Morning Discussion

Yesterday, Activision revealed the Call of Duty map packs were downloaded 20 million times. That number isn't specific to Modern Warfare 2's $15 packs, rather it includes the entire series. Surprise! Call of Duty sells.

Whenever we write stories about $15 downloadable titles, the reaction ultimately comes down to blaming platform-holders and publishers for being greedy. When the Xbox 360 launched with its revamped Xbox Live Arcade, titles ranged in price from $5 to $10. Since then, the average price for downloadable titles hovers around $15.

In both cases--the map pack and downloadable title price increase--it's a matter of voting with your dollars. Prices increase because of the popularity of the platform and/or content. The envelope keeps being pushed to find the consumer's breaking point.

Although some titles are deserving of their asking price, the averages go up because the majority of gamers keep paying for it. It will be interesting to see how well the titles in the 2010 Summer of Arcade sell. It appears that we've already given in to the new average. Just don't tell any of the publishers that, otherwise they'll start looking for a larger envelope.

Xav de Matos was previously a games journalist creating content at Shacknews.

From The Chatty
  • reply
    August 3, 2010 5:02 AM

    In both cases--the map pack and downloadable title price increase--it's a matter of voting with your dollars. Prices increase because of the popularity of the platform and/or content. The envelope keeps being pushed to find the consumer's breaking point.

    Although some titles are deserving of their asking price, the averages go up because the majority of gamers keep paying for it. It will be interesting to see how well the titles in the 2010 Summer of Arcade sell. It appears that we've already given in to the new average. Just don't tell any of the publishers that, otherwise they'll start looking for a larger envelope.


    God people, please listen to this guy before we're subscribing to everything

    • reply
      August 3, 2010 5:49 AM

      [deleted]

      • reply
        August 3, 2010 5:56 AM

        What?

        • reply
          August 3, 2010 9:21 AM

          HE ASKED IF YOU'RE STILL COMPLAINING ABOUT BEING A THIEF

          • reply
            August 3, 2010 11:55 AM

            This Shacknews Post has been assisted by the Headmaster of the New York School for the Hard of Hearing.

    • reply
      August 3, 2010 6:01 AM

      So I should stop buying things that I'm willing to pay for?

      • reply
        August 3, 2010 6:05 AM

        No, stop buying them when they become more than you're willing to pay.

        • reply
          August 3, 2010 6:11 AM

          [deleted]

          • reply
            August 3, 2010 6:18 AM

            Ah, perceived value. On the shack that makes you a fag. Or a monocle popping moneyhat wearer.

          • reply
            August 3, 2010 6:18 AM

            Then I'll see you on the class war battlefields suppoting the little people, we will overthrow the aristocracy!!

      • reply
        August 3, 2010 6:26 AM

        Stop buying things abrasion isn't willing o pay for

        • reply
          August 3, 2010 7:02 AM

          This is a better answer than mine, I change my answer to this.

    • reply
      August 3, 2010 6:24 AM

      [deleted]

    • reply
      August 3, 2010 6:25 AM

      what the fuck are you on about?

      • reply
        August 3, 2010 6:27 AM

        People are supporting Acti's monetizing, proving that their ambition to eventually make all games requiring subscriptions is a valid strategy.

      • reply
        August 3, 2010 6:30 AM

        [deleted]

      • reply
        August 3, 2010 6:35 AM

        Gaming in general, primarily console games with DLC 'out the gate' - infact why is any faggot asking me? Why not ask the person who I was quoting,........ I barely added anything to it, what another bullshit shacknews pileon, the sheep are clever this morning.

        • reply
          August 3, 2010 6:39 AM

          [deleted]

        • reply
          August 3, 2010 6:39 AM

          because you started the thread

        • reply
          August 3, 2010 6:48 AM

          lol, I don't read the MD/ED stuff because I don't care about their opinion. I didn't even realize that is who you are talking about because you didn't put a link or mention the name of who originally said it. Thus, I asked you, what the fuck are you on about?

          • reply
            August 3, 2010 6:49 AM

            mwasher u so silly. it's at the top of the page ho.

            • reply
              August 3, 2010 6:52 AM

              read my post again and you will know that i figured this out

              • reply
                August 3, 2010 6:55 AM

                why do that when i can sound all smarty mcfaggotpants about it?

                reading posts is for scrubs anyway. :D

                • reply
                  August 3, 2010 6:56 AM

                  i read abrasion's post and if he would have told me who he was talking about or said it was in the main post of MD then I would have read that as well.

                  • reply
                    August 3, 2010 6:57 AM

                    (as it is, abrasion offers nothing other than an inflammatory "you people should" addition onto someone elses thoughts and thus deserves everything he gets in this thread. when you say you agree, it is not abrasion, but Xav with which that agreement is with.

                    • reply
                      August 3, 2010 7:02 AM

                      hahahaha. i love you mwasher. i hope we can both make it to burning man. i will have a furiously ridiculous and fun argument with you while stoned about this.

                      "No it IS YOU WHO ARE IN AGREEMENT!"

                      "DO NOT TELL ME THAT I AGREE WITH XAV DE MATOS I DO NOT TRUST HIM YET"

                      "I WILL EAT FIVE HUNDRED MUSHROOMS TO PROVE HOW MUCH OF A FOOL YOU ARE!!!"

                      • reply
                        August 3, 2010 7:04 AM

                        PP are you my only fan? :(

                        • reply
                          August 3, 2010 7:10 AM

                          I like your and I agree with you on a lot of what you say, but I am only good for shitty jokes and Minecraft threads.

                      • reply
                        August 3, 2010 8:08 AM

                        haha this is an awesome plan

        • reply
          August 3, 2010 6:48 AM

          abrasion - I have to agree with you here. no reason for the silly shacknews dogpile. people need to read more carefully and stop projecting.

          having said that, you did call them sheep so now it's on like Donkey Kong and imma get mah popcorn. bahahahah.

          • reply
            August 3, 2010 6:50 AM

            Call it how I see it PP, you know how I roll! Also it's bedtime so they'll have to ravage my unprotected thread while I'm gone!

          • reply
            August 3, 2010 7:09 AM

            I agree you shouldn't pay fora game if you don't think it's worth the price.

            That being said, you shouldn't try to then play said game from beginning to end by exploiting a free version of it. ;)

            • reply
              August 3, 2010 7:15 AM

              Oh. Who is doing that? I don't know anything about that. I thought the crux of the discussion here was people voting with their wallet by not supporting a price point they don't agree with. Ie. just not playing the game. I assume you're just making a corollary point here based upon the previous discussion. Correct my ignorance arse if wrong

              • reply
                August 3, 2010 7:27 AM

                Ya sorry... Abrasion has "boycotted" Starcraft 2 because he believes it's a broken product in it's current form due to multiplayer limitations. He's been very vocal about it on here, and has stated many times he will have nothing to do with the game until Blizzard fixes what he believes is broken.

                Turns out he's been using an exploit for the free guest passes to enjoy playing the single player longer then is allowed, w/o paying for the game.

                • reply
                  August 3, 2010 7:29 AM

                  I never said I'd had nothing to do with it, I love how shacknews (tm!!!) puts words in peoples mouths. I said I wouldn't be buying it (guess what, I haven't)

                  Why are people bringing this dumb shit up in here? I'm going to get the blame for this shit because people can't leave an old thread alone.

                  • reply
                    August 3, 2010 7:31 AM

                    People want you to be wrong, abrasion! You have an opinion that they are uncomfortable with and it is easier for you to be wrong than it is for them to try and understand your opinion in any way other than ABRASION POST.

                    • reply
                      August 3, 2010 7:47 AM

                      I'm not saying he's wrong re: his boycott... I think it's great that he wants to take a stand on these issues with his wallet.

                      Doesn't mean he can cheat the system and still enjoy part of the game he's not paying for. That's where he's wrong.

                  • reply
                    August 3, 2010 7:33 AM

                    I love the fact that I have unwittingly contributed to a pretty sweet shack mini-trainwreck here.

                    :D

                    Also, this reminds me...you did boycott L4D2 didn't you abrasion? You're such a silly billy!

                    • reply
                      August 3, 2010 7:36 AM

                      Yep, I also purchased L4D2 as soon as it hit a sensible price point (20$ US or less) and did so basically as soon as it occured. People seem to choose to forget that stuff.

                      • reply
                        August 3, 2010 7:46 AM

                        It's okay. I expect you to compile a compendium of wrongs you have suffered at the hands of Shacknews. By the time of your death [may you live 100 years] - I am expecting an edition slightly larger than the Magna Carta.

                        :)

                        I will then take this edition and make the most awesome Mel Brooks style film out of it. Everyone wins!

                  • reply
                    August 3, 2010 7:46 AM

                    I'm just saying that I find it funny that you end up taking advantage of a "glitch" in the guest pass system to play the game for free longer then you should be.

                    You want to boycott the game that's fine... I totally see where you're coming from and give you props for sticking to your guns. But you have to take the good with the bad when you say you're going to do something like this.

                    Good = You stood your ground and didn't give Blizzard any money for a product you feel is being released in a broken state. You get to feel good about taking a stand and not caving in.

                    Bad = You don't get to play said product because you choose not to pay for it.

                    I don't even have a problem with you using a guest pass to play your 7 hours (or however long you get with one). You are choosing to use an exploit in this system to play the game for longer then you should be w/o paying. It doesn't matter if you weren't the one who figured it out, or that you didn't "hack" any files to do so... the fact of the matter is you are playing the product that you so vibrantly "boycott" w/o paying for it.

                    And none of this "I'm only boycotting multiplayer" crap either.. the product Blizzard released is a combination of single and multi player. There is no option to only purchase one or the other. This doesn't mean you are allowed to cheat your way through playing single player for free, and not be looked down on for doing so.

                    IMO this renders your "stand" null and void.

                    • reply
                      August 3, 2010 8:01 AM

                      your use of logic and fairness/respectful replies in this thread has impressed PP. what are you doing on the shack? :D

                      • reply
                        August 3, 2010 8:24 AM

                        I just want to see what twisted logic he'll come up with next to make himself feel better for basically trying to pirate the single player component of the game!

                    • reply
                      August 3, 2010 8:54 AM

                      I agree completely. It's piracy and hypocrisy. He's boycotting nothing.

        • reply
          August 3, 2010 7:20 AM

          I had no idea what you were talking about until someone explained in a subthread that you were referencing the chatty post. There's no link or quote, so there's no context unless you read the MD post. It's pretty rare that anyone references the MD post and it's pretty rare that the post is intending to start a serious discussion (squids anyone?). I guess that makes me the faggot for not figuring this out first thing in the morning =(

          To contribute, I think Fraylo has an interesting point up top about perceived value. If 20 million people thought a gaming thing was worth their money, then clearly there's a market there. Maybe it's not me or you, but maybe it's Fraylo and 19,999,999 of his friends.

          • reply
            August 3, 2010 7:23 AM

            The last mention of squid in Morning Discussion--aside from linking to the Squid Yes, Not So Octopus developer's new game--was in February, you silly sausage.

          • reply
            August 3, 2010 11:59 AM

            I reference MD posts regularly. I just always get ignored.

    • reply
      August 3, 2010 6:29 AM

      Did you figure out how to extend your guest pass longer? The single player really kicks so much ass!

      • reply
        August 3, 2010 6:31 AM

        My post wasm't intended to be about SC2 :/

        • reply
          August 3, 2010 6:34 AM

          Is now

        • reply
          August 3, 2010 6:40 AM

          Ya I know... I was just curious how your efforts were going on the game you kept saying you wanted nothing to do with until Blizz fixed it.

          :)

        • reply
          August 3, 2010 7:04 AM

          Lies. All of your posts are about SC2.

    • gmd legacy 10 years legacy 20 years mercury mega
      reply
      August 3, 2010 7:06 AM

      remember some n64 games were $80?

    • reply
      August 3, 2010 7:24 AM

      Haha, this thread has completely fallen apart before it could even start, sorry abrasion. I knew what you were getting at :/

      • reply
        August 3, 2010 7:37 AM

        The question is, does anyone care? or are they too busy buying map packs and the endings to unfinished games as DLC to listen?

      • reply
        August 3, 2010 8:11 AM

        *abrasion* was not getting at anything. he was quoting an editor for this website. the only reason it has any semblance of coherency is because abrasion DID NOT write it.

        • reply
          August 3, 2010 8:16 AM

          he basically wrote IAWTP and now people are crying and slapping each other and I don't know whats happening

        • reply
          August 3, 2010 11:48 AM

          True, true, but i understand his additional comment too. I don't think he meant it to cause a shit storm.

    • reply
      August 3, 2010 7:37 AM

      Economics!

    • reply
      August 3, 2010 8:18 AM

      I understand what you're getting at, but it won't change anything and isn't entirely a bad thing. Yeah, people are going to pay $60 for a big name title and then some more for the DLC of they like it. That kind of sucks, but people wouldn't pay that price if they didn't want it.

      On the flipsde, we don't see anyone arguing against Steam sales. Everyone here has likely purchased games during these sales that they wouldn't have touched at full price.

      Finding price points is just the way business works. Sometimes it hurts us and sometimes it benefits us.

    • reply
      August 3, 2010 8:22 AM

      Personally, I think the advent of quality downloadable titles for $10-15 is one of the best things to happen in gaming over the past five years.

      Shit like Braid, Limbo, remakes of classic games, robust add-ons like Mass Effect 2 is pushing, Shadow Complex, PsN stuff like Wipeout HD, this is great. Great games, manageable sizes, affordable prices.

      I feel like I get more value from four $15 titles like Shadow Complex than one $60 game, in most cases.

      • reply
        August 3, 2010 8:45 AM

        While I know what you're getting at, the same thing is happening in that segment too. We expected to pay 10 bucks for the "big" downloadable games, now we expect to pay $15.

        • reply
          August 3, 2010 8:46 AM

          and they are better and more professional and polished, generally. i still think $15 is a good value for something like trials HD.

          • reply
            August 3, 2010 8:58 AM

            Exactly. Compare Shadow Complex ($15) to the "big" games that were $10 from a couple years ago.
            Hell, I've played Trials HD more than most retail games I own.

            • reply
              August 3, 2010 8:59 AM

              i still have horrible $5 titles like dig dug in my collection. and great (but shallow and simple) games like geometry wars 2 and pac man CE were $10.

            • reply
              August 3, 2010 9:00 AM

              I agree with you btw. I think the increase in quality far outpaces the increase in price, but people still want to bitch.

          • reply
            August 3, 2010 8:58 AM

            I do too, which is why this whole thread is stupid :D

            Basically people forget that as prices go up so do the demands of the purchasers.

      • reply
        August 3, 2010 9:24 AM

        The issue I have with these downloadable games is that at least on XBLA they stay at $15 and almost never go on sale. If I buy Braid today it will cost me $15. Physical games hit the bargain bin fairly quickly: for example, I recently bought Bioshock 2, Mass Effect 2, and Assassin's Creed 2 for $20 each. These are all AAA titles that came out less than a year ago. If it comes down to spending $15 for Braid or $20 for Mass Effect 2, I'm going to pick ME2 every time.

        • reply
          August 3, 2010 9:42 AM

          there are xbla deals all the time. it's just you have to be patient and look. also there's no used market to compete with.

    • reply
      August 3, 2010 8:48 AM

      [deleted]

    • reply
      August 3, 2010 9:15 AM

      You know what's funny? People rally around valve when they talk about their "games as a service" approach to game development. It's an awesome idea. But when someone says that people should probably pay for that service over time, we get all up in arms.

      I believe subscription based entertainment is inevitable.

      • gmd legacy 10 years legacy 20 years mercury mega
        reply
        August 3, 2010 9:22 AM

        half life 3 should be free

      • reply
        August 3, 2010 9:23 AM

        And yet, Valve bucks that whole subscription based argument by having the best DD service, the best games, and the best selection on PC, with free DLC for their games, and weekly sales and specials.

        They're still incredibly popular, profitable, and improving, so why do they need a subscription to lop off their potential playerbase?

        • reply
          August 3, 2010 9:26 AM

          Would you take your sound argument and get the fuck out of here? And take your milkcrate with you.

          • reply
            August 3, 2010 9:31 AM

            I'm cancelling my milkcrate subscription, so nyah.

        • reply
          August 3, 2010 9:44 AM

          They have the equivalent of subscription revenues via Steam, long term ongoing revenue without creating tons of new content themselves. It's not quite as nice since no one is locked into a contract but the effect is the same. They have a big revenue stream besides the tiny release window for a new game every 2+ years like most companies.

          • reply
            August 3, 2010 11:48 AM

            You're comparing Activision-Blizzard revenues to Valve revenues.

            This might be the funniest argument I get in all day.

            • reply
              August 3, 2010 11:57 AM

              As far as I know, we have NO data about how much money Valve is making off of steam, correct? Don't they not even release the percentages paid to the devs for each sale?

              • reply
                August 3, 2010 12:02 PM

                Nope, we don't. Your point still isn't going to save you from the onslaught that is the Modern Warfare 2/MW2 map pack/World of Warcraft/Starcraft 2 revenue stream.

                I don't think this was ever a question of "who has more resources," but more a question of "what are they going to do with them."

            • reply
              August 3, 2010 12:00 PM

              Really? Where did I mention Activision or Blizzard in that post?

              • reply
                August 3, 2010 12:02 PM

                The comparison is being made between Activision's approach and Valve's approach to the same service structure.

                • reply
                  August 3, 2010 12:09 PM

                  The comparison is between subscription models and traditional models with DLC. Activision and Blizzard are only one example. Not every subscription need be for an MMO or cost $15/mo.

                  Valve is a special case because they own a separate service that provides subscription like ongoing revenue. Pointing to them as an example of why subscriptions are not necessary compared to traditional models is completely irrelevant to 99% of developers.

                  • reply
                    August 3, 2010 12:29 PM

                    99% of developers can't support their own games over the length of time they get played, no matter how successful they are. Why would a subscription model change that?

                    OnLive is a subscription-based model that's getting heat based on it's pricing structure, and for more than just that extra $50 bucks to access a game.

                    • reply
                      August 3, 2010 12:37 PM

                      99% of developers can't support their own games over the length of time they get played, no matter how successful they are. Why would a subscription model change that?

                      Because subscriptions provide guaranteed ongoing revenue... This means your plans can bank on certain targets instead of having to guess at sales projections over the long term and with DLC. If your game doesn't have a long tail of sales, then it's hard to justify investing in ongoing support when you're just hoping DLC sells. If you have x people subscribing at $y/month then you have far more exact figures.

                      OnLive is again a completely separate thing from individual game subscriptions. It's like arguing that games will turn subscription based because XBL is.

                      • reply
                        August 3, 2010 12:52 PM

                        You're still not guaranteed long-term support.

                        • reply
                          August 3, 2010 1:05 PM

                          And...? This is about why subscriptions are inevitable. That a customer may get screwed is not an argument for why it won't happen, it's an example of a negative consequence.

                          That said, logic and history dictate that the only way to get people to subscribe and stay subscribed is to provide ongoing value in exchange for the ongoing revenue you get. People are extremely bad at internalizing the value of subscriptions (ex all you can eat music services), so you really must provide them ongoing support if you're to succeed.

                          In any case, I haven't heard an argument from you about why it won't happen besides 'Valve succeeds without it' which we've covered already.

                          • reply
                            August 3, 2010 1:33 PM

                            Why won't it work? It's going to be ugly, complicated, and I can't imagine casual gamers are going to like it very much.

                            • reply
                              August 3, 2010 1:40 PM

                              I don't know what ugly and complicated even mean in this context. It's not like it's hard to create a sign up page for a service.

                              As for casual gamers, I'm not sure what that matters. Unless they don't buy MW3 at all because of subscriptions (and there's nothing to say mp couldn't be free but we'll move from discrete mappacks to a constant subscription with new maps) you're not losing any revenue by going with a subscription. All you're doing is gaining subscribers giving constant smaller revenue in place of the big bursts of revenue that DLC provides.

                              And even if you do lose some sales outright, each person who subscribes for $5/mo for a year is worth as much as a sale. As soon as it's longer than that (or if it costs more than $5/mo) they're worth more than a sale, even more so as the boxed price decreases over that year+

          • Zek legacy 10 years legacy 20 years
            reply
            August 3, 2010 1:15 PM

            You're assuming that TF2's updates are a money pit that they support with Steam revenue. Why would they do that? They have demonstrated with statistics that their work on TF2 is profitable because of all the extra sales it generates.

            • reply
              August 3, 2010 1:25 PM

              I never assumed anything about it. I only said they're not normal because of this extra revenue stream. If they invest a lot in DLC and it doesn't sell they'll survive. If they invest a lot in a game that doesn't sell they'll survive. So they can try things like free DLC and see how much it boosts sales. If it doesn't end up working they don't get shut down like most studios.

              And then you have to look at the other side of the coin. How many dollars in profit do they make per dollar spent on development of free DLC with sales of TF2 at a reduced rate compared to the relative revenue per dollar spent of MW2's $15 mappacks? If they were a publicly traded company they couldn't just leave millions of dollars in revenue on the table just because of principles of free content that they're making some money on.

        • reply
          August 3, 2010 11:23 AM

          Saying every game company should just do what valve does is like saying every web company should just do what facebook does.

          • reply
            August 3, 2010 11:32 AM

            People love pointing at Valve and Blizzard as if what they do is easy or even remotely possible for other studios to emulate.

            • reply
              August 3, 2010 12:01 PM

              It's really funny that you point to Activision's partner company as something you think they can't emulate.

      • reply
        August 3, 2010 11:58 AM

        All that will eventually do is just cause massive losses for most companies. As it is people are already paying huge amounts of money for current subscriptions and trying to tac on more people will buc down. Money doesn't exactly grow on trees, when having a damn iphone practically is $100 month, throw in cable TV that many people have is nearly $100 a month or more, plus other services.

      • reply
        August 3, 2010 1:27 PM

        I believe subscription based entertainment is inevitable.

        I don't -- I think we are at a tipping point of how much a consumer will take in XaaS (and monthly fees)

        I beleive that consumers are getting sick and tired of everything having a small monthly fee associated with it.

    • reply
      August 3, 2010 9:44 AM

      Who cares? If it's worth it people will buy it, if not then people won't. Nothing to see here.

      Blah blah blah games are getting more expensive, well what hasn't gotten more expensive over the last decade?

      God damn gamers are some cheap ass mother fuckers. People gave Star Craft 2 1 star on Amazon because it was $60 instead of $50. REALLY? I MEAN REALLY? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME HERE?????TWO

    • reply
      August 3, 2010 11:19 AM

      I totally want more 15-20$ downloadable titles. To me, that's the pricepoint that lets me say 'fuck a demo, this looks like fun' and then half an hour later I'm playing.

      Traditional 60$ releases are such a high risk-reward for the consumer.

    • reply
      August 3, 2010 1:54 PM

      It's a given that publishers will charge whatever they think they can get away with. It's up to us to call shenanigans, and the only vote we get is with our wallet. Keep shrugging and saying oh well, and expect the costs to keep going up. This is all basic stuff, folks.

    • reply
      August 3, 2010 2:02 PM

      Haven't video games become far more expensive to produce nowadays than in say, 1990? Yet the consumer's price hasn't really gone up at all. I remember seeing FF3 for $50 when it first came out. When was that? A fucking while ago.

Hello, Meet Lola