Pay per play

[MikeRox]

They want to grow their market. They want an online service without the barrier of a ?40 subscription (which face it is a barrier to many people going for Live Gold) and they are exploring other means.

Well theres always the monthly option to break it down to ?5 per month (or ?60 per year) personally I can't see how if people wont' pay ?5 per month for an online subscription, they're going to happily pay that sort of money per month on extra cars and stuff.

I like the idea of microtransactions in some ways, I completely hate them in others. At the end of the day, Sony need to be given a chance with it all, see where they're taking it. If it turns out to be a complete joke, just don't pay for it. They'll soon have to find a different way of extracting regular flows of cash for very little content out of us if nobody downloads the stuff.

[Brats]

I agree. I'm actually happy that people are expressing their opinions. If they dislike stuff, then I agree don't buy it.

I just don't agree that this is 'the end of gaming' or that publishers are initentionally looking to rip us off. If you don't like it, make sure Sony knows but don't fear about it becoming like the nightmare vision of the worst case scenario. The strong competition alone will ensure it doesn't.

[Vince]

The only thing is has anyone said the games will be cheaper to start with? I got the impression they'd still be the same price and you'd pay extra for content?

[MartyG]

If a lot of content is being stripped out I think publishers would be hard pushed to maintain and justify the same initial purchase price - however, I find it highly likely they'll be going for a middle ground, because the median, by definition, is where most of the customers lie ( see bell curves and normal distribution ).

There'll be an expectation that some people will only grab a few add-ons, therefore you've still got to maintain a certain level of initial cost - plus everyone wants a piece of the pie - so distribution, retail et all, take a cut. Then there's the middle ground where people will buy into it, purchase a good chunk and would essentially make up the cost of what would be a full price game anyway.

Where I see this hurting gamers are those who try to rinse everything and make the most out of their games; are these people too far on the fringe of the median of this particular model? They're only going to be profitable if they're prepared to buy into it - I'm not - so I would say they are.

As I've already posted, the GT:HD as an example is taking things too far, maybe even for less fringe gamers.

[PeteJ]

The only thing is has anyone said the games will be cheaper to start with? I got the impression they'd still be the same price and you'd pay extra for content?

I think the plan for GTHD is to package it as minimally as possible (like HL2 I guess) to reduce costs. Chances are you'll end up paying much the same as normal, except you get a choice of what content goes in the game.

[Grim Reaper]

The effect on the used game market, mentioned by NekoFever, was my first thought on reading this. I was looking at the "360 games owned" thread just before this, and I was surprised by the number of people here who regularly trade in their games. It's a culture that seems a little alien to me, though I accept that there are very good reasons for doing it. Nevertheless, I would have thought that more people here would have a "collector" mind-set.

I too am concerned about the amount of content that has been carved off into an add-on. I think we all accept that this will happen to some extent - it has certainly been going on a long time with PC game expansion packs. I don't put it down to greed - game development and publishing is enough of a lottery as it is, so I don't object to the industry making money where they can. However, as the on-line aspects of games become more significant, fragmenting the user-base of a game to this extent is not practical if the playing field is to remain level.

I don't really agree with "episodic purchasing" either. I think game demos are the best way for people to try something out before they buy. Pay-as-you-go does not appeal to me at all. Would we all still be on on-line as often if we were paying by the minute? 'Little' add-ons, like those for Oblivion are OK, but completing one level only to have to shell out before playing for the next one would put me right off. Every time you have to pay to continue you have to evaluate how much you're enjoying the experience. Many of my favourite games include sections that I found frustrating. As I reached those points I could have declined an offer to pay for more and missed out on the experience.

I'm also a bit worried about reviews. Will reviewers be given fully unlocked versions of a game? If so, how will they know which content is included in the price? Will they have the "buy to continue" messages appearing at the same time as the rest of us? As games become more and more customized, what configuration will the review apply to, and will the full cost of reaching that configuration be made clear?

I agree with those who think that this particular example goes too far.

Jim