Having to pay for multiplayer content.... its coming.

Retr0gamer

5 euros is robbery to play on a PvP service without dedicated servers. You can get the multiplayer with dedicated servers on the PC for free. I'd need a better reason to fork over 5 euro.

mayordenis

Retr0gamer wrote: »

5 euros is robbery to play on a PvP service without dedicated servers. You can get the multiplayer with dedicated servers on the PC for free. I'd need a better reason to fork over 5 euro.

Look at it this way - you're paying 5 euro to the developer of the game for...wait for it...wait for it...developing the game.

Mr Moon

Why don't the developers make their games available to download through live? If you're buying a new game, you're more than likely going to upload it to your hard drive!

Doing what they're doing will cripple the trade in of games anyway!

Slugs

mayordenis wrote: »

Look at it this way - you're paying 5 euro to the developer of the game for...wait for it...wait for it...developing the game.

Isn't that already paid for when we... wait for it, wait for it... Paid for the game initially?

:O THE HORROR! OH THE HUMANITY! SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILLUN!

amacachi

God Retr0, you clearly have no idea how the video games industry works!

Mr Moon

I can't understand how greedy they are, selling us a game, then charging us extra to buy a new map or an add on to a game most of us forked out 60ish bills for!! Maybe they should drop the DLC cost if they're going to be charging to play online!

mayordenis

Slugs wrote: »

Isn't that already paid for when we... wait for it, wait for it... Paid for the game initially?

:O THE HORROR! OH THE HUMANITY! SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILLUN!

Yes absolutely if you buy the game new you are paying the developers.
That's not in question by anyone - but if you buy it second hand the developers get nothing.

NotorietyH

Slugs wrote: »

Isn't that already paid for when we... wait for it, wait for it... Paid for the game initially?

:O THE HORROR! OH THE HUMANITY! SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILLUN!

Yeah and if you pay for the game new (the only type of sale that matters to developers) you get the multiplayer without having to pay for the online pass. It's only used games that you'd have to pay for the online pass.

They're not charging you extra to play online. They're just giving you more of an incentive to buy a copy new, which I see nothing wrong with.

mayordenis

Mr Moon wrote: »

I can't understand how greedy they are, selling us a game, then charging us extra to buy a new map or an add on to a game most of us forked out 60ish bills for!! Maybe they should drop the DLC cost if they're going to be charging to play online!

did you actually read the thread?
It's not actually about paying to play online - It's about getting access to the online portion of the game with a code that comes with the game when purchased new.
So it's only if people buy 2nd hand and don't get the code that they must pay.

What it would murder is rental copies though - all rentals will be single player only - unless you pay a fiver which would be probably very close to what you paid for the rent - esentially doubling the price.

Mr Moon

mayordenis wrote: »

did you actually read the thread?
It's not actually about paying to play online - It's about getting access to the online portion of the game with a code that comes with the game when purchased new.
So it's only if people buy 2nd hand and don't get the code that they must pay.

What it would murder is rental copies though - all rentals will be single player only - unless you pay a fiver which would be probably very close to what you paid for the rent - esentially doubling the price.

Yeah I did, I just kinda went off on my own thoughts writing that lol (I just have a problem with paying for DLC after forking out for the game)

So the trade in value of your purchase is going to go down now making your purchase worth less and trading in to buy a new game will cost you more, either way whatever they do it's still going to cost us more!

mayordenis

Mr Moon wrote: »

Yeah I did, I just kinda went off on my own thoughts writing that lol (I just have a problem with paying for DLC after forking out for the game)

So the trade in value of your purchase is going to go down now making your purchase worth less and trading in to buy a new game will cost you more, either way whatever they do it's still going to cost us more!

Fair enough - DLC is definately getting worryingly popular with developers.

But I avoid the used market all together - so it won't effect me.

Mr Moon

mayordenis wrote: »

Fair enough - DLC is definately getting worryingly popular with developers.

But I avoid the used market all together - so it won't effect me.

Do you trade in games, sell them on adverts, even swap them with mates or share with a sibling?

mayordenis

Mr Moon wrote: »

Do you trade in games, sell them on adverts, even swap them with mates or share with a sibling?

No.

Slugs

Hold up a second...

*click*

My brain has just realised something, if they implement this you won't be able to do the following:-

1) If there're more than two consoles in a house, you'll have to pay for 2 consoles to have multiplayer features (fail)
2) If you bring your game to a friends house, you'll either have to bring your console, hope your friend had the copy of the game on their console to have multiplayer features
3) If your console is sent off for repairs and is replaced, you'll have to pay AGAIN for multiplayer features
4) And for all the people who thought "Oh well, they'll just tie the code to your account, so it'll be your account that has permission to play online" then people with multiple accounts on their console, (I have 7, 3 silver 4 gold) will have to pay AGAIN for multiplayer features.

Now to answer a few responses while I'm here

1) Dedicated servers will be unreliable, particularly when it comes to EA, they're notorious for closing down servers.
2) Developers make their money back through DLC, or should in any case. I can see your point guys, but at the end of the day, the only person who is really suffering here is the publisher, the developers get their sum, it's the publishers who make the most from the game.

rizzla

Just in response to point 3 Slugs. If it's standard DLC you'll be able to transfer the licence to the new console. And any account on the console that downloaded the online ability should in theory be able to play online.

EA have the whole EA Nation thing so that will be tied to the gamertag that entered the code. Others are starting to use similar things to EA's now aswell. Ubisoft and their Uplay thing comes to mind.

molloyjh

Not being a big multiplayer fan myself it doesn't really affect me too much, especially as I rarely buy second-hand either, but I think this is blatant greed and nothing more.

For how long now have there been second-hand bookshops or retailers selling second-hand CDs or DVDs? It has been common practice in goods such as these for as long as they have been on sale. What exactly is so special about the games industry that they should now be treated differently?

At the end of the day they have made their profit on the original sale. Whether the original purchaser keeps their game and plays online or someone else does instead of him/her the cost to the developers is the same in terms of support etc. The only thing they miss out on is the profit from the sale of a new copy. But this is true of all kinds of media, and has been for long enough.

If I buy a used game from Gamestop why should I have to pay again just to use it online? Will it discourage second-hand sales? Doubtful. Is it costing the developers money? No, it just limits the amount they can make. Therefore it is nothing but pure greed.

helios12

molloyjh wrote: »

At the end of the day they have made their profit on the original sale.

molloyjh wrote: »

Therefore it is nothing but pure greed.

Sums it up quite nicely.

It has to be pointed out also that the games industry has stayed very healthy throughout all the current economic turmoil. It seems the softly softly approach to shanking consoles gamers has lulled a good amount of you into taking it on the chin and not complaining.

ghostchant

I would argue that the developers are not being greedy by expecting you to pay them for the game that they made. What I consider to be greedy is when shops like gamestop place the preowned games right next to the new copy of the game, to entice you onto buying the preowned copy and thus giving them more money, at the expense of the people who actually made the game.

I'm all for preowned games when we're talking hard-to-find or out-of-print games, but there's no doubt that it's hurting developers in the short-term, and hence us (and possibly even the shops that do it) in the long-term

NotorietyH

helios12 wrote: »

Sums it up quite nicely.

It has to be pointed out also that the games industry has stayed very healthy throughout all the current economic turmoil. It seems the softly softly approach to shanking consoles gamers has lulled a good amount of you into taking it on the chin and not complaining.

Have you not seen the amount of layoffs that EA has done over the last year or so? Or have you not seen how many developers have completely closed down in the last year or so?

They're losing money on the second sale of the game. Developers are making money out of one sale out of a possible two. How is that so hard to understand? Dead Space is a good example of a game that suffered at the hands of used games. 3 million people played it, only 1.5 million of them bought it new.

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/07/07/three-million-people-played-dead-space/

Dead Space was moderately successful at least, but if a game company is relying on every single sale to keep afloat, then it's a different story.

rizzla

Comparisons to music and movies isn't really fair. Movies make their money back at the box office and music artists make their money doing tours, there isn't anything like that in the videogame industry, all they have is that initial sale.

i_am_dogboy

Slugs wrote: »

Hold up a second...

*click*

My brain has just realised something, if they implement this you won't be able to do the following:-

1) If there're more than two consoles in a house, you'll have to pay for 2 consoles to have multiplayer features (fail)
2) If you bring your game to a friends house, you'll either have to bring your console, hope your friend had the copy of the game on their console to have multiplayer features
3) If your console is sent off for repairs and is replaced, you'll have to pay AGAIN for multiplayer features
4) And for all the people who thought "Oh well, they'll just tie the code to your account, so it'll be your account that has permission to play online" then people with multiple accounts on their console, (I have 7, 3 silver 4 gold) will have to pay AGAIN for multiplayer features.

With the xbox, I suspect it'll work as current dlc or xbox live titles do. That is, if you use the key on your xbox, that portion of the game will be available to anyone on that xbox as long as the account that downloaded the content isn't actively playing on another xbox at the time. And if you want to play on another console, you have to have your profile migrated to that xbox and your account has to be signed in, but other user accounts will be able to access the content while you're signed in. I keep my xbox live id on a usb key, so migrating isn't at all a hindrance or annoyance. Also, any xbox live content can be migrated from one box to another in the case of a new console or hard drive or whatever. So you shouldn't have to worry about being fleeced on the points above.

If it is the case that I can't bring my game to another person's house for some multi player shenanigans and they can't play on my copy at all, then I'll be expressing my disapproval by doing something rather simple, not buying the games in question.

And on the point of games cost, people are throwing around the €60 figure a lot here, but in reality when was the last time anyone paid that much for a regular new copy of a game? I know I definitely haven't in the last 2 years. And if you are, you definitely should be shopping around, because just 2 weeks ago I got Alan Wake and Sin and Punishment brand new in HMV and got change from €90.

molloyjh

rizzla wrote: »

Comparisons to music and movies isn't really fair. Movies make their money back at the box office and music artists make their money doing tours, there isn't anything like that in the videogame industry, all they have is that initial sale.

How about books so? This is after all the oldest entertainment media around and has had a second-hand market for as long as it has been around. What is the difference between that and the gaming media?

rizzla

molloyjh wrote: »

How about books so? This is after all the oldest entertainment media around and has had a second-hand market for as long as it has been around. What is the difference between that and the gaming media?

Well books don't have a dev team behind them. It's usually just 1 person writing the book so the cost and time involved in making one wouldn't be comparable to a game and they can survive on alot less money.

molloyjh

rizzla wrote: »

Well books don't have a dev team behind them. It's usually just 1 person writing the book so the cost and time involved in making one wouldn't be comparable to a game and they can survive on alot less money.

Which is why a book will not cost you €50+. This is all factored into the retail cost of a product, the economics are the same regardless of the media.

Grumpypants

Im a bit divided on this i can see both sides i can see that users will end up paying for it either way, i can also see that publishers are looking at used sales as lost revenue but for the most part its the single player games that get traded the quickest (once Alan wake was finished i had no interest in keeping it). I know it was very rare for me to see a copy of COD4 in the second hand shelves with in the first year of release because it was so good online. The only people i know that traded it in have no broadband.

I don't accept the argument that it costs them extra money to host online games and second hand users don't pay anything towards this. If i buy a game i pay towards this cost, if i trade it to some one else the publisher is now saving the same amount of money by not having to host me online that it spends on the new user. So it balances out.

lets say If they sell 1,000,000 copies day one and host 800,000 online. If 400,000 trade that game to some one else they are still only hosting 800,000 online. This cost has been factored into the initial sale price. They are not hosting any extra players. Also as the 200,000 that never go online have already paid for the online side but never got to use it the publishers are actually up on the deal.

This is why i would prefer if they reduced the game by 5 euro and it cost 5 euro to go online for everyone who wanted to regardless of it being new or used. This would make new games cheaper and would sell more new games which is what they want.

Or just make your games so good no one wants to trade them in ! Ever think of that. If publishers are making a game that sells a lot of units second hand within the first few weeks of release then that means a lot of people have gotten sick of it very quickly and traded it in.

Slugs

rizzla wrote: »

Comparisons to music and movies isn't really fair. Movies make their money back at the box office and music artists make their money doing tours, there isn't anything like that in the videogame industry, all they have is that initial sale.

No, they have DLC to support the game which will increase sales and bring in extra revenue

mayordenis

Slugs wrote: »

No, they have DLC to support the game which will increase sales and bring in extra revenue

which is obviously heavily linked to the initial sale no?

If 100,000 people buy the game how many can potentially buy the DLC?

mayordenis

molloyjh wrote: »

Which is why a book will not cost you €50+. This is all factored into the retail cost of a product, the economics are the same regardless of the media.

The economics are not even similar.

A new book costs €10-20 euro, A new game costs €40-60 euro.

So that means that a book costs somewhere between a sixth and half of the cost of a Video Game - the production costs are nowhere near that scale. With Blockbuster games approaching the 100 Million mark and maybe a absolutely once a decade book like the Harry Potter ****e costing at a guess a couple of hundred thousand.

The economics are radically different I'm not sure why I'm even making this point there is no similarity in the economics of selling a Book and selling a Video Game. none. zero.

helios12

NotorietyH wrote: »

Have you not seen the amount of layoffs that EA has done over the last year or so? Or have you not seen how many developers have completely closed down in the last year or so?

They're losing money on the second sale of the game. Developers are making money out of one sale out of a possible two. How is that so hard to understand? Dead Space is a good example of a game that suffered at the hands of used games. 3 million people played it, only 1.5 million of them bought it new.

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/07/07/three-million-people-played-dead-space/




Dead Space was moderately successful at least, but if a game company is relying on every single sale to keep afloat, then it's a different story.

So your point is that because of a global recession and a failing business model I , the consumer, should look deep into my heart( read : pockets) and willingly accept these greedy attempts to rip me off?

One link about a single game is hardly sufficient evidence to back up what you are saying. I'm too lazy to Google it up at the moment but I'm sure you are aware that 2010 saw a good growth in the industry despite what was admittedly a bad 2009.

However, EVERYONE had a bad 2009 as you well know. So far, The games industry, much like the movies , has done quite well for itself.

Ok, Fine ...I will link some sources.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=22394

http://www.gamertell.com/gaming/comment/video-game-industry-hiring-despite-current-economic-recession/


Also, citing the case of Dead Space is weak for a few reasons to be honest mate. First off, The new wave of 'casuals' and casual games has hurt the sales of a few different genres thus far. Of course, the likes of Modern Warfare 2 will not notice but look at the sales beyond that.

Some games that are good just don't sell well , it is as simple as that. I can bet you that Dead SPace 2 will do well though, as all the people that played and enjoyed it , took a chance on the game due to it's low price second -hand, may just give the second one a closer inspection.



Yeah the above is both a wall of text and stream of consciousness but I don't have time so...

NotorietyH

helios12 wrote: »

So your point is that because of a global recession and a failing business model I , the consumer, should look deep into my heart( read:pockets) and willingly accept these greedy attempts to rip me off?

A company would rather you pay it for its product rather than you pay someone else. That's considered greedy now? Why shouldn't EA want to recoup some of those 1.5 million sales that they lost for Dead Space? I was only using that as an example. There's other companies that made fairly decent games that had to close down due the commercial failure of those games. Grin etc. I don't understand how you can call the publishers greedy but seem perfectly fine with Gamestop charging 5 euro less for a used copy games. This will drive used game prices down to what we should be paying for a 2nd hand copy of something.

You said yourself it's a failing business model, so should publishers and developers just give up and let their sales be devoured by the used game market or should they you know, change the model and try to do something about it? For example, I don't know, free DLC for people who buy the game new, or maybe free multiplayer?

One of those articles is over a year old by the way and EA has since closed down and merged a lot of its studios and had severe layoff across the board.

In regards to the second article. Some companies are hiring yes. the ones that are successful at the moment, like Blizzard etc. Other developers have bitten the dust completely, Free Radical, Grin, Factor 5, Midway, Pandemic etc. But I'm sure they're fine, there's so many jobs in the game industry at the moment.

EDIT: And how is referencing the Dead Space article irrelevant? All I was showing was that half of the people who bought Dead Space bought it used. Which is the point I was trying to make. It's got nothing to do with the casual market or how many sales it could have had. All I'm saying is half its sales were of used copies. It doesn't matter if it sold 30 or 3 million copies. Obviously EA were happy with the sales they're making a sequel. It's also why Dead Space 2 will have multiplayer, to try and stop people trading it in.