Weekend Recovery: Monetize Everything!
It's Weekend Recovery, your Monday morning, 9 AM intellectual gaming discussion fix. Have a suggestion for a Weekend Recovery topic? Send your ideas to mixvio@gaygamer.net and you might see your name on the grand marquee!
----
Hot in the news this weekend is a comment out of Activision headquarters that gamers should "expect" more premium (as in, you pay extra for it) offerings in titles like their Call of Duty franchise in order to monetize the online multiplayer component of the game. Whether this takes the form of improvements to player profiles with features that are only available to players who fork out extra cash, or downloadable content that you pay real money to access, it's not difficult to look down the road and see this is the future of gaming.
Titles that have multiplayer components require hefty fees to keep running; those servers you fight other players on don't pay for themselves, and as more and more titles log onto the internet companies will inevitably be looking for ways to cover these fees. Activision (by way of that Blizzard half of the company) has a lot of experience with ongoing subscriptions through World of Warcraft, and even non-MMOG developers are looking at ways to capitalize on these recurring income potentials. Back in August, Sony got a lot of flack for their introduction of video advertising in WipEout HD-- although they removed the offending ads after the outcry it's all but a guarantee that they will make their way back into the title at some point, in some modified form.
So, to the readers; how do you guys feel about this encroachment of ads on the turf of what used to be ad free? Do you feel like if you've paid for the game once already you should be entitled to an experience without advertising, or do you think it's fair for the companies involved to recoup their costs by monetizing the multiplayer components? How far is too far-- hundreds of GameStop ads spoiling the Manhattan skyline in Prototype seemed absurd to me, but I hardly heard much outcry over it personally. Does this sort of thing annoy you, or have you resigned yourself towards the inevitable?
mixvio
Posted to Miscellany on 16 November 2009
· Comments (4)
Other stuff like this: activision, ads, advertising, weekend recovery
I have to say that I accept it. The cost of making games these days is extraordinarily high; overhead must cost a fortune with numerous employees, rent, etc. Plus, the amount of time it takes to make these games lends to the costs. We don't mind ads on free games, why not the $60 dollar game for the PS3?
Of course, it can be easily argued that we are buying an "ad-free" game, but the purchase has nothing to do with reality. The industry and the consumer have pushed for high-quality, realistic games. This costs money. If selling ad space helps the gaming industry to create high-quality games, why not?
As long as they aren't too obtrusive, seeing advertisements in games is perfectly fine with me.
I've never played Prototype, but I did play Wipeout HD - although it must have been before the ads were introduced, so I haven't seen those, personally. In PAIN, I've seen posters and billboards on buildings advertising movies and such, but that never really bothered me at all. But then again, that's the type of game where if seeing those ads did piss you off, you could always throw bodies, explosive crates, etc. at them and feel a whole lot better. :)
The reason why I don't play MMORPGs is because of subscription fees. If other online multiplayer games took on that business model then I'd stop playing those as well. True, I currently have an Xbox Live subscription, but that covers all games on the system so the value seems much higher to me, whereas I would never pay an individual subscription fee for each game that I play.
As for extra features as paid content, as long as it doesn't interfere with the gameplay it's fine. If people want to pay to unlock content already in a game that's their own issue, but if the DLC gives those players an advantage over others in content that others don't have access to then it breaks the balance of the game.
As long as the ads aren't obtrusive and they look like they fit (billboards in a driving game, which we've been doing for years in Burnout) I'm perfectly cool. Whatever the developers need to get more money is fine for me, games are expensive.
As far as DLC goes I'm cool with it under the conditions that 1: it's not something that obviously should have been on the disc (Dragon Age) and 2: it's not already on the disc and I'm paying to unlock it (Street Fighter IV costumes) unless, of course, it's just a game-altering thing like buying an unlock for all the cars in Burnout. That kind of thing is cool with me, too.
I think people are quickly jumping to yell at developers and publishers for trying to make money when they forget how expensive it is to make games, and also (and it seems more the case) forget that these are companies that want to make money, like any other company. Their goal is a big dollar sign and if you're oh so lucky, they happen to care about making good games as well.