Games like Modern Warfare 2 and Starcraft 2 are worth more than their retail price.
Having now completed the 8 hour game that is Dante’s Inferno, I’ve started thinking more about the crazy idea that this game retails for the same price as a game like Modern Warfare 2. With Modern Warfare 2′s Stimulus Package earning millions and millions of dollars amidst some complaining about the expensive $15 price tag, analysts have discovered that the $15 price tag was actually too low, since sales were higher than expected at that price. Maybe $20 would have been the sweet spot? In any case, it has gotten me thinking as of late about the disparity between the value of games. Are all games created equal? Of course not. Yet why are they all charging $60? I guess it works because in the end, games that are more than worth the $60 retail price will continue to sell like hotcakes while games that are not worth it will sell far less quantities. Game studios will make more for games that are worth more, but is it the best pricing strategy?
I may sound crazy when I say this, but I am actually willing to pay a monthly fee for certain games. Now this may sound ridiculous since why would someone offer to pay more for something when he’s already getting it cheaper? If I can play Modern Warfare 2 online for free already, why am I suggesting that I don’t mind paying for it? Because it’s one of the most entertaining games I’ve played in recent history that continues to captivate me month after month while other games get beaten and put back on the shelf or sold. Read on for the list of games being released this year (and Modern Warfare 2) that I would consider paying a monthly fee for and why.
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
Many of the readers of Leveling Down are Modern Warfare 2 players. To us, the game is the pinnacle of current first person shooters and I’m guessing that the average time played among the regulars of the site is probably pushing 100 hours per person. Think about that. Not many other games you pick up are you putting in that much time, nor are you getting that much enjoyment from. It’s tough to really ask the question now if I’d be willing to pay a monthly fee for playing the game since many of us are “on our way out” so to speak, but considering we’ve played the game since it launched in November, it’s been a good 5 months of gaming for several of you. I honestly wouldn’t have minded paying $5-$10 a month to play this game, as it’s a stellar product. If Modern Warfare 3 released and was even better than 2 (although I wouldn’t hold my breath, as the whole Activision/Infinity Ward lawsuit has pretty much killed off any chance of a sequel worth considering), I would pay the monthly cost to play the game.
Super Street Fighter IV
Super Street Fighter IV arrives next week. A couple of you guys have probably put in over a hundred hours into Street Fighter IV (I guess that’s why you weren’t playing Modern Warfare 2), battling it out online against hundreds of different opponents. I’m getting more excited about jumping back into Street Fighter with Super Street Fighter IV, and based on what the game is going to provide, I can see myself actually paying a monthly fee to play this game online. Considering players still go into arcades and feed $1 bills into their local Street Fighter IV cabinets, to be able to play online against an infinite number of opponents with ranking for just a one-time $40 cost sounds like a great deal in comparison. Even if I had to pay a few dollars a month to play it online, it’s worth it if I want to get serious and stick with this game for the long haul.
Starcraft 2
The PC gets a little bit of its own loving this year with Starcraft 2. Starcraft 2 is only the sequel to arguably be the best PC game of all time and Leveling Down’s favorite game. When Starcraft 2 releases with the new Battle.net, it will have all sorts of ladders and ranking support that Warcraft 3 provided and I’m sure new features will be included. And like Warcraft III and Starcraft before it, most people will be playing Starcraft 2 for its multiplayer. When people are paying hundreds of dollars for just a beta key of the game, this sort of implies that the players of this game are willing to pay a monthly fee. And why not? The original Starcraft is still going strong today and is practically a sport. Some complain that Starcraft 2 got a price hike of $10 to $60 and is now being split across three boxed products. They’re still going to buy all three. Why? Because Starcraft 2 is definitely worth more than $60.
Halo Reach
Halo is the reason that Microsoft’s Xbox became successful in the first place, and before Modern Warfare came around, it was the premier online shooter of this console generation as well as last generation. Even now, 3 years after Halo 3 released, Halo 3 still manages to hold onto the second-most played Xbox 360 game week after week. How is that even possible? People love Halo multiplayer, and with Halo Reach actually sporting a substantial graphical upgrade and going into beta next month, there is certainly excitement in the air. I’m not a big Halo fan myself, but I have to admit that Halo: Reach looks promising. If this becomes my primary online game of choice this fall, I would be prepared to pay a monthly fee to continue playing this game. I guess we will see once the beta draws near.
Where Things Get A Little Muddled
To be fair, you could argue that any game that offers multiplayer online could then charge a monthly fee based on my claim. Battlefield: Bad Company 2, BlazBlue, Gears of War, etc. are all games with online functionality, but for me, I don’t enjoy those games enough to want to pay a monthly fee to play them online. Starcraft 2? No doubt. Modern Warfare 2? I would have back in November when it launched. Super Street Fighter IV? Sure, why not. Halo: Reach? Remains to be seen but signs indicate to yes. But the concept of charging a monthly fee for online games in general becomes a gray area – I didn’t enjoy Bad Company 2 multiplayer, yet I’m sure a good number of people are playing it online and loving it. So does that become a game with a monthly fee? Should monthly fees vary depending on the customer? I’m still a gamer first and foremost so luckily for me, I don’t have to think about pricing and trying to make a profit on my products. But for Activision to begin pursuing a way to charge a monthly fee for Call of Duty is honestly not a bad idea based on how successful it is. Of course, that was before Infinity Ward’s head fell off, so we shall see what happens next.
Before Things Get Heated Up
Keep in mind that I’m not advocating a straight up $15 monthly fee for all of these games I’ve mentioned similar to the World of Warcraft monthly fee. If I had to pay something like $5 a month for Starcraft 2, I’d have no issues with that. I honestly think that there could be some sort of pricing difference in a game that you pick up and are done with in under 10 hours versus one that you’re still constantly playing and enjoying months later. Of course, I’m certainly happy that I don’t have to pay a monthly fee to enjoy any of the games I’ve mentioned in this article – don’t get me wrong. But I wouldn’t be pissed if it was announced that they would charge monthly fees. And I realize that not all gamers are old like me and have jobs. How can we expect poor students to pay monthly fees to play their favorite games? Let’s just say that for now, I’m willing to pay the monthly fee on certain games and that this is only for myself. I’m not advocating that anyone else should have to pay it. Whew – hopefully that covers my bases…
My Newest Buying Strategy
With such a huge backlog and my “generous buying habits”, this article has really put my 2010 game buying plans into a clearer light. Each of the three games I mention above that are not released yet are games that I feel are worth paying a monthly fee for. This means that deep down, I know they are worth more than their retail price. This means day 1 purchase. But what about the other titles being released this year? What about the Alan Wakes and the Max Paynes and Dead Risings? I’ve actually come up with sort of a formula to give each game an actual value in my eyes. It’s clear from this article that if a game offers a multiplayer game that will have me playing for months, that means it’s worth a monthly fee. But if it’s single player only, depending on how good it is, the range should be something like 50 cents-$3 an hour for total game time. If Alan Wake is only a 10 hour game, it looks like it has pretty high production value so maybe it is worth that $3/hour and thus it’d be worth $30. Dante’s Inferno was pretty bad, so $1/hr would make the game really only worth $8 to me. This analysis has led me to conclude that any game that is single player only that is not an RPG is probably worth $30 at most. The $30-$50 range are RPGs that are lengthy and enjoyable (i.e. Fallout 3). RPGs that are lengthy and not enjoyable? Worth less or nothing – I’m not going to spend 50 hours grinding all day. So what does this all mean? Super Street Fighter IV, Starcraft 2, and Halo: Reach have already been pre-ordered and will most likely be the only games I buy this year at launch. The rest I can wait for sales/price drops when the games hit what I consider their “true value”. Of course, the value of a game is different for everyone. Bad Company 2 may only have been worth $20 for me, but for some, it is clearly worth more than $60. So, take my thoughts on the subject with a grain of salt since everyone is different.
Earlier today while playing Modern Warfare 2, I actually thought of the same thing, but in a different way: I was thinking maybe there could be a $5/month subscription fee for MW2, and in exchange you get “Veteran status” (or something like that), which allows you to maybe go up to rank 80 (the “prestige” button would still be there for all 80 levels, in case you wanted to skip them) and unlock some new perks, guns, and maybe even equipment. But here’s the catch: Maybe it could only be used in designated “Veteran” playlists. That way the whole “it would unbalance the game” argument is nulled. You could also maybe get the ability to turn on Double EXP for 24 hours, once a week.
I know this is never going to happen, so this is all just hypothetical, but I would be glad to pay the fee for something like this, especially with the frequency I play Modern Warfare 2 (just over 10 days worth of playtime, at the time of writing.)
you know, i think Activision is trying to do something very similar to what you mention. while i’m more on the extreme end by openly declared that i would pay a monthly fee for mw2, most people would not so Activision knows that they need to provide something a little extra to get people to want to pay for it.
back in June of last year, they were running a survey that asked gamers if they were willing to pay for “premium access to new expansions, betas, game modes, character skins, enhanced stat tracking, and “support for competitive play” (a very vague and cryptic statement).”
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3174797
who knows what the future will bring, but dude if you’ve already put in over 200 hours in MW2, I think you got more than your money’s worth haha
If you made a competitive online scene for a videogame with prize support, tournaments (online and real life), a ranking structure and everything all tied into a monthly fee, and then did ongoing support and updates for a title, then that would be well worth a monthly fee. In fact I’d love it if games companies monetized competitive multiplayer titles like this, as it means they would have more incentive to actually keep improving them, rather than just leaving them to die before trying to market Game v2.0. As much as I don’t like WoW, I am impressed with the ongoing work it has had to be improved and added to. This reminded me of my dream of a “Subscription Fighter” that actually got improved and re-balanced along the way like StarCraft did: http://agoners.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/fourts-and-chaos-part-5-super-street-fighter-iv-and-the-counter-counter-argument/