Industry analyst Michael "The Pink Jackal" Pachter has been obsessed with multiplayer charges for the past year, demanding that we gamers need to accept them as a reality, and constantly telling Activision to slap a subscription fee on Call of Duty. It doesn't matter that Activision has already said it wouldn't, Pachter has yet again insisted that they should.
"We firmly believe that until the publishers address monetization of multiplayer, game sales will continue to be challenged by the publishers’ altruistic decision to provide significantly more entertainment value per hour than ever in history," he states. "In our view, monetization of multiplayer is one of the greatest opportunities for the publishers, and we think that it would be a serious strategic error to pass on this opportunity."
Pachter, as usual, misses the bigger picture. Activision makes its money from downloadable content, and the basic free multiplayer is a way to get gamers hooked. You could argue that people would pay for a subscription fee and DLC, but why would Activision risk it when it has a good thing going right now?
The legendary analyst seems a little obsessed with pushing a concept nobody is really very interested in. At this rate, I think Pachter wants publishers to start charging for multiplayer just so one of his predictions can turn out not to be bullshit.
Analyst: 'Serious Strategic Error' In Not Charging For Multiplayer [Gamasutra]
Jim Sterling serves as reviews editor for Destructoid.com, head of the Podtoid podcast, and produces a number of news stories, original features, one-of-a-kind videos. With his passionate argumentative style, controversial opinions, harsh delivery, and dedication to brutal honesty Sterling is a name that you can't help but recognize.
Likes
PS2, iPod Touch, Silent Hill 2, Metal Gear Solid, Dynasty Warriors 3
Meet the rest of the team
| BBcode help |
| [b]Bold text[/b] |
Bold text |
| [i]Italic text[/i] |
Italic text |
| [url]http://www.dtoid.com/[/url] |
http://www.dtoid.com |
| [url=http://www.dtoid.com/]Web link[/url] |
Web link |
|
| [img]http://www.example.com/robot.jpg[/img] |
 |
Post a comment! You can also post a photo below:
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
79 comments | showing # 1 to 50
|
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
Comments policy
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!
Contest:
9:20 AM on 12.07.2010 | 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZw1eCOE4wg
DLC pricing concerns aside, I guarantee that the vast majority of people would take issue with paying online fees for multiple games at once. Especially 360 players who are already being charged for Live.
And while I agree that it's stupid that people are bitching about paying full price for games that are giving them well over twice the gameplay of similarly priced games 10 years ago, charging fees every month individual games (even if it's fees by publisher) is going way too far and it wouldn't pan out for most companies.
I agree. Something like a subscription model that would get you all of the DLC for a given game wouldn't be *that* bad compared to some DLC models.
Although nothing beats buying a PC game for $20 on Steam, and playing it 10 years later for free. But those days are dead.
The stupidest thing about it is to remain on top in a market you don't have a monopoly on you have to stay competitive. If I released an FPS game CoD style when CoD went subbed I'd be making a killing.
I for one think Dexter sucks but I didn't make it past season 1. Does it get better? /begin
If he's wrong all the time and has no credibility, why the hell cover the guy?
Pachter is talking for the publishers, not the consumers. People playing 200 hours a month on CODMW2 is a bit of a strain on servers and I can see publishers realizing that this cuts in to profits.
either way, I'm not gonna play it.
Iknorite!? I'm soooo glad I'm not alone. Dexter is boring as shit. I'd rather watch CSI and that's the same god damn episode every time.
Except for that one season with the dollhouse killer shit. I was hooked on that junk.
How about Activision doesn't put out a new Call of Duty every year, so I don't feel tempted to buy them every other year because I'm still enjoying last year's game? That way they save money, and, well, that's it really.
Monk was pretty good.
All the non-comedy shows on TV right now are jut awful. I've been doing strictly non-srs bznss. Cartoon Network has been on a roll. Regular Show is my jam.
DISAPPOINT.
Season 1 was incredible. Also, what's a book?
@Aurain
My best friend almost lost his shit when I told him I didn't like Dexter. We're talkin' knife fight proportions.
However, most of me has faith that, when this is attempted, it will fall flat on it's face. Nobody likes monthly fees.
The hell is this? An audition for Minister of Propaganda?
But you like LaRoux...
I mean I would rather cut both ears off than hear that banshee wail one more time.
BUT....
This is an especially big bit of shortsightedness on your part and I need to say..
FUCK YOU PACHTER.
SERIOUSLY, FUCK YOU.
Part of the reason that games like Call of Duty and Halo have such momentum and stay relevant for months on months is because the community is so large. It's not like certain games where you run into the same thirty or forty people after a few months and have trouble filling games. A subscription-fee would change that.
I paid for a year of LIVE, and that was far more than it's worth anyway.
To pay for a console subscription which gives EXACTLY the same service as a free competitor (I can get disconnected from games all the time playing CoD on PSN for free, rather than pay Microsoft to get disconnected from games all the time on Xbox), AND to pay another subscription for their fucking P2P system on top would be wholely ridiculous.
Scrap live, give dedicated servers, then maybe, just maybe you can consider putting a subscription on CoD.
I feel fucking mugged to be honest. LIVE is shit, well at least it's NO BETTER than PSN. The NXE or NXT or whatever you call it is FUCKING HORRIBLE and Black ops it's self is massively disappointing.
Still, at least I've got a Ps3 and a shit hot PC to play with.
Still really struggling for DS games for my DSi XL too, (like cannot find a single game i want to play struggling) but that's unrelated.
Haven't even unboxed Natal either - just not interested.
He's plunging us into an eternal winter where only his cold, dead soul can survive. Son of a bitch.
You have my permission to post this everywhere.
Ha! Well said.
It's not something I'd want to see myself, but all you lot are doing is raging at someone making good business sense.