Friday, 15 July 2011

Money at the expense of experience

Well, that's my only conclusion after seeing the news that Ubisoft have followed EA down the dark path of online passes and the 'ten dollar project'. For those of you not in the know, for the last year EA have packaged all console games with a one-time use code that allows you to access the online features, including gameplay. Those gamers who choose to buy the games used, probably in an effort to save money, now also have to shell out 800 MS points (on the Xbox 360 platform) just to play the game against their mates, look at leaderboards or even check their stats.

Some may argue that this is a good thing, and that developers and publishers are losing vast sums of money due to second hand sales. Incidentally those second hand sales have pushed Gamestop's revenue towards an expected $1.5bn, and remain the most important part of UK retailer GAME's business model as well as many similar chains across the globe. Publishers complain that they see no return on these vast numbers of pre-owned sales, and that the cost of making, advertising and supporting modern games (ignoring the indie and social scene for the moment) sky high. As a result they claim that there is no other option for them other than to start profiteering from pre-owned sales by restricting content. Make no mistake, those publishers who currently aren't following this model will be chasing after it themselves soon enough.

The thing is...how many people do we all know who buy pre-owned titles at only a few pounds or dollars less than a brand new copy? Heck, games like Call of Duty remain at £35 for over 6 months after the game's release, so we only save a few pounds at most. You see, logically the publishers are missing a trick. If they truly wanted to increase sales then rather than take steps to alienate their core userbase, then perhaps they should be looking at a tried and tested successful business move, like....I dunno.....stop attempting to rip us off with £45 titles and massively overpriced DLC?! Here's an idea, try selling new games at £30. I'll bet you several tonnes of plastic shrink wrapping that sales would double on release.

Maybe I'd be more understanding if EVERY time I've come across these online passes the experience hasn't completely sucked. Take Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit for example, I actually bought the game new, activated the online pass, and then over a 2 week period had all my single player progress erased, got locked out of online DLC purchases even while in single player, and suffered laggy and underpowered servers with constant timeouts and connection drops. Just last weekend I picked up Battlefield: Bad Company 2 pre-owned for £10, even though I then bought the SECAT and Vietnam DLC I've been plagued by constant prompts to enter my non-existent VIP code, buy a VIP pass for a mere 800 points (after spending 2000 points on the DLC already!) and not even be able to view my stats when I want!

Urgh. Sometimes gaming leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Sure the games keep getting better, but the business practices seem to be getting worse and worse. Like charging monthly for access to a statistics page...although to be honest I'm surprised it took Activision this long to cash in so mercilessly on the Call of Duty brand.....

1 comments:

  1. To be fair, this is different to buying a movie second hand. If you want to play online, you are using the publisher's servers which cost a hell of a lot to maintain. Buying the game new means you have contributed to the publisher's revenue and therefore towards the maintenance of the online systems. Buying it pre-owned means you have not, so I can understand the reasoning behind this move.

    Also, Activision are not asking you to pay to play online. Online play remains free and no in game advantage is being given to paying members.

    Business practices are not getting worse either, publishers do actually have to make money (shock horror) and the changing gaming market means they have to adapt. The online passes may not work, but you can't blame them for experimenting.

    ReplyDelete