Lumines Live multiplayer blocked by micropayments [update 1]
Kikizo Games reports that Lumines Live's base package -- which will likely cost 1200 Microsoft points ($15) -- will not include Xbox Live multiplayer. The game's creator, Tetsuya Mizuguchi, recently detailed plans to sell multiplayer support as a separate add-on, although he added that the decision had not been finalized. Lumines Live will also feature licensed music and backgrounds available through premium downloads.
The original Lumines debuted on the PSP for $40, suggesting that the base price of Lumines Live is a bargain. But charging us extra for multiplayer is a slippery slope and could usher in a series of cannibalized games crowding the casual (and cheap) atmosphere of Xbox Live Arcade.
[Update 1: Ross Erickson, the "Worldwide Games Portfolio Manager" for Xbox Live Arcade, let us know that the Lumines micropayment story is "not true." He said the same to sister-site Xbox 360 Fanboy. So, there you go. No more worrying, m'kay?]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
jesus torres @ Jun 20th 2006 5:33PM
have we reached that slippery slope yet?
digi @ Jun 20th 2006 5:38PM
I REALLY want to see a kart racing game like mariokart or crash racing, I'd easily pay additional $$ for new tracks.
kevin @ Jun 20th 2006 5:39PM
If we cave in and buy a 15 dollar xbl arcade game just because of it's name..... it gives them more power to say 'hey, if they bought it at 15, maybe they'll pay for 20'.
There needs to be a level set, I've played Lumines on the PSP and Geometry Wars on XBL. I must say Geometry Wars is 2x more fun with 1/4 of the cost.
epthegeek @ Jun 20th 2006 5:40PM
hey digi -- this is coming to XBLA:
http://www.loadinc.net/madtracks/
Cage @ Jun 20th 2006 6:06PM
WE create the level set by buying it or not. You should note MS is not the one setting the prices though...
the guy with an idea @ Jun 20th 2006 6:07PM
I actually like the idea of multiplayer components of a game as a seperate purchase. Of course as a stand alone purchase tho, NOT an add-on. Basically I love to play FPS and just about any game online. I really couldent care less about the 1 player in mostly ever game I play.
PDZ, COD2, GRAW, battlefield, Quake 4, etc etc. I would love it if I could buy all these games at half price and play onliny multiplayer. As it stands now, I buy those games to have fun in multiplayer, but dont care about, and will never touch the 1 player modes. 1 player appears to be the main focus on every game however, and what makes games cost as much as they cost today. Ive always been plagued at the idea that my $60 is going towards paying for all that voice work, story lines, level design, Ai programming, EVERYTHING that was used in the 1 player, and im not even going to play it (Because I dont want to).
Having the multiplayer portion of a game seperate, would allow me to purchase only the multiplayer, at a much cheaper price then buying the full package, since I dont need to pay for stuff I wont play.
However this being XBLA, Im not sure how it would work. Im hoping more for it to be done with real games as opposed to XBLA games. Lets just hope this is a seperate multiplayer component and not and add-on, so we dont have to buy both if we just want to play Lumines Live multiplayer.
LiveFromPhilly @ Jun 20th 2006 6:07PM
$20 for Lumines with online play is a steal, but something about buying the online component just doesn't seem right. It makes sense rationally; if you don’t have XBL Gold, you don’t need to pay $5 extra for an online component you can’t use anyway. At the same time, one would assume that the ability to play a game online would be something included in you XBL Gold membership. I shudder to think that we might see retail games that require an additional payment to play online on top of XBL Gold.
saidnamyzO @ Jun 20th 2006 6:10PM
dont buy the game. why should we be expected to pay for an incomplete product. I understand charging for new music tracks or new levels but multiplayer should be playable, free of charge or completely left out. buying this game will only establish a precedent that will lead to paying more for what we already to be "the norm". the gaming community needs to say no to the buding "nickle and dime" practices of developers and demand full content or nothing.
ok im done.
Alkaiser @ Jun 20th 2006 6:11PM
This is seriously starting to piss me off now.
If there's a multiplayer add-on purchase, I'm pretty sure they're going to have an add-on music/level pack for the game later, too.
It's time for someone to call shenanigans.
apoc06 @ Jun 20th 2006 6:27PM
Color me not surprised. I knew this was on its way. Next thing you know they'll decide to charge $0.50 a match? As soon as the micropayment system starts taking off on a much grander scale, you will start to see things like this, and the $5 horse armor.
Lumines is a great title. XBLA players are quite lucky to get the chance to play it. Still, I dont honestly think it's worth it. Why not just charge the whole $20 one would expect of any other greatest hits title, and just offer 'packs' of songs/ backgrounds? It's an "old" game and proven to be a system mover. It should not cost the full $40, and it should not be released in /any/ form less than what you can get on the psp for around the same price.
Downloadable content was a selling point in me buying a psp and wipeout pure. All content should be free and all games should come with free extra content IMHO; unless said game is open to the mod community.
However in the microtransaction world everything is subject to charge. Therefore I would suggest working with MS and getting a few artists to offer their music and backgrounds based upon album art/ their videos, or just their designs themselves. Sell that and allow us to "own" the tracks for use in other games or whatever.
I dont care how low online gaming penetration rates are for consoles, multiplayer is now an intrinsic function of gaming, not an option. Whether I choose to play it online or not, I want the option... and I don't want to pay extra for it.
copa @ Jun 20th 2006 6:28PM
Selling clearly defined, optional content (PDZ Maps, Oblivion Missions, cheesy Madonna background/music) over Marketplace is a good idea.
Crippling your game, and then requiring additional payments to enable functionality that was originally promoted as part of the game, is a bad idea. No, I mean a REALLY bad idea. There will be a lot of users that think mutltiplayer is part of the download, and they will be confused and frustrated when they are prompted to pay more money. Some of these users will get turned off from XBLA altogether.
Music labels wanted to introduce exotic variable pricing schemes to the ITunes Music Store, and Steve Jobs told them "No". Keep it simple, keep the customers happy, said Steve, and there will be more money for everyone to go around.
Microsoft has to play the same sort of role here, and veto schemes that demand "gotcha" payments from the customers. Left unchecked, some publishers would gravitate toward pay-per-play setups ('Insert 25 Marketplace Points to Continue'), and this would end up killing XBLA.
Pencil Shavings @ Jun 20th 2006 6:31PM
Lumines for $15 = good
Lumines for $20 w/multiplayer = just as good
Firm release date = please
Gowans007 @ Jun 20th 2006 6:35PM
VERY WORRING!
Multiplayer should be standard!
Especcially a game you ahve to have live for to purchase anyway!
Is this gona ment that in new arcade games where live vs & co-op has been added we have to pay more.
If this is true I call shananigans!
KineticOnline @ Jun 20th 2006 6:36PM
MS need to to set some rules here and now. There needs to be an offical statement about what developers can and cant charge for. If one game starts to charge for something all games will.
I might be wrong but didnt MS say the idea behind live arcade was to allow smaller projects and indie developers to have a chance of making a name for themselves? Allowing a franchise (and thats all it lumines is) to try and milk live arcade for everything its worth will put people off the entire marketplace not just the arcade.
P.s. Game updates should be free, always! Extra premium content after is ok but charging for multiplayer is just asking for trouble
P.p.s Whats the chances the statements was purely to try and create more advertising for the game? I guess they suceeded
SuicideNinja @ Jun 20th 2006 6:44PM
I'm very uneasy about this kind of thing. Charging for different music or whatever is fine; I wouldn't buy it.
But multiplayer doesn't feel like something that should be a separate purchase.
SuiXide @ Jun 20th 2006 6:55PM
If i had played the game on the PSP, the decision not to include multiplayer would have killed any desire to spend money on this game. Seriously, if you're going to release a game on a multiplayer gaming service, dosen't it make sense to include multiplayer?
Shogan @ Jun 20th 2006 7:09PM
I loved Lumines on the PSP, but unless something changes, I won't be buying this at all. For one, you're downloading the game, so there's no physical object for you to own... which to me, is a rip off. Second, Microtransactions have the potential to kill the gaming industry if this gets much further out of control. When I pay for a game, be it $15 or $60, I expect to have the FULL game. Having to pay for extra stuff is not something I am willing to do. It may have some nice bonuses, but I see this getting to the point where you buy a demo version of a game, then flesh it out with more microtransactions. And that... is bullshit.
LaughingMan @ Jun 20th 2006 7:12PM
This is another "horse armor" fiasco waiting to happen. 13 year olds across the nation are going to be wearing out the w-t-f keys in response.
My 2 cents: Another puzzle game? Really? I know it's new content and hey the more the merrier in terms of developing content for XBLA but.........another puzzle game??? What Lumimes does that Zuma, Crystal Quest, Astropop, Bejeweled and Tetris (comming soon) do not is beyond me.
Jay @ Jun 20th 2006 7:15PM
I agree that multi-player should be standard on XBLA game ... how is it Xbox Live if there isn't a multi-player component? I agree that buying additional artist content should use micropayments, but what's next ... you can purchase a fully functional game, but joypad support is extra.
Bill Baker @ Jun 20th 2006 7:22PM
The microtransaction I'm looking for is the one that lets me pay to NOT have crappy WB music like Madonna in the game, be it by selling me the Japanese soundtrack or whatever. The soundtrack to the original Lumines was one of the high points of the gmae for me, so seeing it get whored out to radio-friendly US pop just kinda' sucks.
Back to the topic on hand- I've paid for several Live Arcade titles and have gone online with exactly ZERO of them. Street Fighter may be my one exception, but given a choice to pay later for a component I may not want or paying more now for something I may never use, I think I vote for the former.
Matt @ Jun 20th 2006 7:25PM
I completely understand the reason for making the Live portion extra, but at $15-$20, wouldn't they be better off just selling this game on a disc in stores?
bill pullman @ Jun 20th 2006 7:29PM
for everyone that is upset over the add-on multiplayer, don't forget to vote with your dollars. as consumers, we should make an effort to show developers that we ain't payin' for "incomplete" games. i know many of you will buy it anyway, but for the rest of us, if we can't stick to our morals, what can we stick to? oh yeah, tape.
bill pullman @ Jun 20th 2006 7:32PM
"but at $15-$20, wouldn't they be better off just selling this game on a disc in stores?"
Nailed it.
Uchendu Nwachukwu @ Jun 20th 2006 7:32PM
Personally, the second Lumines Live hits, I'm downloading it, no matter what the cost.
I just don't like the idea of charging seperately for multiplayer. I guess it will ultimately depend on how it's packaged and/or priced.
I wouldn't mind if they had "Lumines" with no multiplayer, and "Lumines Live" for 200 points more. Just make it clear upfront that multiplayer will incur a seperate charge.
People will either buy it or they won't. I know I will, because Lumines is that good of a game.
Joe Smith @ Jun 20th 2006 7:49PM
Why is everyone so quick to believe anything negative that gets published by sites like this? Have you all been so totally screwed by Arcade so far? Has Microsoft actually held a knife to your throat to make you buy crap you don't want? Have they, in any way, abused Arcade? If not, then why believe every stupid rumor that gets posted on a blog?
nick @ Jun 20th 2006 7:55PM
There's no point in making a game that has multiplayer as an add-on. How many would buy Lumines Live (hello? LIVE is in the name) and NOT play online?
I thought the requirement to be on XBLA was that you HAD to be Live enabled.
This sounds like a bad rumor.
striderhayasa @ Jun 20th 2006 8:01PM
I know this has already been stated but I have to say it too just for my own peace of mine.
I'm calling foul on this one. Multiplayer is a standard function and to charge gamers for the priviledge of multiplayer is a rip off and should not be allowed.
Robotic House Plant @ Jun 20th 2006 8:13PM
The whole point of Lumines Live on xbox live arcade was to be different from the stand alone version found on the PSP.
All xbox live arcade games offer multiplayer or co-op as standard options. MajorNelson just had a podcast about this...
That Microsoft would allow any vendor to charge separately for multiplayer for an xbox live arcade game is totally bogus.
Now charging for downloading copyrighted music or videos... yeah, now I can totally see that happening, because the record companies/artists might want royalties. On the other hand, they might offer free videos for new songs to promote the song or artist.
James Sorensen @ Jun 20th 2006 8:13PM
when the game is worth more than 10-15 bux i have no problem with them charging a lil extra for added components.
Aresef @ Jun 20th 2006 8:27PM
What the fjork?
Mizuguchi-san would have to be on some serious drugs (then again, this is the man behind Rez ;-) ) to think this is a good idea. Charging people for what should be standard components of a game they already bought is ridiculous. Paying some MS Points for some new songs down the road? Fine. Slapping down some more for a multiplayer mode in Lumines Live when the very title of the game implies online play? BS.
Of course, if the reason was because they couldn't make it in time to ship, that would be fine. But that clearly isn't it. That said, Lumines is always worth the money. I just hope they don't end up nickel-and-diming us, and I hope it doesn't set a precedent.
AoE @ Jun 20th 2006 8:37PM
#24 "The whole point of Lumines Live on xbox live arcade was to be different from the stand alone version found on the PSP."
Are you certain? Call me crazy.... but I kind of figured the whole point was to make money with the game on a platform it hadn't been released on, especially considering the number of 360 owners that don't own psps.
Also, after reading these comments, I have a question for you all: We all know that the cost of game development is skyrocketing, yet you all bitch when the price of games goes up (to $60). Understandable. Then, when a company gets a little creative, and decides to potentially break a component off that lets face it, I'm sure many people can live without (and no, I don't mean YOU specifically can live without it, but try to think about gamers in situations other than yours), to seemingly provide the core of the game at a lower price... you still get pissed? What do you people want?
I for one applaude the microtransaction, especially if it's employed in ways like this. And for the record, no, you're not getting a crippled game. You're paying $15 for 75% of something that retails for $40 on other consoles. Is that a rip-off? Is it REALLY?
AJ @ Jun 20th 2006 9:10PM
How about this, the game costs $20 but you can purchase it for $15 if you don't want multiplayer. Then if you decide you want multiplayer, you can pay the rest. How is this such a terrible idea? The thing to complain about it is it costing $20, not that you have the option of paying less. If you don't think $20 is too much to pay for the full game, then you have nothing to complain about.
Ross @ Jun 20th 2006 10:26PM
False!
AoE @ Jun 20th 2006 10:32PM
"but at $15-$20, wouldn't they be better off just selling this game on a disc in stores?"
Nope, that would push the price right back up to the $50-$60 range. Why? When you buy a game off xbox live, there is no physical product, so that cuts out the: disc duplication facility, shipping to the warehouse, warehousing costs, shipping to the stores, the store's cut of the profits; and probably a few other hands I can't think of off the top of my head.
If a developer sells a game on XBLA for $15 they're seeing about the same profit they'd see from a $50 retail title. So... if you want to pay $50 or more instead of $15, I'd hit up the publisher and INSIST on a retail copy stat!
bladestar @ Jun 20th 2006 10:47PM
This is simply another way for fanboys to bitch as usual. I bough this game for the PSP for a lot more than $20 dollars. For you guys it is not about the games. For example, you prefer to be charged $20 for this game and no be giving the option of not paying extra for content that might not use. Also, you prefer buying a game (like in the case of the PS2) and once you complete the game; trade it, give it away or put it away for good instead of buying new content and not buying another game for $60.
i.e Oblivion new content for 250 points ($3.00)
A fully-featured quest takes you deep into the fringes of the Niben.
Earn the fearsome Mehrunes Razor, with the ability to kill foes instantly.
17 new magic items to discover!
Conquer the largest dungeon in all Cyrodiil.
Thwart a plot to overthrow Imperial rule in Tamriel.
12 new books, notes, and journals to help you unravel the mystery.
And don't say that all this should be free. Why should companies spend money for something that they don’t have to? The incentive companies have is that they can make a profit on it.
You always have the option of not getting this new content (just ignore and let the ones that are willing to drop $3.00 get it and enjoy It. don't spoil it for the rest of us).
You because it is there and other will buy do not mean you have to buy it or get it.
epobirs @ Jun 20th 2006 11:22PM
This where people get to vote with their wallets. Game publishers are in business to make a maximum profit on their products. What prices are reasonable to the largest audience can only be proven by actually putting it out there and seeing if it sells. This also applies to figuring what items are acceptable to sell as add ons and what only finds wide acceptance as a base feature.
The tricky part is factoring for whether the game is any good. It can be hard to say if a game add-on is overpriced if the game itself isn't popular.
#21
No, not at all. There is a whole laundry list of expenses tied to putting a game into retail stores. Just getting the discs manufactured means a big royalty payment to Microsoft (or Sony or Nintendo for comparable situation) before they've made a penny in revenue back. Then there is packaging and manuals, dealing with buyers from each retail chain, shipping costs, etc.
After all is said and done, a game distributed via downloading from a central source delivers far more profit than a game at the same price sold on disc at retail. Plus, instead of paying upfront production fees, the publisher only pays Microsoft a piece out of each unit sold. (Or rather Microsoft pays the game publisher for each unit they sell.) This takes a big expense out of game publishing. A file sitting on a server cost barely anything beyond its development expense. For a small developer like the one linked in #4 this is a really nice arrangement that lowers a lot of the traditional barriers to entering this business.
Alkaiser @ Jun 20th 2006 11:41PM
bladestar:
The quest is fine, that's pretty much the price level, functionality I'm looking for.
However, selling items for your character in-game for real world cash is retarded.
So, thumbs up for Mehrunes' Razor, big thumbs down for Horse Armor. (The Orrery was a cheese quest, though the end result looks kinda cool and your house is so-so.)
The Gamerpics piss me off, too. I've only downloaded the free theme and Gameprics because seriously...this is stuff that I get on every flipping internet forums for the price of? You guessed it...NOTHING!
This is MY console. I should be able to set the damn thing up the way I want it...but wait...I can't unless I want to pay money and have a restriction of choices. The GamerPics, I understand having to be approved pictures, but seriously...having to pay money for my favorite basketball team's logo complete with "EA SPORTS" emblzoned on the bottom is utter BS.
Sure, it's optional, and sure I don't have to pay for it...but it shouldn't cost money to customize MY OWN STUFF. Does this make sense or am I on crazy pills?
Conn @ Jun 21st 2006 3:32AM
Uh.. isn't the PSP Lumines going fdor $15 as well :|?
David @ Jun 21st 2006 9:43AM
All this nickel and diming is going to make me quit the console gaming and just go back to the PC.
XBox Live was a great idea, but now its turning into a convulted mess of money grubbing corporate jerks wanting to sell you a ton of useless stuff.
Microsoft needs to step in and lay down the law.
When I log into the marketplace I see hundreds of useless advertisements (Picture packs, themes) for SALE. They should be giving us points for downloading this crap to begin with.
They also need to tell developers that Live! is meant to be a very free and open place for gamers to coexist. Dont try and sell everything just because you can. The only "free" content i've seen is the Cadillac car pack for PGR3, which is the way this SHOULD be. Unless it is a full fledged expansion pack, put it on there for free. We're seeing free web games on Live now for a fee, and it's getting annoying. Zuma, Hexic, Bejeweled 2, all of those I can play on my computer for free - LEGITIMATELY.
Seriously, this is the wrong direction to be heading, and it's just going to cause the gaming market to shrink in the long run.
bladestar @ Jun 21st 2006 10:37AM
The part I don't understand is why the availability of a product pisses you off? As a consumer you always have the choice of not buying. Example: There are free themes and gamer pictures that you can download on Xbox live. Why do you want the premium ones? Soon you will be able to take pictures (with camera) and put it on your gamer tag. What stops you from taking a picture of your favorite super hero? I tend to ignore all these themes (with the exception of Halo 3 & Street Fighter but that’s just because I like those games). This is similar to the collector edition of some games. Some of us think it is stupid paying an extra $10.00 for better looking box, songs, and movie clip talking about how the game was made. This adds nothing to the action game. But there are people that are willing to pay for it. The same concept is being applied here. I understand that there will be mistakes made (horse armor) by some game developers which happens every time a new product that comes out (wait till you see how some companies will screw up with the wiimote while other do well till everyone gets the hang of it). XBox live is relatively new, and mistakes will be made and companies will get burn for it. Eventually these companies will develop a what [not] to sell or what to sell on Xbox live market place. Like the [horse armor] they really got burned for it but look what they did next "Mehrunes' Razor". When it comes to new products companies tend to through things at consumers and see if they bite. They are learning and mistakes are part of the process. You can vote or tell them what not to do by no buying the product. But if everyone gets it why shouldn't they sell it? Wouldn’t you?
Tucker @ Jun 21st 2006 10:59AM
By the way, Lumines for PSP does NOT have proper multiplayer. I would gladly pay a little extra to have actual online play for this game. It's DISAPPOINTING that it may be a little more money, but considering it'll give me a functionality I've longed for, I'm ready to bite.
Yeah, if you're sitting 10 feet away from another person who *happens* to have a PSP and *happens* to have Lumines and *happens* to want to play a game, it's all good to go to town. Unfortunately, not all of us are surrounded by hundreds of people who meet said conditions, so Sony's Ad-hoc multiplayer games are useless.
So let's recap: I paid $50 for Lumines without multiplayer and I think it was more than worth it. $15 for the same game but in HD? Ok.. $20 for all that AND real multiplayer? Sounds like a deal to me.
Now, if they add the few welcome additions (arcade mode, additional colored blocks, additional powerups) that are present in Lumines Mobile (which, by the way, was only $6 and includes not only these additional game enhancements but multiplayer as well - I'm ranked with the top players, natch) then I'll call this a home run.
jabbertrack @ Jun 21st 2006 10:59AM
yo Joystiq dudes... AoE deserves a star by now don't you think?
even if just for #31
David @ Jun 21st 2006 11:01AM
The availability of a product that pisses me of because I bought into the "next gen" hype surrounding this very expensive console. When you fork out over $400 for a system with a paltry 90 day warrenty, you expect more from a system. If all they are going to do is keep on nickel and diming you, after you plunked down this much damn money to begin with, you feel burned.
Right now the experiences we're getting from the 360 aren't any better than the last generation simply because its too filled with advertisements and everyone wanting more money. For what little we gained, we're walking backwards with everything else so far. Live is looking like a horrible pop-up site right now, when it should be looking like a gamers paradise.
I just want to play games. Get out of my face.
bladestar @ Jun 21st 2006 11:27AM
David, how can you tell? You do not sound like someone that owns a 360 let alone seen xbox live? What your gamer tag? I though so. "pop-up site"? Where? The only ad that appears on Xbox live is the one that indicate when there is new content (i.e artist of the month or any other game) and this is not intrusive. People; don't believe this fool. There are no ads in xbox live. I hate these fan boys that have nothing better to do, than lie or pretend to know or use Xbox live in order to try to persuade others to join their crusade of fanboyism (like if they are getting pay for it). "I just want to play games. " then play game ignore the market place and the xbox arcade section. It is not like you have these on the PS2 or the GC. This is optional don't buy it and don't use it or better yet just wait for the PS3 and pay $600 or wait for the wii. You still run the chance that they will do even worst. They have to support the network one way or another. And knowing Nintendo (selling 10 version of the same product by slightly changing their properties (i.e. color, size, etc) you will see lots of micro transaction in their service.)
dpssu @ Jun 21st 2006 2:13PM
In response to #43's comment about the 360 being $400 and only having a 90 day warantee, I spent $300 on the PS1 at launch and the same for the PS2 at its launch and received a 90 day warantee as well.
My PS1 broke down about 80 days in and Sony's response to my warantee was "pay for the shipping to us, still pay us for any and all repairs, and then pay for us to return it to you", which was to the tune of $200.
My PS2 broke down much later than the 90 day warantee but, after the PS1 experience, the nice extended warantee I bought from EB with my system covered it so well I brought in the machine, explained the problem, and walked out with a new one in five minutes.
To be fair, we've entered an era where it's almost necessary to plunk down extra money at start for a better warantee, just to be safe. Granted, we can't get years worth of warantee through EB any longer, but it does reach the point where we almost have to cover our own butts in order not to get a royal screw further down the road. But that's an entirely different topic of discussion, to be fair.
The Black Pigeon @ Jun 21st 2006 10:47PM
I think people haven't completely read the blog post above. If they did, then they would have probably read the part where Mizoguchi said:
"The decision has not been finalized"
I think I'll repeat that, since it sounds vaguely important:
"The decision has not been finalized"
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that sentence imply that the decision to make Lumines multiplayer functions an add-on ISN'T set in stone? Perhaps they'll take a good look at all the screaming and moaning on gaming websites, and realize that the whole 'pay to play' MP scheme may not be worth it.
Just a thought...
Terot @ Jun 22nd 2006 8:47AM
I am really amazed that there is not more outrage about this. I remember the horse armor thing and everyone got pissed, and the fact is: that was what this micro payment system was designed for! It is designed to sell you a texture pack for $0.50-$5.00. And guess what, people will/have/always buy it!
However, the micro payment system was not set up to sell part of a game at a time. These people need to either charge $15 and give you the entire game or charge $20 for the entire game but release it on a disc. At $20 for the game a publisher has become too greedy for XBLA. Saying that we are going to give you the game for $15 and charge $5 for online play is shit. If that is seriously the case then I demand that the $5 bit be at least 1/3 the file size of the game itself (because we all know the code is going to be in the $15 game and they are just going to have you unlock it by paying $5 like they unlock the demo’s to the full game in XBLA.) This is not episodic and does not add new quest, it is an update (like co-op online in Kameo) and should be free with the game. Moreover, this game should be no more than $10. They are not pouring extra development cost into conceptualizing, designing and programming this game. It’s a freaking PORT!
If Tetsuya Mizuguchi is a gamer at all, he needs to step back and look at the precedent he is about to set for the industry. He is about to take us down a slippery slope full of marketers and snake oil sales men. What if from now on you have to pay for every Oblivion update (not new quest mind you, I mean bug fixes and the such.) What if Bioware had charged for every NwN update because “it added functionality to the game” (yeah it made it freaking work the way it was designed too.) I am not saying that this is going to happen, I am just saying that charging per “feature” will lead down a road where charging for and “update” is a true possibility. So why don’t I just have my pay check set to direct deposit in your account Mr. Mizuguchi, and you give me a full game with life time support on day one.
I still remember a time when you bought a game for $XX.XX and you got all the updates and tech support for free.