You know, life was simpler when those of us of generation NES were growing up, I mean, gaming-wise at least. Video Games on home councils were cartridges, big blocks that popped into a machine, turned on, and delivered a completely realized after-school babysitter. Some of these didn’t have internal batteries, and therefore did not let you save. Do you remember how simple life was before patch updates? Do you remember days before you had to check forums to make sure there was nothing wrong with the latest system update? No downloadable content, which meant you weren’t the only person on a game paying five bucks for a map pack no one owned. Do you remember when online gaming was reserved only as a PC perk, and even then it was a clear indicator you were the alpha nerd?
Recently, Wedbush Morgan Security analyst Michael Pachter made comments about the nature of online multiplayer’s future. Causing the greatest amount of hype, many web-friendly gamers have conflated his comments solely around Activision’s top-selling franchise, Call Of Duty, and Mr. Pachter has engendered a great amount of ire for his position suggesting that the publisher start charging for online multiplayer. In the interest of quoting him precisely, Pachter recently told IndustryGamer:
“We estimate that a total of 12 million consumers are playing Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 for an average of 10 hours per week on the two platforms’ respective networks, and the continued enjoyment of this game (along with an estimated 6 million Halo online players, 3 million EA Sports players, and 5 million players playing other games, such as Battlefield, Red Dead Redemption, Left 4 Dead and Grand Theft Auto) has sucked the available time away from what otherwise would be spent playing newly purchased games.”
“We see this as a continuing problem, and think that unless and until the publishers come up with a business model that appropriately captures the value created by the multiplayer experience, we are destined to see a migration of game playing away from packaged goods purchases and toward multiplayer online. While the shift has been great for consumers, who are enjoying an unprecedented, and largely free, game experience, it has been devastating for publishers and shareholders, who are seeing sales and profits decline.”
“We think that it is incumbent upon Activision, with the most popular multiplayer game, to take the first step to address monetization of multiplayer. 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.”
Taking time to digest the quotes, what Pachter says is right, just not particularly popular. For gamers, it’s only natural to hate ideas like this because these are games we’ve bought and free-to-play online extends the life of the game. But let’s not lose sight of the business end of it all. Trust me, guys like Activision’s Bobby Kotick have been thinking about this for years, and have been waiting around for the time when such a proposal can work.
Think about it, Pachter just pointed out the average Modern Warfare 2 online veteran finds himself grinding 10 hours a week on the online modes. Those of us that grind this much of a game are obviously not devoting our time to a new title, and at the current status quo there is nothing that really gets brought in besides a map pack to rake in some cash from this. I guess games could allow clumsy advertising, but I wonder which company wants their logo getting shot up on an exploding battlefield.
First, to calm any COD fans sweating over this, let me say this clearly and loudly: at the moment, Activision has no good reason to charge a subscription for Call Of Duty. Mike, why don’t they, what is your evidence? I can list them: Medal Of Honor, Borderlands, Battlefield Bad Company, Brink, Rainbow Six, Gears Of War, Uncharted 2, Grand Theft Auto, Red Dead Redemption, Halo, and Sony’s next attempt at a Hardcore Shooter. These are all games that are out or are coming out that can offer a comparable online multiplayer experience to Call Of Duty. At the current state, all of these games have (or expected to have) free online play, and unless the publishers are willing to jump suit to follow Activision and grab any share of the market they can, they will steer clear of that until they have no other option.
As for Activision’s top-selling cash-cow, a serious overhaul needs to take place in the series before that can happen. Call Of Duty is a fine game, but take the list of other games and find me something COD significantly brings to the table that any of those don’t. Between all of these games they all have different play modes, elaborate arenas, or unlockable perks. Hell, Medal Of Honor even gives you customizable BEARDS. The only significant draw you can show me is the community, and I almost have to argue the merits of that. It’s robust and you always someone to play with, but so long as a game can place me in a room of 8-18 players, what does it matter how many other people are out there. Some 12 million users play Modern Warfare 2 at any given time. Is the multiplayer enhanced by the fact that there is 3 million more players I may never play against? I’ve read forum discussions about which community has the better players, but have we vetted all of the users to know this, or did they log into a nice lobby. Online matches are like Tennis: only fun when you play around people of your same skill set.
Reeling back on topic, and I doubt they will do this by this fall without some massive announcement for; for Call Of Duty to charge a subscription for online play, the multiplayer has to drastically change. I think that in order for Activision to have a fan base who isn’t grudgingly paying money per month, but rather frothing at the mouth to hand over their money, they have to offer something bigger, better and further out there than they have in the past in order to justify a subscription.
The only problem I can see with that is they axed the goose that lays golden eggs (Infinity Ward). Assuming that they are able to pick up the momentum with another company, I’ll say Pachter is probably jumping the gun, it won’t come in during Black Ops, we’ll see some major jump paired with subscription fees on the release of Modern Warfare 3. The time to plan, coupled with the install base of the most successful launch in video game history will no doubt make that the moment to put up or shut up. As of Black Ops, we may see a microtransactions and a charge for tournaments. These are things you can easily get away with because they strike to the Prestige players, guys so enrolled in the hardcore outfit of the game that paying a few extra dollars for a special gun, or to enter into a tournament is par for the course of doing business.
Ladies and Gentlemen, it’s at this time that I see the next conversation we need to explore: the used game market. Let’s consider this the bridge-way to that.
In the meantime, personally, I’ve met Michael Pachter, and have been listening to his insights for over a year and find them dead on the money. Let’s all give the “Fellow Baby” a break, even when he makes an unpopular prediction.
Music
Film & TV
