[editorial] Why should I pay for Black Ops?

So Call of Duty Black Ops comes out in a week, and I'm sitting here staring at its Steam page. $89.99. No, that's not in weird kiwi currency, that's ninety cold American big ones. The Activision tax is rife in this country, even the 360/PS3 version will cost 50% more than the usual price for new games. But that's beside the point, I'm going to buy it eventually, but it suddenly struck me; why am I paying for it?

Multiplayer is what game is all about, sure it has a cinematic single player game, but who cares about that? I remember playing MW2 for a week before I even touched the campaign. So like most people, I'll buy it, fire it up online, get into a match and before long get shot in the face over and over and over again. My kill/death ratio in these games will inevitably drop below 1 before long, which kinda makes me feel like the prey to the fox hunters of the online world. If this were some sort of sick futuristic sport being played in the real world, I'd be compensated for the privilege of being someone else's bullet spong, but for some reason, I have to pay for the pleasure when it comes to video games.

So I propose this: make the multiplayer section of an FPS a free download. When your kill/death ratio goes above 1, you start paying a monthly fee. That way, those that treat it like a sport get what they pay for, lots of corpses and the prestige of having a nice number next to their name. For those that don't care either way, they're getting the satisfaction that those who are constantly sniping them from 10 miles away are paying for it with cold hard cash. Everyone's happy!

 

Simple answer: If you're paying 90 dollars for it, you shouldn't be playing it.

 

Nice idea, but it will never happen. Just last year Activision said they wanted to turn Call of Duty's online component into a pay to play service

It's total bull**** that there is ANY demand to pay for addition services I'm sure. "Oh yes Mr. Mega Corporation. Please take my money."

 

Yeahhh... the merits of the game aside, that across-the-pond price markup is insane. Ugh. I had my brother gift me a couple of Steam games from the UK just to get around it, but I've since found a couple of online stores that mysteriously undercut retail by sourcing their games from UK/EU.

 

This. It's insane really. No way am I spending that much dough for a digital download, especially for a Caca-Doody game NOT made by the Infinity Ward crew.

Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

 

I won't pay over 70 dollars (collector's edition included) for a game. No way. No chance I'd plop 100 bones on a game, either.

I was going to get the CE of Brotherhood, but the guy told me it was 100 bucks (rather than the 69.99 I had originally seen) and I laughed in his face. No chance in hell.

Maybe it's me moving away from gaming, or just the impact of the recession/not having money finally hitting home, but 100 bucks for a game I'll play for a couple weeks is not an investment I'm going to make.

 

Guys, the price wasn't the point. Besides, $90US works out at about $116NZ, which is about the normal price for games here, as it's always been no matter the exchange rate. I'm not in America, I don't pay the same taxes or earn the same amounts, so it's not really a fair comparison anyway.

The topic is supposed to be about how Activision should pay me for sucking at games.

 

Then maybe you should look for a different, less-challenging hobby

 

That seems like the point to me.

 

I won't pay over 70 dollars (collector's edition included) for a game.

Actually, it can be an extremely wise investment on occasion. You know, provided you're willing to take advantage of the insanity of certain collectors out there. If you know the game is going to sell about 10 bajillion copies (like Call of Duty) or has a particularly rabid fan base (like Fallout), you can make a bunch of your money back just be reselling the extras that come with those collector's editions.

For example, as soon as I saw what came in the New Vegas set, I knew it was going to be a miniature gold mine. I just got through seperately selling all the extras (even though I was tempted to keep the Lucky 38 chip just because), including the empty case ($20.00, I **** you not), and when all was said and done, I ended up with just about $100 and I still have the actual game itself. I basically got a free copy of New Vegas and twenty extra bucks in my pocket, and all it cost me was the time it took to list the items and a couple of trips to the post office.

With Black Ops, even though I'm definitely keeping the zombie co-op maps, I figure that stupid medal is probably gonna fetch me $15-20 and God only knows what I might get for that Xbox Live avatar costume download code (provided it's a seperate code from the co-op maps, which I really hope it is) and the RC car. People eat those things up.

Just sayin'.

 

That. Is. Awesome.

 

Remember when N64 came out and like EVERY game was 75 bucks?

 

You know what, I'm gonna write a competing editorial.

It makes no sense to only charge the players with a KDR above 1, from a financial perspective. The first problem you run into there is that even the most generous estimate of "players above 1 KDR" puts them at half the player base. So if you only charge half your players, you're getting 50% of the revenue while still having to run servers for the same amount of users. That's a losing proposition no matter how you look at it.

In fact, you'll probably lose more than half your revenue that way, because ... well ... in any given game there are significantly more bad players than there are good players. I don't play CoD but I'd say chances are you won't run into a player with a score of 2 kills to 1000 deaths - they'll quit long before they hit that mark. So there are probably a lot more players with low KDRs in the system than those with high ones. And because it's also likely that bad players play significantly less than good players (practice makes perfect, etc) and thus present a smaller drain on their servers, the very people you're proposing not be charged are probably essential to their business plan in the first place.

Then there's the fact that this basically introduces a disincentive to stick with the game. There are so many FPSs out there that if I had to pay the moment I started getting good at it, I'd use it as a practice game to get better at FPSs and then swap to one I didn't have to pay a subscription for.

So I don't think it would ever work.

 

Ok, I did get your point zacparis: Why invest so much in a game where you'll probably suck eggs as far as multiplayer goes? I guess I wouldn't, since that's pretty much my case as well. When Modern Warfare 2 came out, I went along with the hype, even though the shortness of its campaign was a troubling aspect for me. So I beat the campaign but did not bother to go for the Veteran challenge since I just couldn't bring myself to go through the "Story" -- such as it was -- again. But when I went online, well, that's when it hit me. This Halo fanboy stood no chance, not against CoD/MW veterans who knew their stuff, let alone against the many cheaters, hackers and 'xploiters that made your life miserable. I knew then that I had wasted my $70 bucks. So in less than a week, I went and traded my copy in for whatever GameStop gave me at the time (yeah, yeah, I probably would've gotten a lot more through eBay, I know) in exchange of a no-frills copy of Assasin's Creed 2, a throughly more enjoyable experience.

So yeah, if you know you that in the short run you will regret your purchase, I'd keep my money and spend it elsewhere, instead of in, again, a godsdam Caca-Doody game NOT made by the Infinity Ward crew (not that their last was was a jewel in any case).

 

A solid counter-argument Xan, except that most (if not all) online games over Xbox Live are peer to peer, no one's paying or maintaining any servers for games of Modern Warfare 2.

Besides, there must be some incentive to get people playing your game even if it is for free. A growing number of MMOs are adopting the free to play model, LOTR being one of the latest examples. All of those free players are using the same servers, eating up the same resources, they just have arbitrary restrictions placed on them depending how much they want to pay.

I admit I didn't stop for a second to wonder how it'd work from a business perspective. But I wouldn't be surprised if FPSs head towards the MMO model (Bungie's next project likely to be the first attempt). Just think how much sleep Activision lost over the thought that millions of people play their game online every single day and they don't see a cent beyond what all those customers paid for it upfront.

 

Ah, well, shows what I know about XBox Live. I assumed there'd be some central server somewhere if they're tracking stats, but I suppose that could be done on Microsoft's dime, or something.

I wonder about LOTRO though. Looks like they're going down the microtransaction path (want feature X? You can buy it here!) which is a valid business strategy, but ... it seems like something you'd roll out if your game wasn't doing as well as you hoped.

As for Activision, I guess that's why they're rolling out so many 'new' games that look like expansion packs? Bit like Guild Wars, I guess. Make it subscription-less but roll out a new expansion every few months.

 

But I wouldn't be surprised if FPSs head towards the MMO model (Bungie's next project likely to be the first attempt).

Maybe you haven't noticed --- or maybe you have -- but I think Bungie's been testing those waters with REACH, given how you level up in that game in comparison to Halo 2 and 3: it's all about MMO-style grindin' now in stead of skill, for good or ill. I kinda like it, but boy if some of their challenges do become repetitive after awhile.

 

Actually the new edition in this game franchise looks very promising. Treyarch is stepping it up a notch by adding in a new credit/money based rank up system. (*Cough* Halo Reach* Cough*) Upgraded gameplay with new player customization, weapon custimization, and adding in perks and taking away a few for a more overall balanced game will bring in a lot of players back to the COD franchise. With a great single player cinematic storyline, the addition of Theater mode,(*Cough*Halo Reach*Cough*) and a load of online multiplayer modes: Zombies, Team Death, Search and Destroy, and so on..

Now as far as pricing for Steam goes. Get a Console. =p

 

Zombies would make a great addition ala Death Troopers. I like the idea.

 

Sure...

Even at Steam's outrageous US$90 price, it's still only NZ$115.

 

Seriously though zac, if you don't mind waiting a few days for shipping and such, you can get games for much cheaper elsewhere. This site has Black Ops PC for AU$62.99 and shipping's free.

It's curious they haven't gone down Blizzard's path when it comes to sales - the Battle.net store cheerfully undercuts Oceanic retail prices.

 

I'll probably trade some old games in for it, although I haven't really decided if I want it yet. I'm unusually indecisive about this one.

 

Maybe it's because, deep down, you know you'll regret getting it?

 

So I know this is probably off-topic but what is the massive big fuss over this game about? It looks rubbish, and it's being made by Treyarch, who's games on the whole are rather poor. So why is everyone going OMG gotta buy this. Now is it just that it is all the n00b 14yr olds who are having a massive orgasm over it or are serious gamers actually looking forward to this as well?