Shareholders Want Call Of Duty Online Fees

[Josh123]

Hell, I had a hard enough time deciding if I wanted to spend $8 to rent Black Ops from Hastings. I sure as hell wouldn't pay to play anything they throw out anymore.

 

[exar333]

What matters is profitability, not revenues.

As for Pachter being a good analyst, I don't really know. I don't read his stuff. However, he knows way more than you all do. Common sense is cool and everything... but who knew that we would eventually have to pay for an online service (XBL) or to access online gameplay for used copies (EA's new fee) or that we would have to pay for "add-ons" (DLC maps). Bottom line, his timing may be off, but you're fooling yourself thinking that online gameplay will stay free forever.

I don't disagree with you guys... it's just that the guy's got a point. Shareholder pressure DRIVES companies. Not gamers' opinion.

So your saying that gamer's opinions do not drive gaming companies? You obviously are not in the business world. Clients (also known as customers) are the #1 driving force. Without products that clients want, at a price they are willing to pay, businesses are in a world of hurt.

MS provides a service (XBL) and the value of that service was worth the ~$50 a year people pay. If people didn't buy it, they would have adjusted the model.

Also, where did you get that software and hardware sales have plateaued? MS has posted significant hardware sales growth this year along with solid software sales as well. Products drive sales, as do market conditions. Interestingly enough, MS seems to understand this much better than Sony or Nintendo. Look at a 360 sold today, it has features that previous 360s didnt have (wireless, quieter, smaller, hdmi, larger HDD, etc). Look at a PS3 and you will see features were removed (emotion engine, linux, etc). if you are selling the exact same product, eventually you will see market saturation and mostly replacement purchases. The market is tough these days, so most companies don't want to spend the R&D on a new console and do not believe the market can sustain a new $500-600 machine when existing $200-300 appears to be the "sweet spot" for most.

Not to digress, but for this model to work it will have to provide value to the consumer. I am not convinced it does in most cases. For the top <5&#37; of games with a rabid audience (RBx, CoD, etc) many are willing to pay for features. Other games, not nearly as much.

 

[magomago]

uhhh the ps3 didn't add features? it didn't get quieter, smaller, larger hdd, etc? the exact same things you quote? they had wireless and hdmi there from day 1. Seems like MS was reacting to poor decisions made early on in the development cycle (ie: add hdmi, add wireless)

what got removed is what people did not use that much - you think the market was really driving to use linux? i use linux on my systems and didn't even BOTHER to think about installing linux on my ps3. I actually no zero people who have done anything meaningful with linux,and actually know only one person that tried it out for 10 minutes and viewed it as a one time novelty that meant nothing. Outside of the tight knit online community of people looking to really tinker with ps3 hardware, the market for linux on the ps3 is exactly how i described it.
Sure BC i could agree with you there and would prefer it, but how many really go back and play it in the overall market? The mainstream market is bigger than us more hardcore gamers. If BC was really that big of a deal, I'm sure MS would have supported it a lot more...but they didn't outside for a very very few select games (when was the last xbox game added to the BC list?), and you cited them as an exaple of a company that understands what the market wants. Sony probably saw this, which is why Ps2 hardware was probably removed in order to make the ps3 cheaper...

i still agree that customers are the driving force, but your later examples don't really work well to explain that.

 

[fantolay]

COD is lucky that people buy the shit they pump out twice a year.

Seriously, we are on what, COD 7 or 8 now?

We pay for live and map packs. They think their game is worth another subscription fee? Not to mention the fact that it costs $60 to begin with. $60 for the short singleplalyer then you pay for multiplayer haha.

I remember when video games were $50. A lot of people were like oh well these new games come with a lot of DLC in the future so $60 is worth it. Then they started charging us for the DLC but kept the games costing $60...

 

[power_hour]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the quote is coming from a Stock analyst at in independent trading house, Wedbush Morgan.

He obviously doesn't understand the business model for charging for a game that depends on player created content (no multiplayer, no game).

quote "Gamers have to understand that the bigwigs behind the scenes, including investors, must have a positive outlook."

Disgusting and greedy comment. Sorry buddy we only understand a good game for a fair price. Go pick on another industry.

 

[MattCo]

With BlOps, I didn't even complete the Single Player crap. So I basically paid $60 bucks for multiplayer, and now they want to charge more?