take this week's news, that 4 Xbox exclusive are going Multiplatform.

100°

FTC and "Gamers' Lawsuit" Lawyers Denounce Microsoft's Layoffs in Activision Blizzard Legal Battle

The FTC and the lawyers behind the "Gamers' lawsuit" against Microsoft over the acquisition of Activision Blizzard are denouncing the recent layoffs within the respective legal battles.

Read Full Story >>
techraptor.net
Abriael85d ago

It's like watching a bad legal drama.

XiNatsuDragnel85d ago

Best part there's no dramazation lol