Is multiplayer a threat to the gaming industry?

[ATAG_Doc]

Wedbush analyst Michael Pachter says multiplayer can reduce overall game revenue because players spend too much time with those titles.


by Don Reisinger


Multiplayer Killing Gaming?

[ElAurens]

So...

People that enjoy gaming, and purchase games based on their preference are hurting gaming.


And in other news, some people hit themselves in the head with blunt objects because it feels so good when they stop doing it.

[David Hayward]

Apparently people spend less money on crappy games when they find a good game that they really like. Who could have possibly predicted that?

[flyingblind]

Maybe that sad reasoning is behind much of the gaming industry today. Don't produce good meaty stuff dedicated people will enjoy for years, aka IL2 series including CloD. Just churn out complete rubbish that people will try a couple of times before moving on to the next one. Pile 'em high and sell 'em not so cheap. Still, it probably keeps the spotty hords happy.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Just another greedy B^$#^£3D!

Hey lets make products that dont last so people buy more!

He's practically commited employment suicide I would have thought - unless he is already established. Either way I call a boycott.

[ParaB]

Multiplayer is bad, but stuff like level editors and, heaven forbid -modding tools- are the death of the industry. How can those poor, struggling people at EA&Co sell us their awesome DLCs when stupid people offer gaming content for free?! There should be laws against such... obscenities.

And don't get me started on these poor souls that design games with actually hundreds of hours of gaming content. Without some kind of subscription model! Think about the lost revenue compared to a time-based pay system! Madmen, all of them!

[Warhound]

"The point is that the industry would be better off if the 500 hours spent on CoD was spent on single player games at $2 per hour, generating $1,000 of value instead of $72."

So short sighted, why does he think that gamers who enjoy multiplay would automatically buy title after title of short 6-15hour singleplayer games just to fill the hours they now spend playing multiplayer?
Reminds me of the anti-piracy groups who pretend every pirated copy is a lost sale.

I personally play almost only online and if that was removed, or like he seems to hint at in the last paragraph, made pay 2 play...I would barely buy any game at all, or play a single one which I pay monthly for. Unless ofc that monthly price was 2€/hour, then I'd simply spend more time doing other fun hobbies and never game again.

So much for his reasoning... :F

[WTE_Galway]

Its just standard marketing logic.

Any good product that consumers retain forever is bad for business, you only get the one sale.

What you need for maximum profit is a product that is good enough for the consumer to return to you and buy a another one but not so good they retain it forever.

In offline gaming this happened with both Warhammer and D&D (in version 4.0) where the respective companies abandoned their long term fan base in favor of targeting early teens who buy the games as a "fad" then move on.

Another example is in motorcycles. The most successful model in terms of longevity made by Yamaha was the XJ900, a shaft drive bike that lasted forever, people bought one and kept it for 25 years. However compared to the "fad" sports bikes which the rider traded in every 2 or 3 years it was financially a failure.

You also see it in the designed obsolescence of white goods. Sealing parts inside the lining of a refrigerator to make repair difficult for example.

Basically marketing people want to encourage turn around and return sales so making a product TOO good or TOO sucessful is always seen as bad for business.

[raaaid]

oh setting world records for a race game means you can have fun with a game 20 years, i think i have 4 so far