Michael Pachter Says Call of Duty is a Failure

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

This guy needs a good swift back hand. Greedy mother F**ker, its people like him who are the reason why THQ are going to crap. People who dont know crap about games and just want $$$$. Then again he said THQ was going to be dead by now months ago on GameTrailers. This guy claims for example game localisation was pointless, his example was a Turkish blizz ppls translating it from english - turkish. Basically degrading and telling these ppl that their job was pointless. Coz nothing pulls you into a games world better then crappy translations "all your base are belong to us".
http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/dhhvik/pach-attack--mobile-war---local-core
So be belittles somones job and goes further to say just coz its in turkey they are even more worthless. Makes me hate this prick even more watching this vid again.

As long as THQ lives long enough for Dawn of War 3 im happy.

these studios need to be more like valve, sure they may not make as much money but that overwhelming respect and love they have from the gaming community is worth way more in the long run of things. They have respect for the gamer and not just trying to milking crappy yearly games.

GenGenners:
Activision will buy Take-Two?

*Shivers*

Don't scare us with your nightmares!

XCOM: MODERN WARFARE! LESS ALIENS MORE ZOMBIES!

WITH ADDED BROWN! BUY NOW 100

lol :3

OT: I don't think Call of duty is a failure, I think it sucks but no way is it a failure. If it was a failure then we would have more original titles by now. -.-

It's a failure only in that it doesn't exploit the consumer shamelessly for maximum profit for minimum effort. All about efficiency, and not a word on the substance of a game. That says a lot, frankly.

I really hope Activision wont actually buy Take Two

He's totally right.
The game you buy should actually be a demo/trial version, and you should have to pay at least twice the cost of the original game to have the full experience. Triple if possible. And make patches cost money while still being mandatory for online play. Also make your online game account have a subscription fee, with data wipes should you fail to meet a payment.

It's funny because a game can make $1 billion in 15 days and gaming is still seen as something for kids and "losers". So either there are far too many kids playing these games, or there are a lot of "losers" in the world.

Twilight_guy:
I think he forgot an important factor to gamers: They are the the kind of anti-establishment people who protest games for doing anything like that. I think that's an important factor to consider when monitizeing.

If gamers were an anti-establishment group then fanboys wouldn't exist. As a community, gamers become dedicated to companies and franchises, which isn't a bad thing but means we would follow with a company we trusted. When Activision announced CoD: Elite, gamers hated that they were selling game info similar to the free Halo Waypoint system, yet it sold bucket-loads from its customers, still owning over two million season pass owners.

Pachter's viewing gaming purely from a financial perspective, which is an interesting way of predicting the future of a mainly profit-based medium. I think he's got a point with how the Wii U's going to face problems when the other new consoles launch, the rise of digital downloads and subscription services being the better way of getting cash from your audience (WoW's not the biggest MMO because of its competitive pricing).

You may not agree with him personally (I don't agree with him entirely) but I do agree as predictions go it's fairly reasonable to predict that publishers will turn towards whatever makes them the most money.

Activision's already kinda-sorta doing that with DLC, aren't they?

God I really don't like where gaming is going. I kind of hope we have another crash, just to teach these corporate fucks a lesson.

The idea of 2K being consumed by Activision is genuinely upsetting!

This man likes to exaggerate: the Wii U probably won't be as ubiquitous as the Wii but the only way Nintendo could become irrelevant is if all the Mario and Zelda fans mysteriously disappeared, and the fact that CoD could be more financial successful doesn't make it a failure.

As for THQ all he had to do was check their stock price.

Captcha: Mark it zero.

triorph:
There's no way CoD would be the behemoth it is now if it charged for subscriptions. Its a complete fallacy to assume that success under current conditions would happen if you made them harsher.

Serious thought now.

Call of Duty almost does work on a subscription basis already. If you want to keep up to date in the multiplayer, you'll be handing out another ten bucks every couple of months for one of the four or five map packs that rolls along, or you'll be paying $50 a year to subscribe to Elite.

When millions of players are paying $100-120 per year in stages to keep playing the 'full' game, jacking it up to $180 via some kind of subscription suddenly doesn't seem a huge stretch. Not that this is a good thing.

Well, I predict and hope that people like Pachter and Companies like Activision and EA will become obsolete in the future. Interesting gaming ideas are more concentrated around indy developers or smaller dev studios that use crowdfunding.

And if you look at these studios and projects you can clearly see that most of these devs don't really aim for high profits but rather look to make great games. The money is used to create great and fun games. It's not the other way around (make a game to make profit).

Awesome games will only be made by developers that have a positive work environment that gives them freedom as artists. Companies like Activision can't provide this kind of work environment.

Let's see what's going to happen within the next 2 years. I don't think it will go so well for the big players in gaming business...

2 words that prove you wrong. Map packs.

fix-the-spade:

triorph:
There's no way CoD would be the behemoth it is now if it charged for subscriptions. Its a complete fallacy to assume that success under current conditions would happen if you made them harsher.

Serious thought now.

Call of Duty almost does work on a subscription basis already. If you want to keep up to date in the multiplayer, you'll be handing out another ten bucks every couple of months for one of the four or five map packs that rolls along, or you'll be paying $50 a year to subscribe to Elite.

When millions of players are paying $100-120 per year in stages to keep playing the 'full' game, jacking it up to $180 via some kind of subscription suddenly doesn't seem a huge stretch. Not that this is a good thing.

Basicly Activision is already doing with COD what Pachter says he wants them to do, only a bit more subtly and a bit cheaper.

Pachter's last remaining point doesn't hold water either. Activision won't lose any sleep over their players not wanting to play anything else, because that's money for the competition.
If Bob is hooked on WOW and COD then that is pure gold.
If he also bought Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3, then there's nothing more Blizzard/Activision could want from him.

This guy is just full of sensationalist bs, why do people keep going to him for quotes?

This is so wrong activsion has managed to brainwash players that they need to buy a new installment every year and that they need to buy all the dlc map packs.

Activison has an subscription service they just dont tell you that is what it is that is much more clever.

I hate activison and think they are the worse company in gaming but they know how to run a business.It seems this guy just has not recornised how activision work and how much of a success story on how to get more money out of gamers COD has become.

Capitano Segnaposto:
Why do you keep posting about this guy again? What exactly has he done in recent years? Analysts make shit up.

This. What exactly has he done EVER other than 50% completely obvious predictions and 50% total BS?.

If there's anything in the gaming industry that's even more of a failure than Call of Duty, that has to be Michael Pachter. Can't for the life of me understand why any idiocy he spews goes directly to so many webs' homes.

Andy Chalk:
Activision has made Elite a free service again and gone back to offering DLC a la carte. It didn't take off because, as Pachter pointed out, Activision has conditioned its audience to expect free online play. That's going to be tough to overcome.

I don't think it's just a question of Activision conditioning their audience to expect free multiplayer. Online multiplayer modes in pretty much every FPS since Doom have been free from the get go. If Activision had wanted to charge for it, there was never a good time to introduce it. Charging for it before the series exploded would have driven people away, and charging for it now would do the same thing. Customer expectations matter, and your game is going to have to be pretty damn amazing if you're going to charge a fee for something everyone else gives away.

One thing Pachter's analysis is missing is network effects. WoW commands the premium it does and can get recurring revenue because you give up a lot going to another franchise, because no other franchise has as much content, updates it as often, or has as large a playerbase.

Beyond a certain point, a large playerbase doesn't benefit a shooter as much. Sure, you get a match quicker when lots of players are online, but if CoD has paid multiplayer and Halo's was free, lots of people could probably switch. That just isn't true of WoW. The only one in a position to mandate that all the FPS games on a platform go for paid only multiplayer is the platform holder, and for Windows PCs and Xboxes, that's Microsoft-- and they are getting their take on multiplayer by charging for XBL gold. I'm not sure what incentive MS has to enforce this when it could mean titles leaving the platform, or why they'd want to unless third parties are giving them a cut of subscription fees.

Nobody's going to be able to just do what Halo or CoD does and start charging for it. It'll have to offer something other games don't, and it will have to have network effects that amplify the value of those features so that the more players play it, the more valuable it is to everyone who plays it. It'll have to be something like Planetside, and it's worth noting that Planetside's sequel is moving away from the subscription model to free to play, which is the way just about everything is going that isn't WoW. There's only one WoW.

Sooooo the secret to success in the eyes of this douchebag is. "In order to make more money with your game, you should be making players constantly pay for it." Wow, this guy is a speaker at a summit and that's the brilliant advice he has? Charging people numerous times for the same game will let you make more money with the game?

No. Fucking. Way! No one could have thought of that brilliant idea! Except for EA, of course.

Seriously, it's fuckers like this that need to shut their god damn mouths. "The problem with Activision is that they're not greedy enough! Sure they made over a billion dollars in sales, but they could be making so much more! You just need to become money grubbing pigs like EA and Blizzard!" The douche is actively encouraging corporate greed. Did he ever stop to think that maybe Blizzard-Activision already has the number one subscription-based game in history (WoW) under its belt and as such wants to keep the title of having the most popular FPS ever by NOT pissing all over the faces of those that buy the game?

he obviously isn't taking into account the people who give up CoD if they went to a subscription multi-player. Alot (or at least i think alot) of these players are 14-29 year-olds with not alot of disposable income. attach a subscription and you'll lose customers who just can't afford it, and go to games that don't have a subscription fee.

LG Jargon:

tautologico:

LG Jargon:

...

Shit, if this is the future of the game industry, I think we're in for another collapse. Or, more hopefully, a grand "reckoning", if you could call it that, of consumers finally saying enough and bucking against the likes of EA and Activision and their shitty business practices.

He's right about Activision being greedy pigs, but that little comment about them buying Take-Two and that THQ is screwed sends more then a few shivers up my spine.

Unfortunately the situation for THQ is looking quite dire, and you don't need to be an "analyst" to see that.

Urgh...I hate to ask this, since I don't want to instigate something, but...how so? I mean, what makes you figure that? Most of their games seem popular enough to keep them afloat, and they just got done with that Humble THQ Bundle. I'm sure they're not in too dire of a situation...right?

There's plenty of information around about THQ's financial troubles. Recently they announced great losses, their stock price plummeted, and many big releases were postponed. They brought in a company as financial advisor and this could mean a good number of things for the future actions of the company, including the possibility of filing for bankruptcy. The Humble Bundle certainly helps, but I doubt it's enough to solve their problems (they lost 21 million in the 2nd quarter alone).

You can read more about it at the PA Report, for example:
http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/thq-earnings-call-displays-lack-of-confidence-and-clarity-in-companys-finan

DugMachine:
I find it hilarious how 1 billion dollars just doesn't seem like enough anymore. I mean sure you could make COD a subscription based game and tons would pay the price but damn who needs more than a billion dollars anyways? Who needs a million for that matter (well I do cause I want a jetski and a yacht but that's besides the point.)

It's not one person making a billion. It's a company and a company can NEVER make too much money. And for all our hate of CoD as a franchise, ActiVision ripping that playerbase off is good for everyone who hates it, because it means more leeway for trying other things.

In theory. In practice, ActiVision will just stick to what gets them the most money and barely ever try anything new, despite well being able to.

If CoD was a subscription game, the shooter fanatics would just find the next best shooter that wasn't subscription based and CoD would vanish in to obscurity. The shooterbros who play CoD aren't going to fork over , knowing Activision, $15 a month + Xbox Live Gold fees when they could play Halo or Battlefield for free and get basically the same experience.

But... MMOs take dedicated servers, have constant updates and patches, and have way more content than a few game modes. The non-subscription multiplayer aspect has been going since the inception of multiplayer, and it makes sense because you're not paying for any services, servers or maintenance.

So with all that in mind, can I accuse Pachter of being ignorant of how games work? Because I think he's ignorant of how games work.

This is just stupid from a business perspective. MMORPGs require constant investment to keep going, which makes it incredibly hard to provide one without getting a constant revenue stream (not impossible however, see Guild Wars). FPSes, on the other hand, are easy to provide very cheaply. Given this, if any company starts asking for $x a month to play, a rival can easily undercut them to $x-y a month, and they'll continue until someone just asks for an up-front fee. COD-style multiplayers are easy to make, and gamers would move on very quickly if they had to pay like that.

The much better business model is TF2's - let people spend more money on other stuff if they want to, but don't force them to. That way you don't alienate people, but you still have a revenue stream.

I honestly feel like there is no reason to believe this guy. The fact of the matter is there is still a lot of money in free gaming. The ultimate proof of that is League of Legends, no major content is locked away from people who don't pay and paying doesn't give you an edge over the free players. It mostly all skins and getting champions a little easier. Despite all of that League of Legends is making a HUGE profit, enough that they can give away a few million bucks to teams winning their tournaments every year to two years so.
This guy is honestly full of shit, I am sure I would be like most gamers on this, if Call of Duty was pay to play costed 60 dollars and didn't add anything substantial to the game play for needing to pay for it, its buying base would drop a huge amount. Sure people are going to pay the subscription but the biggest selling feature to Call of Duty, you pay 60 bucks and you got a lot of fun and frustration for a whole year.
His predictions in my opinion are way off and I don't think they would actually every happen, the game industry is perfectly happy with the current model it is using. One big fee for a game, map packs and other little things every few months or so, is still bringing in a lot of money, and I doubt their going to want to change that working model any time soon.

Redhawkmillenium:
Um...he didn't say it was the CoD series was a failure. He said they made a mistake in one regard. Why the misleading, sensationalist headline?

That my friend, is journalism for you. Tell people the truth by misleading them. Well, actually, get their attention by heading with something that sounds bold, but correct yourself in the context of the rest of the article to cover your ass. Of course, I doubt most readers get past the header and couple of sentences, so the readers are mislead either way. =/

Vrach:

DugMachine:
I find it hilarious how 1 billion dollars just doesn't seem like enough anymore. I mean sure you could make COD a subscription based game and tons would pay the price but damn who needs more than a billion dollars anyways? Who needs a million for that matter (well I do cause I want a jetski and a yacht but that's besides the point.)

It's not one person making a billion. It's a company and a company can NEVER make too much money. And for all our hate of CoD as a franchise, ActiVision ripping that playerbase off is good for everyone who hates it, because it means more leeway for trying other things.

In theory. In practice, ActiVision will just stick to what gets them the most money and barely ever try anything new, despite well being able to.

Oh I realize it's not just one person that makes a billion. I just find it funny that in this day in age we can say "Oh I just made a billion."

This isn't convincing at all. The model is pretty good and subscriptions are showing their age.

And that's why they're making a billion dollars.

Zachary Amaranth:

"Patcher says sky is blue" would probably get 50K hits.

Judging by how he'd make it sound like he's the only one to ever think of that.... I'd consider it worth a click, if only for entertainment value.

Redhawkmillenium:
Um...he didn't say it was the CoD series was a failure. He said they made a mistake in one regard. Why the misleading, sensationalist headline?

Because this site has no journalistic integrity.

Also, fuck you, Mr. Patcher. Eat a dick, sir

See folks? This is how those soulless f'ers think and every time you buy some game or DLC from EA, Activision, Ubisoft and the like, you reward and perpetuate that thinking. The day gaming suffocates under the weight of mass monetization, DLC, DRM, sequels, ect. it will ultimately be because of gamers who paid good $ time and again to reward those who do it.

If it was that easy to make money from online play for FPS then John Carmack would be living on the moon right now. But in a way I expect Pachter to be right in that Activision will try becuase they are obscenely greedy and are driven to show growth in a market that is not really growing. Whether we actually see any of those attempts or ideas and if they succeed if we do is another thing. But one company has worked out how to get this subscription money for online FPS racket working and that is Microsoft with xbox live. Because it's not like many pays that sub for any reason other than to play FPS online.

Nicolaus99:
See folks? This is how those soulless f'ers think and every time you buy some game or DLC from EA, Activision, Ubisoft and the like, you reward and perpetuate that thinking. The day gaming suffocates under the weight of mass monetization, DLC, DRM, sequels, ect. it will ultimately be because of gamers who paid good $ time and again to reward those who do it.

No. Patcher is batshit even by the standards of the games industry.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here