Multiplayer Gaming Blamed for US Sales Decline

[geofry]

I'd pay a monthly MMO fee for a FPS game, but in return I'd expect to be paying for all eras of mechanized warfare from WW1 to SciFi, all game types, hundreds of maps with more added monthly, a complete arsonel of weapons, dedicated servers, integrated voice and C&C, a continuously updated game engine with full destructable everything, weather, lighting, and vehicles, and finally the ability to set up custom persistant games/maps from 1vs1 grudge matches to multi-battle/location clan wars that involve at least 150ppl on each side. Of course single player, coop storyline mission, and some sort of general persistant MMO world to play in would be a must too.

The days of piecemeal sequels and revisiting the same game title over and over again would be over.

The first company that can do that, will own the entire FPS market forever.

 

[codefuapprentice]

I won't say piracy as that would be playing ignorance, but contributing factors i'd say Economy and Asking price for games, if they dropped the price to $35-45/£25-35, they would actually see a boost in sales.
How often have you walked into a store and wanted to buy a couple of new titles, you'd be less indignant about forking out $120/£90 for 3 new games than just for 2, i'd like to buy new, but being a low wage earner i look in both new and used, and have also boosted my library considerably with more used titles.
They'd get all round more sales in new games if they lowered the prices

 

[mosz]

After Halo3, Killzone2 and MW2 and now with Crysis2 and Killzone3 coming out, the bar has been set to a very high level. I don’t mind paying $50 or $60 for that level of quality.

"If they're not appealing, then they're not going home with the customer."

It's hard to look appealing when your competing with MW2 or Halo3.

 

[IFLATLINEI]

Im thinking its because maybe there are too many developers and its time to weed some of these guys out. Like anyone working with Activision would be a good start.

 

[pojih]

Soooo...

First they charge 60 for a game, add internet, add the service, then add another charge?

People aren't buying games because current games suck - or people are playing the one or two games that are decent over and over.

 

[kohvitass]

Thats what happens every year. Everyone makes games for the holiday season and after that sales slow down.

Second half of the year I need to choose from crysis, mafia, zelda, portal, call of duty, rage, gears of war, killzone, gran turismo, medal of honor, halo, metroid, infamous, goldeneye, assassins creed......and im sure im missing a few more.
whats the last 4 month game list?...

 

[mayne92]

I guess the bad economy has nothing to do with the decline...haha. This is just as bad as movie-people who say movie sales suffer because of piracy and not because the movies released are actually junk but then Avatar comes along and smashes movie sales EVER!...sheesh. Just another lame excuse IMO

 

[Anomalyx]

But the biggest culprit to the decline is apparently games like Halo 3 and Call of Duty--those with high replay value. Gamers are purchasing these titles and spending most of their time playing the multiplayer portions rather than going out and buying new games.

Let me get this straight... They're blaming people for low sales because they're playing too much of a game?

 

[thejester420]

If they think sales have are on decline now, just wait until they start charging you to play. Whatever. There business not mine.

 

[Strider-Hiryu_79]

Pachter said that the problem will continue, and that publishers should start charging for online play--starting with Activision's Call of Duty Black Ops.

No just no. Why should publishers start charging for playing multiplayer when the consumer pays enough as it is on the game itself?

 

[jefe323]

$60 for a half-a**ed game, $15 for each "upgrade" (i.e dlc) and now they want me to pay for multiplayer?

No wonder pc sales are declining!

 

[Trueno07]

Thank god for Indie Devs. PC will be reborn!

 

[Strider-Hiryu_79]

We think that it is incumbent upon Activision, with the most popular multiplayer game, to take the first step to address monetization of multiplayer," he said. "It is too early to tell whether that will be a monthly subscription, tournament entry fees, microtransaction fees, or a combination of all three, but we expect to see the company take some action by year-end, when Call of Duty Black Ops launches."

Well it's a good thing I don't like the treyarch call of duty games. Because I will definitely not be supporting Activision/Treyarch's Call of Duty Black Ops which pretty much means

Black Ops = Treyarch:"Hey call of duty fans. Here's our version of modern warfare. Buy it please".

I feel sorry for fans of Treyarch and the Treyarch COD games because now they have to pay to play multiplayer? And that's on all three platforms?

PC and PSN/PS3 users have enjoyed free online multiplayer for non-mmo multiplayer games. But for xbox 360 live gold members.

Charging them additionaly to play that game online is just idiotic:

1) they pay for the game which is usually 60$(pc games usually are 10$ cheaper)

2) xbox live gold costs $$

3) online multiplayer for black ops?

Smells like fail all over it. Good luck activision/treyarch trying to "boost" your sales by charging for online multiplayer. You WILL FAIL.

 

[udg]

I nearly fell off my chair when I read this.

Games like CoD need teh Multiplayer to sell.

Lets face it all the CoD single player game sucked badly.

 

[sceen311]

Start running dedicated servers and I'll pretend like charging me to play isn't the most absurd idea ever.

Seriously, they really think they can start charging for multi-player with out actually providing an additional service? Either the general gaming population is dumber then I thought or these guys need to lay off the blow.

 

[kooltime]

HMM sounds like horrible gaming future

1. Pay for game
2. pay for monthly internet online service

3. Pay for playing the game online to which you already paid #1 and #2 parts for ???

Trying to charge for online play when your charging a fee to play the game in the 1st place is just greedy, trying to double dip, nickle and dime their customers by game companies. Since online play or any other form of playing the game is what you pay for orginally at time of games purchase.

I buy a game to play it?? trying to discriminate offline or online and charging extra for that type beyond what they charged me in the 1st place to play it is wrong. Unless they sell the game for 2 different prices, a offline only fee, or a online fee pricing.

Most companies are just making their current games shorter of content, then adding online fee content later to increase their sales with DLC content which is the current trend.

 

[Guest]

LOL at this, what do they expect, stop the churn, produce fewer quality titles, make the same money!

 

[kooltime]

HMM sounds like horrible gaming future

1. Pay for game
2. pay for monthly internet online service

3. Pay for playing the game online to which you already paid #1 and #2 parts for ???

Trying to charge for online play when your charging a fee to play the game in the 1st place is just greedy, trying to double dip, nickle and dime their customers by game companies. Since online play or any other form of playing the game is what you pay for orginally at time of games purchase.

I buy a game to play it?? trying to discriminate offline or online and charging extra for that type beyond what they charged me in the 1st place to play it is wrong. Unless they sell the game for 2 different prices, a offline only fee, or a online fee pricing.

Most companies are just making their current games shorter of content, then adding online fee content later to increase their sales with DLC content which is the current trend.

 

[bustapr]

I just bought the orange box, I wonder how much time Ill spend on that...

 

[Clintonio]

As if I'm putting anymore of my ******* money into monthly subscriptions.