Home Gaming Flamebait Friday Debate – You don’t deserve multiplayer unless you pay extra for it

Flamebait Friday Debate – You don’t deserve multiplayer unless you pay extra for it

1 min read
21

FFDPay.jpg

Video games are changing. Gone are the days when people bought games, played them for a while and then moved on. With titles like Call of Duty and Halo, we now see many gamers buy a title, play through the single player, and then literally spend the next couple of months playing the game.

You are getting hours, days, months and in some case even years of gameplay out of a single title these days, and there are some industry folks who think that you should start paying for that privilege.

The idea is quite simple: You are getting entertainment everyday, so you should be paying for it. The more you play, the more you pay. Activision have hinted at it, World of Warcraft is “living proof” that the business model is already working.

You want to play your favourite game everyday, they want to start benefiting from that fact. Are you prepared give up your hard-earned cash to keep playing? Is there a better way or are the money hungry bastards already making enough as it is?

Your opinion? Hit it.

Original illustration is credited to the incredibly talented Michael Dashow.

Last Updated: August 6, 2010

21 Comments

  1. You don’t deserve multiplayer if
    a) You are under 13
    b) If the word phuck tard is in your vocabulary
    c) If you say the word “LOL” aloud instead of just laughing
    d) you type like a mxit-kiddy

    I can think of tons more condition, but you get where i’m going with this. :ninja:

    Reply

  2. riezo

    August 6, 2010 at 10:38

    My opinion?

    People that are interested in paying online should pay extra. I buy games for the SP, and these days the quality of SP campaigns is dropping in favour of the MP portions of a game. I dont like the fact that a portion of my money went to the making MP portions of most of my games because I dont care for MP.

    That said, there are people that buy games with the MP in mind. So I think Devs/Publishers should release 2 versions. 1 with MP at full price, and 1 without MP for a little cheaper. (Then we’ll see why people buy CoD).

    Reply

  3. Bobby Kotick Tim

    August 6, 2010 at 10:56

    I couldn’t have said it better Milesh.

    Reply

  4. Christo Le Grange

    August 6, 2010 at 10:57

    good point Riezo, thats actually a cool idea…but the publishers will never go for it, because that solution will purely satisfy SP fans.

    well , like they said in that GAME THEORY ONLINE video that was posted a couple days ago said (btw THANX guys for posting that, i think I found my 2nd favourite site on the web, http://www.gametheoryonline.com)
    …anyway, like those “industry insiders” mentioned was that, because the publishers are suffering (due to rising development and marketing costs) the publishers either:
    – have to change their business model,
    – Or get out of the proverbial oven…

    ..thus the options are

    – making the physical game more expensive OR
    – charge for MP

    …and the latter seems like a more viable option for me.

    Reply

  5. Fred

    August 6, 2010 at 10:57

    Yip , you pay for sewerage every month, might as well pay for COD MP.

    Reply

  6. Arc316

    August 6, 2010 at 11:18

    Then what about games like Guitar hero were it may be single player but have greater replay value.

    You play the single player and practice to get better. Will you then have to pay more when you have friends over and play together, cause now there are 4 people playing for the price of one game?

    And lets hope Hollywood does not get wind of this idea.
    “We regret to inform you hat you have watched this dvd 3 times, you only paid for one disk. This disk will now self destruct. Please purchase a new copy at the the new special reduced repurchases price.”

    Hopefully one day we can get to a point where the publisher can make money through in game advertising which will make MP providable for them and cheaper for us.

    Reply

  7. Bobby Kotick - that's Kotick with a K

    August 6, 2010 at 11:24

    That’s already happening on xbox live where you’re “renting” a movie which stops working after a specific time period.

    Reply

  8. Uberutang

    August 6, 2010 at 11:27

    Very easy to do:

    Sell the games for cheaper, then charge per hour/month if the player goes MP.

    maybe make 1st week free etc.

    SP fans win, MP fans win, Cthulhu smiles.

    Reply

  9. riezo

    August 6, 2010 at 11:28

    True.

    Party games are a whole different ball game because they rely on MP to carry game sales….

    But in generalthese games cost alot more than other games because the GH and RB guys get raped with the cost of peripherals & songs.

    Reply

  10. Bobby Kotick - that's Kotick with a K

    August 6, 2010 at 11:28

    What annoys me is that multiplayer is tacked on to most xbox live games (some clearly as an afterthought) because Microsoft needs to justify your rental of Xbox Live Gold (by having an online component in all their games).

    Reply

  11. Uncle

    August 6, 2010 at 11:33

    I’m sorry its really not acceptable to charge extra for some games. Games are so expensive these days and now we must pay to play them online.

    Its like buying a pair of shoes and then having to pay for every km you walk in them? For me its completely unacceptable and pure greed. Like they don’t make enough already?

    Reply

  12. Steve Hofmeyr

    August 6, 2010 at 11:36

    Sure, go ahead, charge for on-line. But make sure that you make it worth while otherwise I’m just going to stick to games that’s free. Remeber that not all pay-to-play MMORPG’s are successfull like WOW.
    I actually hope Activision tries this and then fail miserably so that the developers of the world can take note.

    Reply

  13. Arc316

    August 6, 2010 at 11:43

    I have a question. I have PS3 and only played Mp on rare occasions.

    But if I was to own an Xbox and wanted to play MP. I would have to pay to get Xbox live right? (I know there is a PSN out or coming?)

    But the question is this. If wanted to play for example Halo 3 MP.
    1) I would have to buy the game R600 +/-
    2) I would have to pay xbox live.
    3) I would have to pay for halo mp (If introduced)
    4) I would have to pay Telkom for line rental.
    5) I would have to pay for my data usage.

    I know guys the line rental and the data is other things, like looking at ladies in awkward positions. But that does seem like a lot of stuff to pay for playing a game with swearing teenagers.

    Reply

  14. Gavin Mannion

    August 6, 2010 at 11:47

    I personally would not pay to play the MP section of a single game as I realise my attention span is pretty much non existent, however I have already proven that I am happy to pay monthly to be able to pay MP and I see no reason why Activision, Bungie or EA can’t take a slice of that pie from Microsoft and Sony.

    They know exactly how many minutes we spend playing online and which games we are playing so they can simply take 50% for themselves and then split the other 50% proportionally across the publishers who’s titles have been played online.

    Reply

  15. RSA-Ace

    August 6, 2010 at 11:51

    I just wouldn’t play MP then. I already hate the fact that bandwidth is expensive (well used to be really expensive) and that I actually have to buy extra just to play only. It doesn’t effect me as much now of course but before I used to limit how much I played just to not get capped…

    I think 3 months free and then after that you have to subscribe or renew for like $10 – $20.

    Reply

  16. al360

    August 6, 2010 at 13:10

    i agree they need to share the spoils and not suck us dry cause how we gonna afford the next installment or the competing titles so that we can compare for that matter oh well i can’t find the time to go online in any case but when i do i surely don’t ant to be forced to subscribe to something i can only njoy sporadically
    hence i moved to ps3 i can play and go online whenever i want and not feel like i’m been short changed cause i don’t have time to play 24/7 just my 2 cents

    Reply

  17. Nick de Bruyne

    August 6, 2010 at 13:17

    Yeah unfortunately publishers don’t really give a crap about our expensive internet services in South Africa.

    I am surprised that no one here has brought up DLC yet (or have I missed it). I think that the publishers are benefiting from online services because Microsoft and Sony have supplied the publisher with a platform (and reason) to constantly release more and more products that can be purchased by consumers who are both playing the game, and wanting more content. So DLC still seems like a win/win.

    Just look at the amount of money that Activision has made from their COD and MW2 DLC, if you think about it, the online services were the only reason that it was possible, so what are they moaning about then?

    Reply

  18. Bobby Cow loves to milk the cow

    August 6, 2010 at 13:32

    That’s what’s truly unfortunate about it all, and although I doubt a cataclysmic collapse of the gaming industry is on the cards, I have to wonder… how much longer will the cash cow allow itself to be so aggressively milked? :happy:

    If I have to subscribe to enjoy the multiplayer component of an individual game (while the quality of the single player mode is slowly being diminished), why would I want to buy more than one game a month or even months, instead of my current rate of 3 -5 games a month? Logically, if the focus of games are becoming more multiplayer-orientated, I would be even more conscientious of what I buy and focus on one MP game per month(s).

    On the other hand, I can only play a multiplayer gamer a few times before boredom sets in. Once I know how the maps works, I stop playing it, because chasing achievements or rankings never interests me.

    Reply

  19. sp0rk

    August 6, 2010 at 14:35

    Expensive Internet is not the problem here in Canada, it’s inflation. Too many game products are WICKED expensive, yet when I cross the border and go shop in say, New York, I can get games for literally a quarter, or sometimes half, of the price.

    Reply

  20. Werner

    August 7, 2010 at 08:52

    I think the problem with the DLC factor is that it’s more time spent working on the product. So does the DLC pay for the time spent on developing the DLC or does some of that money cut into development of the original product.

    After all of this, it’s purely a money grabbing scheme IMO. With something like WoW you pay for the use of the servers, server maintenance etc. With CoD (especially MW2) there’s no servers to be maintained.

    I think they are just sour and greedy for more money.

    Reply

  21. Spliffer

    August 9, 2010 at 10:39

    I’m a 1st person shooter gamer. I’m happy to pay if my payment is for a good service, including local dedicated servers.
    But I’m not paying a monthly subscription for something like the really crappy Modern Warfare 2 “service” where you have to be the server as well.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Check Also

There Won’t be a Mainline Call of Duty Game Released in 2023

The Call of Duty franchise has been a staple in the gaming industry since its debut in 200…