Take-Two Interactive considering subs and microtransactions for top titles
Filed under: Business models, Expansions, MMO industry, News items
Subscriptions have been the bread and butter of MMOs since the days of Ultima Online, but subs may be coming to some popular standalone PC titles from Take-Two Interactive, presumably the Grand Theft Auto franchise and BioShock. Brian Crecente of Kotaku reports that "at the BMO Capital Markets conference, Take-Two head honcho Strauss Zelnick seemed very up on the idea of downloadable content, micro-transactions and even... subscriptions."
This falls in line with their business model of periodically offering downloadable content to either extend the storyline of a game, or to simply offer varied gameplay experiences. Downloadable content and microtransactions could solve some of the issues game publishers have with their titles being re-sold, allowing them to have a continuous revenue stream, and perhaps dissuading many consumers from reselling that game in the first place. Regular content refreshes could ensure that these games don't go stale and end up relegated to a dusty bookshelf. Zelnick implied that this business model, should it come to be, would likely only affect Take-Two's biggest titles. This implies changes to the business models for Grand Theft Auto and BioShock, although the words "Midnight Club Online" also seem apt.
But do you feel that adding the trappings of the MMO business model, namely subs and microtransactions, would enhance your experience with a standalone title, both as a gamer and as a consumer? Are more MMO-like PC games a good thing, or are you more of an MMO purist?
_thumbnail.jpg "Aion Beta: Asmodian Ascension Quest")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Coldbrand said on 5:20PM 11-16-2008
No, I feel like I'd stop buying those games.
Reply
Arashikou said on 5:39PM 11-16-2008
Micro-transactions is such a vague term - they are a means, not an end, and can be used for good or for evil. And Take Two has already been using them - with mixed results. So judging their pleasure with microtransactions is difficult; their announcement that they intend to continue is certainly not surprising.
I'm a little more concerned by the talk of subscriptions. I mean, when I pay a subscription for an MMO, I am paying for access to a server that is required for gameplay, the moderation of said server to ensure an enjoyable play experience, and the storage of my character data there. There are ongoing costs associated with allowing me to play the game, and I am covering those by paying a subscription. I'm less clear why I would need to pay a subscription for an offline game, where the data is stored on my own machine and there's not a server I must be constantly connected to when I want to play. Are they going to charge me a monthly fee just to keep having access to their offline games after I buy them?
If that's in place of paying $60 at the store... I'm leery, but I will at least stay my judgement until I see what they're offering. But like most people, I prefer to OWN things. They're going to have to make a pretty compelling case to lure me in.
If it's on TOP of the cost of the game, then screw them. I won't stand for that even for BioShock. I respect their right to try cockamamie business plans, just as they will have to respect my right to take my business somewhere else.
Only time will tell how this falls out, but I leave you with this frightening quote from the presentation Kotaku was reporting on:
"The holy grail is taking a business, already a very large and successful business that's focused on packaged goods that you sell once and then are occasionally resold by others with no benefit to us, and turning that into a subscription business"
Reply
Ingrod said on 2:55AM 11-17-2008
Microtransactions, perhaps, but subcriptions for a stand alone game, that is a joke.
Reply
Evi said on 12:44PM 11-17-2008
Agreed. I would absolutely not pay a subscription fee for a game that is not an MMO. The idea of a subscription for an offline game is just absurd to me. I would rather pay my money up front and be done with it.
PeterD said on 12:28PM 11-17-2008
Microtransactions for additional game content are fine, they're essentially mini-expansions with a mini price. Subscriptions for non-mmo style games would be assinine.
What exactly justifies a monthly fee for a game like Bioshock? MMOs can (barely) justify the cost as bandwidth fees and ongoing content development in a purely online world. A game like Bioshock is not a purely online world, and is not even persistent. Bandwidth costs for multiplayer are handled by Microsoft and the Xbox live gold subscription.
Unless you get significant new content EVERY month, a subscription model simply won't work. I've yet to see a development team that could deliver monthly content updates that meant anything -- most of them can't even meet the laid back deadlines they have already (I'm looking at you Blizzard).
Reply
Syme said on 12:43PM 11-17-2008
"It's our view that you won't be able to apply a subscription model to mid-tier titles," [Zelnick] said. "The triple-a titles that people really want to have that are really must have are in the best position for this business model."
I have bad news for Zelnick: there is no game compelling enough that I will support this business model. If I disagree with how a publisher releases a game, I will not buy it. I have not played Bioshock because I find the DRM scheme repugnant.
I am even wary of "microtransactions". The first foray into paid DLCs resulted in repeated installation failures caused by the security wrapper which exhausted the limited activations (which were not mentioned anywhere except the dialogue box saying they were gone). On top of that, Bethesda has never answered my wife's email asking for support for their DLC product. Bethesda is one of the better companies out there, so I am even more skeptical of these other guys.
In short, it's all an attempt to get me to pay more money, so I doubt whatever happens will be done to serve my best interests.
Reply