Are Multiplayer Fees On The Horizon?

Virtual Reality:

"The problem for publishers is, they’ve stumbled into a vast wellspring of value, but they haven’t yet figured out how to monetize it. Multiplayer modes increase the recurring worth of games. No longer do we expect to play games for a mere 10-20 hours and then never touch them again. We expect them to entertain us for that long, and then to continue to entertain us for months and years afterwards by allowing us to play with our friends online. We expect, in other words, that games provide ever increasing amounts of value.

And yet, up until now, we haven’t been expected to pay for this value. Even though multiplayer vastly increases the worth of a game to consumers, publishers haven’t forced us to pony up for it. But with multiplayer becoming the primary mode of gameplay for many games, this model is probably on its last legs."

[nadiap]

I think we'll definitely see them... there's no way companies are gonna pass up that kind of money.

[cobraagent]

MS made a lot of money out of XBOX live and so did Blizzard out of WoW.
Activision is up next

[bubbyjoan]

yep, followed by everyone else. /mourn my wallet :(

[rdgneoz3]

MMO's have charged for playing for years, MS charging for live is just stupid. Reason why MMOs tend to get away with it, is because the create new content / raids to extend the game play and are free (besides the monthly subscription and expansions). For WoW, the Lich King expansion has had a bunch of raids and instances added to it since it first started. Burning Crusade had a ton of content added to it throughout its life as well.

Only way other multiplayer games (non MMOs) could get away with it with their player base not minding too much, would be to deliver new content continuously for free. But I don't see COD giving away 15 dollar map packs for free anytime soon.

And seeing as FFXIV (subscription based) was somewhat blocked from the 360 due to a a closed environment for Xbox Live, "they want to have a closed environment for Xbox Live" - http://www.eurogamer.net/ar... , it might be tricky with others.

[karl]

soo can we blame this on MS aswell?

[evrfighter]

MMO's get away with it due to hardware and bandwidth one needs when you're playing in a server with thousands of people.

but to pay to play on a peer2peer server or an GSP server is just ridiculous. On the pc side most teams and alot of people do pay on a monthly basis for their own server for practices, matches, or pubs already.

a game is doomed to fail if they wish to try it as an experiment. god help the poor souls of the dev's who's game is sent out to die.

the only pro I'll give console gamers is that they don't know any better when it comes to MMO's. They believe it should be free as most are kids that don't have credit cards. With that in mind there's no need to worry about multiplayer fees.

[tinybigman]

I like single player experience more then competitive online play. Its bad enough they already charge for dlc now you wanna charge for me to play online if I feel the need to.

I don't do it with Live and I sure as hell won't be doing it with this if it comes true.

[Jerkstore81]

If that happens, it will kill console gaming. The majority of console gamers aren't going to pay a subscription per game to play online.

[Lightsaber]

I dont think this would work. One XBL already has a fee to play online. I dont think there are to many games that plays would even bother to play online you add another fee to it. Maybe Halo, CoD and gears could get away with it. I think most players would drop ther gold memberships. The sales of DCL would fall drastically. Even on the PSN were its free to play how many people would pay 10-15 a month to play CoD and then buy all the map packs ? If you are willing to paying that how many game would you pay it for ? I have around 30-40 games that I can play online. If it was 10 dollars per game it be 300-400 dollars a month. Hell if I had to pay a fee to play online I would not even own half of those games.

[alphakennybody]

if acti pulls it off with COD(I have no doubt about it, since sheep will always be sheep), EA and others will too start asking for fees with teir key Ip.

[beavis4play]

it's the gamers you have to worry about acting like "sheep".
too many younger people who don't understand how to prioritize their finances (or handle money in general) will probably pay. so will the adults with no lives who stay shut in their homes/apartments.......which will then lead to EA and other devs charging for their online play.
as i stated below - this can only work if people are dumb enough to pay. and judging from how many are paying for xbox gold membership or playstation plus.....this is going to happen.

i know i won't pay. i would suggest everyone else do the same.

[claterz]

"the only way activision "pulls it off" is if people start paying"
Of course people are going to pay for it, if they introduce fees to CoD pretty much every single CoD player will sign up, they just gotta ask their parents to use the credit card lol.

[oldjadedgamer]

If that happens, I can't say I enjoy MW2 enough to pay double for online play. Probably won't renew live then. Just have to force myself to finish FF13.

[matthewschrager]

Yeah, I wonder how many people will feel the same. It could really backfire if many do... but I don't think it will. Of course, a lot of this depends on the exact pricing scheme.

[PirateThom]

"Greed, for lack of a better word, is good."

And, in this case, I think it may well benefit everyone more if it does backfire to the point it will be very damaging to the people who bring these changes, initially, but then the industry will see a recovery as companies try to figure more innovative ways to keep us playing.

Honestly, as big as the video game industry is, I think it's heading towards an 80's style crash, it's because too big and too money focused rather than software focused.

[tdrules]

you won't be paying for what you already have, you will be paying for consistent new features.
Imagine for example, the past two CODs never happened, instead you paid a subscription since COD4 in 2007, and you received WaW and MW2 as well as every map pack as part of your subscription

[Imperator]

While that would be great, I seriously doubt Activision would do that. They'd probably charge per game.

[MysticStrummer]

No way it's worth a monthly fee to get what you're talking about. Not to me anyway. If I'm paying a monthly fee there'd better be a huge persistent world with many factions to join and many classes to level up. Not to mention a large amount of customizing options for your character, both in looks and abilities.

[asyouburn]

i don't like Mdub, so good for me!

[midgard229]

and thus the end of online gaming comes. its cool i like split screen better anyway :)

and damn its gonna suk for Xbox users, jus wouldnt be right if they charge for online play then have to pay for activision etc.

in MMO's it makes sense and is fine aslong as tons of content updates are made and maintained, but to charge just to play is just stupid.

shooters should never have to be pay to play, nor shud fighters

[matthewschrager]

But really, what's the difference between an MMO and COD multiplayer? They both offer you endless amounts of replayability, and it's that replayability that you get charged for. Also, if games get subscription fees, then developers can afford to push out "tons of content updates." In that way, it's kind of a win-win.

Of course, whether or not it's worth it depends on the actual price.

[asyouburn]

you can get mmo's practically free, and COD costs 60 bucks up front. i dont think kotick is gonna wanna lose that initial 60

[ZootHornRollo]

if this happends i'll bo back to playing mohaa for free. paying to play a game after you bought it is flat our being a greedy slimy coward.

only makes you look really really bad. and if they were going to make it pay to play they should have dedi's and endless customizing and pretty much any gun you want.

but then that would never happen were talking craptavision

[pustulio]

Yes.

Thank you Kotick. .i.

[rhood022]

Despite my personal feelings, I think it's inevitable. From a business standpoint, why wouldn't you charge for multiplayer? Especially on games known for their multiplayer--COD, Madden, Halo, Gears, etc? It would print money.

[PirateThom]

I just wouldn't buy any game that does it or, at least, wouldn't pay the fee and I would like to think I'm not alone in this. I can't even justify Live fees (due to being, primarily, a single player, offline gamer, I like PSN and 24/48 codes on Live because I can get my minimal requirement and then step away again) and I just can't see gamers willing to pay for every game they play online. Platformer holders should be protecting gamers FROM this and definitely not encouraging it.

[midgard229]

so ur saying that 60$ warrents the super short 3-4 hour single player for a game like cod or halo??? im sure people buy those games for the MP, so that should be called "INCLUDED IN PRICE"

its not like they continously release patches for the game, heck they cant even get the glitches out for the games and they wanna charge. NO.

u think its awesoome to charge people for playing the next soul calibur online when its a multiplayer game? NO.

the only thing i would allow is them charging for used versions since they need money, besides that, hell no

[rhood022]

@Midgard

Nope. It's not awesome. Hence the reason why I said, "Despite my personal feelings." Nor am I saying that $60 warrants a half-assed product. Both are crap ideas and company's that do that should be shunned by the gaming community.

What I AM saying is that, from a purely business standpoint--of which game companies are--charging for multiplayer on games that are popular and sale solely for their multiplayer aspect would print money.

Game companies know, as do business in general, that the vast majority of consumers are idiots and slaves to the idea of owning the "it" thing.

[asyouburn]

would you pay for XBL, then pay activision a fee to play COD, then pay epic a fee to play Gears, on top of that, pay EA a fee for madden online? just those three games alone fee would be like almost 40 bucks a month. on top of your internet bill, on top of the cost of the games? sounds like shit to me.

[webeblazing]

what stoping them for making an app so you dont need live. EA make too many games for anybody to tell them no and if all publishers join in it will put the nail in the coffin

[asyouburn]

its closed service. ea would have to come up with their own console. but its not just them. once other publishers see them making money, it'll be seperate fees for every game.

[rhood022]

Me personally? Hell no. With few exceptions, I could care less about playing multiplayer on games.

Doesn't mean there aren't millions of gamers around the world that would pay to play COD or Gears or Halo. And game companies know that.

That's the important distinction. As I said, despite my personal feelings--which are that it would suck--it is still a windfall for the companies.

[BABY-JEDI]

Just say no & buy what doesn't require a fee, then the message will get through! It's up to you gamers.

[cranium]

This won't really affect me since I don't game online anymore. It was fun for a while (R:FoM and KZ2) but it just got really boring eventually. Now I just play single player games almost exclusively.
Just finished Okami a while back. I highly recommend it and it is well worth the $10-15 you'd spend on it (PS2 version).

[marioPSUC]

If this happens Ill just have to stick to strictly PC gaming.

[theEx1Le]

you think pc gamers will be safe from this?

[j9]

i would never play if i had to pay

[dorron]

I'd love to see multiplayer fees become a reality. Then I would LOL at companies when sales of games plummet.

[beavis4play]

devs won't be able to churn out average SP games (CoD4, halo3, resistance2) and have them sell well because of some MP gimmick.

[Awookie]

Doesn't Xbox already have a multiplayer fee?

[matthewschrager]

Yeah, I think so... which means Xbox players would get shafted by this =P

[beavis4play]

i play SP most of the time. i like going on RDR free roam and messing around, but that's about it. (and while i like it, i don't need to do it)

MP isn't a "constitutional right".......god didn't say on the 7th day: "let there be multiplayer". LOL

if they charge i wouldn't pay and i wouldn't play....simple.

[webeblazing]

i think every publisher gonna have an subscription for there games published by them for online in next gen. like SE, acti, taketwo, EA, ubisoft, etc.. why shouldnt they it makes sense people are dumb enuff for paying for things the did for for over 10 yrs. if you dont pay for it your lost its not just one game so sooner or later your gonna do it or you can jus play for free on pc cause they aint gullible like console gamers.

take a look at everything that change this gen you think they cant they pulled everything else off. they saying theyre broke and games cost to much to make but its thousands of shovelware each year wit no slow down

[CHARLIEBROWNE]

At least sony's first party studios will still be churning out some great (non subscription) exclusive games regardless of what happens because we all know sony publish their own games and PSN is free to play online.

[NYPunkster]

And then they ask the stupid question why do people pirate games.

I guarantee you that this will never see the light of day. Unless they want to piss of the entire gaming community.

[OhReginald]

The day I have to pay to for something I have already bought is the day I leave gaming. (MMORPGs are different)

[MrAwesome]

I wouldn't pay up.

[Greenpanther]

If we have to pay for the game, live/ps3+, and multiplayer online I will NEVER buy these games and I can see most of my friends doing the same. They have to remember that their customers aren't made of money. With a good percentage of gamers being 10-20 years of age with limited income(allowance, $7/hr jobs, and tuitions) people can't afford or don't want to pay 10 subscritions for games. Call of duty MW2 has 12million gamers playing 10hrs per week who gave $50/50euros to a company who is about to launch another sequel less then a year after. So yeah 75million dollars for creating/manufacturing a game and holding servers is not enough knowing that 6 months later most of these gamers with buy the sequel for $50 and abandon MW2 servers to play the Black Ops one.
I hope they are going to rethink this.

[jdktech2010]

The only way I would pay for online multiplayer is games like Halo: Reach where the features and value are so ridiculous and I have the most fun playing it....otherwise, I would just play an MMO and be done with it.

Even then though, it would be a stretch...anymore than 5 dollars and there's no chance

[Ares84PS3]

Well I'm pretty sure that the online community for every game will be cut in half as soon as that will hit.

Isn't it enough that we pay for the internet, purchase the game, get scamed into DLC that is already on the disk yet they want to charge us for playing each game online????

I say no sir....as soon as that happens I'm out of online multiplayer and back to the good old days of single player only. Split screen will be popular again. I just hope....I truly hope that not a single person will pay for that and companies will just leave everything like it was before.

[DaBadGuy]

Amen.

[DaBadGuy]

If Kotick breaks the glass ceiling and makes CoD Online have a subscription fee and it works, the goddamn floodgates are gonna open. I hope that most companies will have the good sense to not charge a fee, but if it works, it could happen. Modern Warfare 3, BF: Bad Company 3, Gears of War 3, the next non-Bungie Halo, etc. could all cost money. MMORPG's like FF14 are different, I still won't be buying it though because I'm not too big on MMORPGs. Black Ops is not far off, but it's still far enough off to insert a subscription, if so, then I think I'll pass and wait for Battlefield: Bad Company 2 Vietnam.

[rezzah]

I dont need multiplayer like the majority of this generation of gamers. All I need is a great experience from the story mode and I will be glad.

[jdktech2010]

I only buy games with Multiplayer at this point. Single player games are the best experience but generally after I beat it, I won't play it again because I know what happens (Bioware games being the exception). Multiplayer increases the value.

For me GOW3 wasn't worth 60 dollars for the 8 or 9 hours I got out of it. Halo 3 has been well worth the money....I've played about 150 games between two gamertags (switched a few months ago) and that's a lot of hours in addition the single player. I expect Reach will be the same and more.

I don't make enough money to spend 60 bucks on a game for 8 hours.....I just don't. That doesn't mean I don't love single player games a whole lot because I do but it's all about benefit to cost ratio and multiplayer games have a higher ratio for me as far as value and fun factor combined

And if the industry does turn out this way, then it's sad but I'll have to just start reading again and watching tv. I'll deal

[rezzah]

Yea i understand you, but the difference with me is there are those single player experiences that are so amzing it makes me actually play the game over again. Some of them like Bioshock I woulndt play but GoW3 is a game I would play again.

[MysticStrummer]

I think for the most part they're gonna find that they'll make more money per game from the online subscription fee, but far fewer people will buy the game in the first place. Many games this generation have single player campaigns that can be completed with a rental, so the only reason to buy them is to get Trophies/Achievements or to play online. Charge an online fee for CoD and I'll just rent it for single player. I played the hell out of Everquest Online Adventures for several years, so a game like that would get a look from me. Something like CoD... no way.

[jdktech2010]

Maybe Acti doesn't realize a huge star wars game is coming up in The Old Republic....Star Wars attracts people especially if they have to pay for a game to play it anyway.

I know if that that happens for FPS games, my first jump is on to Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 (unless Blizz does it which I don't think they would) and then onto SWTOR

[mac4u10]

I dare them to do it!!!

[willie32]

I want to see the actual price of the game come down to $29.99. It is only fair for the people who only play single player (1/2 the game). Imagine COD's 4-5 hour experience for $60....lol. If companies still charge the $60 dollars plus an online fee, I simply won't buy the game.

[Vip3r]

I won't be paying for it. Free MP or I'll just stay with SP. This is why I really like SP games. I wish more devs would concentrate on SP game instead of MP. Maybe then the quality of the games will go up.

For example; Oblivion, Fallout 3, HL2, Uncharted were all really good SP games.

[theEx1Le]

I think it will happen, but i'll never pay to play games online. Not at least after i pay for gold on live, that is if i ever replace my broke xbox

[Spenok]

Probably. Microsoft showed everyone that people are willing to pay to play online. I just wonder how its going to work seeing as how people with Xbox's will have to pay another fee to play there favorite games. :/ this would surely suck. On the other had i wouldnt be playing online much anymore.

[Vortex3D]

The issue about charging for online multiplayer is the single player campaign length. If the game is going to cost MSRP $60 with 5 hours of single player campaign and then extra charge for online multiplayer, that makes the game extremely expensive.

What I think is if the game publishers are going to charge extra for the online multiplayer, they are not going to design the single player campaign any longer.

If anyone isn't going to spend extra money to play online multiplayer, the single player campaign is not worth $60 for 5 hours of gameplay like today.

[DeathMetal]

just like more paid DLC and pay to play online services because the console gamers are dumb enough to pay for it.

[TwistedMetal]

now they will have the 50 bucks for live then 10 bucks or so for each game they buy hahaha. All they play is online shooters so lol owned.

[prhbkillsh0t]

Im so ready to laugh went it backs fire on them...this is just greed 4 tha green im tha firts one who will stop buying games wich required this!!! here's looking at u activion!!! And i know 4 a fact that lots will follow in tha wake of this hapening.So Tha Activision And EA's u know what will happen if u do this crap u end up loosing more than what ur gona gain, !8 million copys sold should be enough!!! Dont u think?

[quadalupeupe]

they will buy anything :(

[Rashonality]

i believe activision will do it
they will charge for CoD
but i think first parties like sony and microsoft will not do it
Sony it's against her policy of FREE Multilayer and Microsoft is already taking money with gold membership
so don't worry we have HALO and KILLZONE and everything in between if ever CoD Gone Pay-to-play and

[sickpup]

By charging fees to play multiplayer will ruin the rental industry. I assume Blockbuster, Gamefly and others would sue the living s*** out of Microsoft for even trying it. I am suprise EA even is trying the GamePass BS. If they try to charge it may be enough for me to migrate to a new platform.