• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Infinity Ward, Step 2: Why not PAY for online gaming?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

rainless

Old Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2006
I don't give a damned about dedicated servers... I don't care if they display an actual ping or just bars...

But I was forced to draw the line at paying $60 for a $50 game. It's not a SUPER GAME... you don't get to shoot ten dollars more worth of bullets with the game...

The main reason I refused to buy at that price is I figured: "If they could get away with THAT... then they'd be willing to get away with ANYTHING!"

Case in point:

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=227204

Surely the same people that were saying "Sixty bucks is no big deal for a PC game..." will now be saying "Forty dollars a month to play a FPS is a drop in the bucket! So just lube up and look happy!"
 

DarkVirusVx

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
wasn't there a thing a while ago where on of the studios tried raising the new game "slandered" price and failed.

I could understand higher priced games for collectors items or even a poster. Most of them you are lucky to get a booklet with more then 3 pages.

"Forty dollars a month to play a FPS is a drop in the bucket! So just lube up and look happy!"

Any month price for a FPS is to much. What could they add that would make that worth it? New guns? skins? maps? player made maps and mods are normally more fun.
 

Hardin

Member
Joined
May 29, 2004
According to the Activision CFO, there is a demand from its core fanbase to pay for additional services.

Who's telling Activision this? Are you people stupid? Why would you tell them this?
 

JonSimonzi

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
If a company wants to charge $60 for a game instead of $50, good for them. It's their game, they can charge $100 for it if they want. If millions will pay the price they ask, from a business standpoint, there's no reason not to charge the extra money.

The price you pay for the game is compensating them for the cost of them developing the game. Playing on their servers is costing them money, why should they foot the bill? Now, is your example of $40 a month ludicrous? Yes, but I don't see them charging that much, that's just unreasonable.

Now, you just have to ask yourself this. Say they start charging $9.99 to play online. Do you spend enough time playing online, and getting enough enjoyment out of it to justify the $9.99? If they're providing you a service, that's costing them money, and if you're enjoying their service, why such a fuss for compensating them for it? I don't know about you, but $10 - $15 a month for hours upon hours of enjoyment seems pretty decent for me.

Now, maybe I've just been playing MMO's for too long, and have accepted paying $15 a month for a game I enjoy, but I don't see a problem with it, as long as it's something done in reason.
 
OP
rainless

rainless

Old Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2006
Activision thinks that Blizzard fans are their fanbase. Sorry guys, that is not the case. Blizzard fans are fans of core Blizzard products, not all of your other crap.

They'll try it if they think they can get away with it. That was my argument against $60 for a PC game. Sure you go "Come on! It's just ten bucks!" now... but if you understand how capitalism works, then you know that all that eventually leads to is :comp:
 

doz

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Location
Las Vegas, NV
If a company wants to charge $60 for a game instead of $50, good for them. It's their game, they can charge $100 for it if they want. If millions will pay the price they ask, from a business standpoint, there's no reason not to charge the extra money.

The price you pay for the game is compensating them for the cost of them developing the game. Playing on their servers is costing them money, why should they foot the bill? Now, is your example of $40 a month ludicrous? Yes, but I don't see them charging that much, that's just unreasonable.

Now, you just have to ask yourself this. Say they start charging $9.99 to play online. Do you spend enough time playing online, and getting enough enjoyment out of it to justify the $9.99? If they're providing you a service, that's costing them money, and if you're enjoying their service, why such a fuss for compensating them for it? I don't know about you, but $10 - $15 a month for hours upon hours of enjoyment seems pretty decent for me.

Now, maybe I've just been playing MMO's for too long, and have accepted paying $15 a month for a game I enjoy, but I don't see a problem with it, as long as it's something done in reason.

Well said Jon. I totally agree with your point of "is $9.99 worth what you get out of it" statement. I mean think about it. If you play just 30 hours/month on the game (1 hour a day), which we all know can be NOTHING compared to what some people put into gaming, thats damn near nothing. Think about it. You pay $10.50 for 1 movie ticket that lasts not even 2 hours most of the time. You pay $10.50 for MAYBE 2 games of bowling, which is what, 45 minutes? Think about it.
 

jaymz9350

Member
Joined
May 13, 2006
If a company wants to charge $60 for a game instead of $50, good for them. It's their game, they can charge $100 for it if they want. If millions will pay the price they ask, from a business standpoint, there's no reason not to charge the extra money.

The price you pay for the game is compensating them for the cost of them developing the game. Playing on their servers is costing them money, why should they foot the bill? Now, is your example of $40 a month ludicrous? Yes, but I don't see them charging that much, that's just unreasonable.

Now, you just have to ask yourself this. Say they start charging $9.99 to play online. Do you spend enough time playing online, and getting enough enjoyment out of it to justify the $9.99? If they're providing you a service, that's costing them money, and if you're enjoying their service, why such a fuss for compensating them for it? I don't know about you, but $10 - $15 a month for hours upon hours of enjoyment seems pretty decent for me.

I do understand paying for their development time and such, and that is what the game price does. But correct me if I'm wrong but aren't most dedicated servers in FPS paid for by the gamers themselves? Like clans and such purchasing servers and having the ability to set them up as they see fit?

I personally don't spend enough time online gaming to justify a monthly fee for it and pretty much refuse to pay for a game and then pay to be able to keep playing it. At $9.99 a month plus $60 for a game puts 2 years of playing one game at almost $300 which to me is outrageous.
 
OP
rainless

rainless

Old Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2006
If a company wants to charge $60 for a game instead of $50, good for them. It's their game, they can charge $100 for it if they want. If millions will pay the price they ask, from a business standpoint, there's no reason not to charge the extra money.

The price you pay for the game is compensating them for the cost of them developing the game. Playing on their servers is costing them money, why should they foot the bill? Now, is your example of $40 a month ludicrous? Yes, but I don't see them charging that much, that's just unreasonable.

Now, you just have to ask yourself this. Say they start charging $9.99 to play online. Do you spend enough time playing online, and getting enough enjoyment out of it to justify the $9.99? If they're providing you a service, that's costing them money, and if you're enjoying their service, why such a fuss for compensating them for it? I don't know about you, but $10 - $15 a month for hours upon hours of enjoyment seems pretty decent for me.

Now, maybe I've just been playing MMO's for too long, and have accepted paying $15 a month for a game I enjoy, but I don't see a problem with it, as long as it's something done in reason.

Unh hunh... And let's say they start charging a quarter an hour for oxygen... Do you USE oxygen to breath? Sure you do. Are you still alive? If you can read this you are.

It costs corporations billions of dollars a year to not pollute the environment to a point where the air is no longer breathable. Now... why shouldn't WE pay for the difference since WE'RE the ones who need to breathe?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

As you can see... it's a stupid argument. You could apply it to just about anything that you've been getting for free. But that doesn't change the fact that... you should still be getting it for free.

After about twenty years of free online play they suddenly decide: "Hey! Why don't we get them to PAY for it?"

My original argument holds true: From there... it doesn't ever stop.

Then they decide to charge that $100 a game you're talking about. Then they decide "Well we were charging $9.99 a month for this game... but THAT game is worth $19.99 a month." Then you reach a point where only the wealthy can afford games. And a 1,000 people paying $500 a month is better than 10,000 paying $50 once.

It never... EVER stops. And that's the problem.

That's the reason the world is in the financial shape it's in right now. That's the reason so many smaller studios have gone out of business. And that's the reason why so many titles that are released today are just copies of other titles.
 

shadin

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Unh hunh... And let's say they start charging a quarter an hour for oxygen... Do you USE oxygen to breath? Sure you do. Are you still alive? If you can read this you are.

It costs corporations billions of dollars a year to not pollute the environment to a point where the air is no longer breathable. Now... why shouldn't WE pay for the difference since WE'RE the ones who need to breathe?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

As you can see... it's a stupid argument. You could apply it to just about anything that you've been getting for free. But that doesn't change the fact that... you should still be getting it for free.

After about twenty years of free online play they suddenly decide: "Hey! Why don't we get them to PAY for it?"

My original argument holds true: From there... it doesn't ever stop.

Then they decide to charge that $100 a game you're talking about. Then they decide "Well we were charging $9.99 a month for this game... but THAT game is worth $19.99 a month." Then you reach a point where only the wealthy can afford games. And a 1,000 people paying $500 a month is better than 10,000 paying $50 once.

It never... EVER stops. And that's the problem.

That's the reason the world is in the financial shape it's in right now. That's the reason so many smaller studios have gone out of business. And that's the reason why so many titles that are released today are just copies of other titles.

Well I was going to post a wall of text, but it's happening more and more that my thoughts are pretty much in line with rainless (except the whole dedicated server thing, but everyone's entitled to be wrong sometimes man).

The fact is that you're NOT playing on their servers, they're just provide matchmaking servers and it's YOUR computer that's doing the grunt work and sucking up YOUR bandwidth. Not to mention the fact that nobody asked them or wanted them to host their stupid-*** matchmaking servers to begin with. Yes, please, charge me a monthly fee for this awesome new service!

If you want to try and monetize something that people have gotten for free for decades you're fighting an uphill battle where you need to provide an absolutely astounding amount of benefit and heightened quality to even get a few handfuls of the people to begin to bite, then you maintain that almost Christ-like business model for eons until you've moved all your customers over in good faith. You don't provide a service that the customers have been providing (better) for themselves and toss a price tag on it.

I understand paying for an MMO, and I understand you people that play MMOs might have finally concluded that paying a monthly fee for any game you want to play is okay because MMO players tend to get so much time sucked into it that they don't play a lot else (don't deny it, I know there are exceptions but I myself played a lot of MMORPGs in the day). However, please keep your MMO model out of the rest of my gaming, kthx.
 

JonSimonzi

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Paying to play a game online, to me at least, is no different than paying to access the internet, have cable/satellite television, pick up my cell phone and call a friend, or having electricity to power my computer and television to use those things. A companies providing a service, they have the right to charge for it.

Now, does getting charged for something that use to be free suck? Sure it does, I won't deny that. But there is nothing ridiculous about a company charging for service they provide.
 

Hardin

Member
Joined
May 29, 2004
Paying to play a game online, to me at least, is no different than paying to access the internet, have cable/satellite television, pick up my cell phone and call a friend, or having electricity to power my computer and television to use those things. A companies providing a service, they have the right to charge for it.

Now, does getting charged for something that use to be free suck? Sure it does, I won't deny that. But there is nothing ridiculous about a company charging for service they provide.

You're very generous with your money then. It's so different that it's not even funny. You don't pay to play first person shooters online(pc games). It's just not done because it's not necessary. This is just Activision being greedy and I'm surprised you can't figure it out.
 
OP
rainless

rainless

Old Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2006
Paying to play a game online, to me at least, is no different than paying to access the internet, have cable/satellite television, pick up my cell phone and call a friend, or having electricity to power my computer and television to use those things. A companies providing a service, they have the right to charge for it.

Now, does getting charged for something that use to be free suck? Sure it does, I won't deny that. But there is nothing ridiculous about a company charging for service they provide.

You missed the point where they're not actually providing the service. YOU'RE providing the service with that internet connection you pay for. The people with the dedicated servers are, or are willing to, provide the service.

And that's where your argument falls flat.

Nobody charges you for your internet access and then wants you to pay for the server of the website you're connecting to as well.
 

JonSimonzi

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
You're very generous with your money then. It's so different that it's not even funny. You don't pay to play first person shooters online(pc games). It's just not done because it's not necessary. This is just Activision being greedy and I'm surprised you can't figure it out.

Oh I know it's them being greedy. I'm just arguing they have a just reason for it, IF they start to do that.
 

JonSimonzi

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
You missed the point where they're not actually providing the service. YOU'RE providing the service with that internet connection you pay for. The people with the dedicated servers are, or are willing to, provide the service.

And that's where your argument falls flat.

Nobody charges you for your internet access and then wants you to pay for the server of the website you're connecting to as well.

But, there are no dedicated servers in this argument. From what I got from the link, charging for online play was going forward without dedicated servers.

And besides. NOWHERE in the article you posted, does it say anything about charging to play the game online, meaning all of us are having this discussion over nothing but "what ifs?".

Right from the article:

"additional online monetization models" and "pay for additional services"

to me, additional means extra.
 

moocow

Member
Joined
May 14, 2003
If they were providing top-notch dedicated servers for every game I would understand a monthly fee, but if they're not doing that they can **** off since they wouldn't be providing any service to us other than the master server list.
 

BenF

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Location
Hell, Michigan
I see nothing wrong with paying to play as long as the company provides additional content that is worth the monthly fee. If I was paying $10-15 a month I would be expecting a 2-3 map map-pack the 1st of every month. IW has made some amazing maps for MW2 and I wouldn't mind paying for an official map pack from them.
 
OP
rainless

rainless

Old Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2006
Oh I know it's them being greedy. I'm just arguing they have a just reason for it, IF they start to do that.

No... You're arguing that they can come up with "A" reason for it. There's nothing "just" about it.

Just like my "Quarter-An-Hour For Air" scheme... Just because you can come up with a reason for something doesn't automatically make it just.

They can start charging 50 bucks a gallon for milk. You can argue that the farmer has to milk the cow, then the dairy company has to transport the milk from the farm to the factory. Then they have to distribute it from the factory to the grocery store...

...but they were already DOING THAT for about $2 a gallon. So that argument doesn't change the fact that paying 10 bucks a month for something that's been free for a lifetime is stupid.