Pay per play

[Concept]

Yes, but stupid application of the business model will turn people way. Publishers will wake up when they start killing their own audience.

[charlesr]

Everyone fears change, so this initial reaction is expected. Indeed the initial trials of the idea will probably have some complete failures and some successes depending on who gets the balance right. If you think about it, they can't release a game for ?10 and then hope people buy another ?30 of stuff to ensure they cover their dev and pub costs. Devs would go under left right and center because most people would buy a couple of cars and couple of tracks bringing the total to a whopping ?14.

I also believe the current model of paying to download music is fundamentally flawed since you are dling to a fragile media - hardiscs don't last forever and are easy to erase by accident, perhaps via a virus. Most shops only let you download the once, so you have to organise your own backup. Wouldn't it be great if they kept a record of your tunes so you could download your stuff again some time later for disaster recovery? Would save a lot of worry. Similary the same applies to game downloads. If there were assurances you could recover your paid for games at some later stage, this would be a huge plus. I believe MS does this already as long as you keep your Live account open?

[AllYourBase]

It's a rubbish idea, especially for a game like Gran Turismo. You can bet the game won't be subsidised either. Sony FTL!

[Concept]

Everyone fears change, so this initial reaction is expected. Indeed the initial trials of the idea will probably have some complete failures and some successes depending on who gets the balance right. If you think about it, they can't release a game for ?10 and then hope people buy another ?30 of stuff to ensure they cover their dev and pub costs. Devs would go under left right and center because most people would buy a couple of cars and couple of tracks bringing the total to a whopping ?14.

1) Answer indicative of stupidly overdosing on too many microtransactions = let's release Game X for ?30 with a couple of extras instead of ?10 if we can't sell enough cheaper. At least we'll be selling to almost the same amount of people for more of a price.

This won't be reality of course. People will stop buying games.

Post-release and post-main development transactions can add longevity and depth to games, but a deluge of options ripped out of games and posted as such? It'll dilute interest.

In any case, there is one thing which stands in the way of mass stupdity taking hold. If Sony do this with a number of games and there is eventually a reaction, then all it takes for is MS or Nintendo to swipe up their audience and handle microtransactions more intelligently. Vice-versa with Sony to them as well. Making mistakes and pushing people away is going to be suicidal this generation.

[Brats]

My take on this is that it isn't about ripping gamers off, it's about making games more accessible. Publishers are aware that the high RRP of games is a barrier to many consumers. By making the initial price lower and then charging for extras if players want them (like TDU in the US) they hope to widen the market. I'm not convinced that with GT:HD they have got the balance right, but it's an experiment.

It also enables the developers and publishers to keep a larger proportion of the turnover for themselves, rather than the distributors and retailers. Which might be a good thing depending on your point of view.

I can appreciate why players aren't forums don't appreciate the change and prefer their games to come complete. However, if this experiment does sucessfully increase the market, it could be a very positive thing for the industry and smaller developers, who can get their games out there cheaply (or free) and then charge for the extras.

Imagine an alternative reality where Ico or Rez were free but you only get the first level. I believe many more people would have tried the game and many would have been enchanted and paid for the extra content. Isn't this a positive thing?

[eastyy]

Actually that reminds me of the shareware system

But shareware i prefered getting the first level free but only paying the once for the complete full game

[Concept]

In the case of ICO? No. Microtransactions work in some titles fine, but don't do it in-game with certain titles where immersion and illusion are all important. It's like putting adverts in the games... just isn't applicable to some (or if it has to be, do it outside the game in the dashboard).

Rez though? Yes - now that is a game which could work very well with added transactions over a period of time (new levels/songs).

As for GT:HD. An experiment? Definitely. Doesn't mean it isn't a rip off as well though.

[Concept]

Another example of inappropriate usage.

A future Silent Hill. Imagine one area cranking up the tension to absolutely terrifying levels over the period of an hour and you're about to get to the end of the structure when all of a sudden a menu pops up requiring you to pay to gain access to it?

Completely counter-productive to atmosphere and tension.

I hate to keep banging the same drum but all that needs to be shown with transactions is common sense.

Greed however will probably ensue that doesn't happen in the short term.

[Brats]

Microtransactions don't have to get in the way of immersion. Imagine the shopkeeper in RE4 (What yer sellin'? What yer buyin'?) which acts exactly the same except he also sells keys to the next level that cost real money.

Or a game like Ico where every so often the player encounters a special kind of switch. The player needs to pull the switch to progress, but they are made aware at the beginning of the game that every time they pull a switch, their account is debited for the cost of the next level. They pull the switch and no message appears saying they have just spent money, they jusy continue through the game.

These are just examples I thought up off the top of my head. I don't think every game needs to have a menu saying 'PAY $5.00 TO CONTINUE - YES/NO' and I'm sure that the better developers will think of ways to get around the immersion issue.

[Brats]

As for GT:HD. An experiment? Definitely. Doesn't mean it isn't a rip off as well though.

I didn't say it wasn't a rip off. All I mean is that the main reason for publishers experimenting with this is not trying to rip people off.

[Concept]

Of course there isn't going to be one and only method used - but there are pitfalls too. I'm sure if people weren't made inherently aware of what they were paying for then there'd be the possibility of lawsuits which would mean you'd have to possibly come up with a highly evident disclaimer at the start of the game to get the message across - and it'd have to be done in such a manner where it's easily understandable.

The worrying thing about your switch example is that it almost implies a form of in-game tax for the existing world.

Personally, I think in some genres microtransactions will work effectively to a certain degree if they're handled well, and in others they won't. This isn't going to be a market force which will be applicable to everything out there. For example, buying episodic content I have no problem with but in games where HUD minimalism is central to the experience the last thing I want to have happen is be intruded upon.

[MartyG]

Stripping games down to that extent where you have to pay per level/track/car/etc is a bad idea - especially when it's hidden away. This sort of thing isn't good for consumers. Publishers are not out to save us money. Stripping games down like this might look cheaper initially, but it's only ever going to work out more expensive in the long run, especially when additional costs are hidden away, or disguised as a "points" system ala Market Place.

Now this might be great for the casual gamer who only wants to dip their toe in the water, or optionally purchases the online part, or a photo part, or a level design part, but not for a gamer like myself who wants to collect every car/track/level and rinse games to the max.

I simply don't want to pay for a half of less or product only to have then purchase extra stuff for the full experience. I've no problem purchasing additional content which expands a game beyond its original intended experience, but not this.

[Mardigan8]

Is the implementation of XBox downloadable content not the sensible way of implementing this? Hasn't Microsft shown us already the correct way to use additional cost content? This just seems like sony trying to suggest they have a new way of gaming content being implemented when in fact Microsft have already done it, and a hell of a lot better!!

Concept is abaolsutely right, common sense must be executed with something like this or gaming in general could fall on its money grabbing arse. IMO, Microsft have the DLC stuff wired so sony are clutching at straws with this one. The right way to do something like this is already in place with the 360, why change it?

At the end of the day it is the precisely the kind of move that could change gaming forever and at the same time bring it crumbling down around itself!!

[Lebowski]

Microtransactions don't have to get in the way of immersion. Imagine the shopkeeper in RE4 (What yer sellin'? What yer buyin'?) which acts exactly the same except he also sells keys to the next level that cost real money.

But thats the problem if a dev comes along and says right you can have the game for ?20 but to actualy finish it you need to visit a shop keeper to buy guns and ammo then i would rather pay full price and just enjoy the game without the feeling that the cost is running away with me.

it's like what was posted ealyer in this thread its very easy to get carried away with these things and spend a lot of money without realising.

Microsoft have been very clever with how they do it too as you have to buy points to get games and extra content and it adds that extra level to the transaction your not spending money your spending points, i was recentley thinking about purchaseing the extra content for Call of Duty Two as i have freinds who play it a lot and it limits me from playing it, but to get all the maps now is over ?12 so i would have to buy ?20 worth of points and have ?8 tied up in points i dont want. look at it another way, that 3.90 arcade game requires you to spend over a fiver each time, clever aint it

[AllYourBase]

Is the implementation of XBox downloadable content not the sensible way of implementing this? Hasn't Microsft shown us already the correct way to use additional cost content? This just seems like sony trying to suggest they have a new way of gaming content being implemented when in fact Microsft have already done it, and a hell of a lot better!!

In the case of some brand new multiplayer arenas for Halo (not hidden away on the game DVD!) or a new skin for the Uno board I see the idea of a 'microtransaction' as being quite reasonable.

The idea of getting 2 basic cars in a racing game and having to buy faster ones in order to compete at any sort of level in a online game is a bad idea - I just wouldn't buy that game! It's just going to dilute the gaming experience if this sort of thing is forced on us gamers. Microsoft do seem to be doing things well in this area at the moment with the marketplace, I hope Sony follow their lead!