Pachter deems UK's Modern Warfare 2 price hike a 'test'

I will be getting a pre-owned version thanks, activision!

Matt,

Here's a question for you. Why should I be expected to shell out $5-$15 for a map pack when the community, solely out of devotion and love for the game, can come out with more and superior content for absolutely nothing? Why should I shell out $20 for a pack of four costumes when, in reality, I or someone else could come up with a similar texture in photoshop in less than a day's time? Hell, I'll even ask you why I should be expected to pay for content that actually ships on the game's disc itself (in effect, wasting money on what's tantamount to an unlock code). Those things should be free and on disc from the get go because we can make even better content in our goddamn free time and we ask nothing in return.

You can't come up with a good answer, can you? No one's disputing the hard work developers put in their titles, but what we are disputing (you pompous dickweed) is a price hike that is unjustifiable given the scope of the game, the marginal improvements over the previous iteration, and the fact every other title in the industry is priced well below what Activision's telling us we'll pay. Explain to us all why we should pay $60 for something that is, at best, a slight update to a game that launched with a $50 MSRP? Explain to us all why the Brits, who have a more valuable currency than we in Canada (or those in the US, for that matter), should be expected to pay twice as much even though the rate of exchange is clearly in their favor? Explain to me why we PC gamers are expected to pay $10 for a game just because it's published by Activision?

Fact of the matter is, Activision's getting too arrogant for its own good and, more importantly, they're getting too damn greedy. They have only a handful of franchises they're publishing for and only because they plan on milking them dry, yet the act as if they have a monopoly over the gaming industry. They were a two-bit, dying has-been up until Guitar Hero fell into their laps largely because they're A) unimaginative, B) they're not risk takers, and, more importantly, C) they consistently run most of the franchises they publish straight into the fucking ground. How many Guitar Hero games do we have? Did anyone ask for COD3 or COD: WAW? Do you feel like paying $150 to have all Starcraft II campaigns, even though you paid a fraction of that for the last title (where all races were playable and on one disc)?

Do I plan on buying Modern Warfare 2? Not after all of Activision's published PC titles went up $10, I don't. Would I buy a used copy? No, because someone else bought it at the original bloated MSRP? I'm not a pirate, so downloading it isn't even a consideration. Do I, as a consumer, have every right to voice my opinion when, out of every publisher currently in the industry, Activision's the only one currently acting as if its shit (and there is a lot of it) doesn't stink and is raising their prices for no other reason than they can? You bet your ass I do. I'm not only going to buy a different game with the money I originally planned on spending on Modern Warfare 2 (just as I bought Dawn of War II to send a big FUCK YOU to Blizzard over Starcraft II's campaign splitting), I'm also going to voice my opinion about the business practices of a company that was on a monorail to fucking nowhere less than 3 years ago at every opportune moment just in case one of the peons working for the company actually comes across it. Because I can. How's that for whining?

Jackel...



Or should I call you Jackass?!?

"Those things should be free and on disc from the get go because we can make even better content in our goddamn free time and we ask nothing in return."



I'm surprised you don't go by the name TOILET because you are so full of shit it's unbelievable!!! That is your opinion sir. Just because you or your friends can recreate something you've see before (a level that represents a scene in a favorite movie or what ever the F#$# you're babbling about) doesn't mean it's fun to play or balanced. There is a science behind GOOD design you retard. There are rules you are taught in good design. These levels and DLC in games are thoroughly planned and play tested. I don't see how saying you can design a better map for free is fact when you have no proof.

In any case... if you had any REAL ability at all you would be doing this for a living now wouldn't you??? And if you are talking about games that can be modded.. they you have your answer right there don't you?? YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY ANYTHING!!!!!! If you want to mod than do it. You're not costing anyone money if you are provided tools to expand a game for personal use.

You just 100% proved my point on whining gamers. You don't have to like anything. You don't have to buy anything. But I'm not going to support your side because the consumer is not the only factor in the ECONOMICS equation!!!!

Do you like the games you play? Do you like the music you listen to? Do you like the movies you watch? Well guess what Einstein.. let's break down SIMPLE economics! It takes a team of creative minds years to put it all together so that your bitching ass can enjoy it. Companies have to make the money back they invest (Millions) plus revenue in order to fund new technologies and future projects. Your bitching and whining is saying "I want my goodies at a bargain bin price and FUCK YOU if you have to figure out how to fund your next title!"

When the hell did I even mention Activision anyway? This article is on Activsion but relates to all the whining on this forum as a whole. I don't care that people state their opinion. But you have to look at all sides of the story.

You want to boycott a company.. that's your choice. But if you did any thinking what so ever.. you would know that games like Gears of War or Call of Duty don't cost the same amount as say Mario Bros. Development costs have risen. OMG.. WOW!! NEW CONCEPT! I'm sorry you haven't been informed. If you like your entertain then support them. If you don't then don't support them or go to college and get into the business. I am half done with a program in Programming and Game Design. This will be my field. If I was on a development team and someone was telling me they didn't want to pay for my team's hard work but they were entitled to all of it.. or if they said they were just going to steal it and distribute it (piracy)... you're God Damn right I'm going to speak up about it.

Again jackass.. there is more at stake here than just the consumer. If these companies don't make money back and revenue to support future ventures..they go under. Read a little news in the gaming world. My eyes are open idiot.. are yours?!?!?

Matt,

"Just because you or your friends can recreate something you've see before (a level that represents a scene in a favorite movie or what ever the F#$# you're babbling about) doesn't mean it's fun to play or balanced" That's funny, because I recall a little game called Counter Strike starting off as nothing but a community made Half-Life mod before Valve eventually bought and started selling it; very little changed in the game between the community release and when it eventually went to retail. It is still one of the most played games to date. Team Fortress, another incredibly popular game, was a Quake total conversion mod; it still remains one of the most critically acclaimed and most played games of all time. Fan made content even made its way in the retail release of Civ IV's expansion. If the developer and publishers of the games we've made content for are willing to buy and sell that content, or to even include it with their games, that says something about the quality of the work we (the community) can do on our own time and dime, doesn't it?

"These levels and DLC in games are thoroughly planned and play tested. I don't see how saying you can design a better map for free is fact when you have no proof." Really? I suppose that's why Intel would hold a contest and pay out sizable sums of money to the 10 highest rated user-made maps at Crymod (Crysis's official mod website). Apparently, those people know nothing about planning, testing, or art direction even though people who routinely play it say otherwise.

"Do you like the games you play? Do you like the music you listen to? Do you like the movies you watch? Well guess what Einstein.. let's break down SIMPLE economics! It takes a team of creative minds years to put it all together so that your bitching ass can enjoy it. Companies have to make the money back they invest (Millions) plus revenue in order to fund new technologies and future projects. Your bitching and whining is saying "I want my goodies at a bargain bin price and FUCK YOU if you have to figure out how to fund your next title!"

I didn't say I wanted it for free or at a bargain bin price, asshole, I said I will not support a 17% increase in price for a videogame simply because a publisher is trying to test the waters in seeing how much people would be willing to pay. PC games are traditionally $50 because they're (shocker) cheaper to make than console games; exclusive or port, a developer isn't paying licensing fees or having to spend a small fortune on dev kits ($10,000 each) in order to crank a game out for our platform. This is how it has always been and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. I guarantee you Radical Entertainment spent nowhere near as much money developing Prototype as Rockstar did with GTA IV, so why am I expected to pay $10 more? Because you or Activision say I should? EA didn't raise their prices. Valve, THQ, Take-Two, Microsoft, Eidos, and Ubisoft aren't releasing games above the $50 price point either. Each of those publishers have franchises worth as much or more than anything Activision currently has under its belt (which isn't much at all), yet none of them are charging more. Why is that, Matt?

"If these companies don't make money back and revenue to support future ventures..." Like what, exactly? COD isn't some new, untested, unheard of franchise that is fighting for the hearts and minds of gamers; it's a well established series that has seen a major release every year since its inception. It has been an incredibly lucrative franchise for its developers (Infinity War and Treyarch) as well as its publisher. In terms of sales, it's essentially a multiplatform version of Halo. You could literally ship the game in a bag of feces and people would still buy it. If the franchise (or any franchise, for that matter) wasn't profitable or wasn't expected to make a profit, you wouldn't be seeing a sequel of any kind (let alone five new entries), now would you? Of course not. Infinity Ward's not going anywhere and (to my disappointment) neither is Activision (they're too busy whoring out COD, Guitar Hero, or publishing some 3rd rate film-to-game hackjob to go under). As for "future ventures", as long as Infinity Ward stays in bed with Activision, all they'll be allowed to make are more COD games; the series is simply to "exploitable" to allow the company to do anything else.

"My eyes are open idiot.." That's debatable at best. You don't massively increase the price of one of your properties just because you can and act like people should be grateful for it, which is what Activision is currently doing with their games. It's akin to a singer telling his/her fans they should be grateful to see him/her give even a horrible performance on stage when, in reality, his/her fans are the only reason they were able to hit the big time in the first place. Had it not been for COD or Guitar Hero (as well as iD software), Acivision would be sitting comfortably on the same "going to fucking nowhere" bullet train they were riding for the better part of a decade because they were publishing almost nothing but third rate movie adaptations that could barely be defined as games. They were, largely, a joke and are quickly becoming the most disdained publisher on the planet simply because they're acting as if they are just too damn good for the very costumers that pulled them out of the mud. Consumers can make or break a company; once you start overcharging them out of greed, you will lose them and, more importantly, their money indefinitely. Activision doesn't seem to get this and neither do you, apparently. Oh...and for the record...I was going to buy Modern Warfare 2; thanks to the crap Infinity Ward's publisher is pulling, I will be purchasing Left 4 Dead 2 instead for what you apparently considering a bargain bin price for a PC game ($49.99).

Jackal,

Ok dude, I hear everything you're saying now and you make complete sense in addition to some very valid points that cannot be debated. I apologize for coming off as an asshole in my misunderstanding.. but it's clear you and I are arguing 2 different things. I was specifically talking about the whining in general pertaining to console games. You are broadening that debate completely by talking about the PC scope of things as well as the modding community. I understand this article is on Activision and their price gouging tactics to the consumer as well as PC games... but my argument got a little off topic and expanded beyond it in speaking of all the complaining in general on Joystiq going on lately about $60 games and DLC as they relate to consoles. I didn't specify Activision nor do I defend their practices in any way. I was speaking more general. I totally agree with you on the practices of such publishers as EA and Activision as far as nickel and diming franchises to death. Unfortunately, sometimes publishers and developers go hand in hand. I love Infinity Ward and despise Activision. In punishing one though... don't you punish the other? But I don't think your arguments are invalid or unjust and I agree with a lot of it. I'm just defending developers and their work, and against arguments in broad scope on how everything should be cheaper and free. I'm not trying to defend publishers and their greed. Sorry for the confusion.

Matt,

I didn't expect a well thought out, reasonable post from you (hence my "bean-bag of a corporate scrotum" remark further down on this page); an apology is in order. I'm sorry for prematurely slamming a verbal sledgehammer onto your skull. Given your initial reply, I anticipated an incredibly long, drawn out war of words very much like the arguments I've had with Sprinkles; if I had known you were actually reasonable, I simply would've politely rebuked you. So, for what it's worth, you have my apology.

However, I suppose it's safe to say we'll agree to disagree as far as console DLC is concerned. A new chapter, an expansion pack (think Overlord's Raising Hell), or fairly good sized map pack does warrant some compensation provided it's not a quick cash-in shortly after a game's release; I find the current trend of developers and publishers purposely withholding content from the retail release of a game so they can sell it at a hyper inflated price a week or two after a title's release to be particularly unsavory (as well as disturbing since more seem to be doing it). However, costumes, weapon skins, and unlock codes do not warrant compensation; they either A) take a minimal amount of time and effort to produce or B) they already exist on disc. If I bought a game, I shouldn't have to pay anyone a dime in order to access a feature or information in/on a product I've already purchased. It'd be akin to paying Chevrolet for the privilege of actually being able to use the stereo even though it came pre-installed with car (from the very same factory the vehicle was built at, no less).

I've never disputed or complained about the $60 price point we're paying for current gen games and, frankly, am slightly perplexed as to why people do (though I'm not at all happy in regards to how quickly prices rise once the Canadian dollar experiences a brief bout of devaluation). To me, a $60 MSRP is justifiable as it pertains to the Xbox 360 and PS3. When the PS3 launched, a single dev kit was $20,000; Sony cut the price in half by 2007 in order to attract more third party support, but it wasn't until a few months ago that a single unit could be had for less than $10,000 (as of March, they are $2,000 each). Microsoft was charging developers a similar amount of money for their dev kits. Given the proprietary nature of each piece of equipment, developers were (and still are) spending a small fortune just so they have the tools necessary to make a game for either or both systems. Once one figures in the relatively steep licensing fees both companies charge (it is the primary source of income for any console maker) developers just so they have the legal consent necessary to even touch those systems, it's no real wonder why developers of even the finest pedigree can find themselves bankrupt after releasing a single flop (Free Radical and Factor 5 in particular). The $10 increase in MSRP between current gen and last gen titles is perfectly acceptable once the above is considered. The Wii's different since a developer could (and they have done) use existing, cheap Gamecube dev kits to make a game if a Wii dev kit is not available or too steep to warrant a purchase; even when licensing fees are brought into the equation, a top tier AAA Wii title won't exceed a $10,000,000 budget. And I've already mentioned why a $60 price point for a PC game is unacceptable given the lack of licensing fees and expensive, proprietary hardware (which is why I partly despise Activision so).

Sometimes developers and publishers do go hand in hand, you are right. And you're also right that, by punishing one, I am ultimately punishing the other. That is, unfortunately, a necessary evil at times. The reason Call of Duty has become such a powerhouse of a franchise is that, quite simply, the games are good; even the mediocre, Treyarch developed titles still stand above most FPS. However, as good as it has been, I don't believe it justifies a 17% increase in price just because the franchise's publisher thinks it's the hottest series of all time. I wouldn't mind paying a SMALL premium if the games were flawless but they aren't, truth be told. COD's gameplay has always been solid, yet little has changed since its inception. Visually, they've all been decent or good compared to similar games released the same year yet none of them have been stunning; while COD4 was nice, it never wowed me anywhere near as much as Crysis, Gears of War, or MGS4 did when I first saw them (COD wasn't as good looking as Doom 3 or Half-life 2, COD2 wasn't as impressive as FEAR, etc.).

My biggest complaint, however, is how short the campaigns can be. I am one of the few people who will buy a game solely for its single player campaign and, as such, the multiplayer components (or lack thereof) have little effect on my purchases. I might begrudgingly pay $50.00 for a short game, but I will not part ways with more than that for any PC game especially if the single player campaign is 5-6 hours long at normal difficulty. Is the series good? Yes. $60 good? Not in my book (they're not Half-Life 2 quality) and it is an insult for Activision to tell me otherwise. Infinity Ward might be an unintentional casualty, but Activison's more than deserving of the big FUCK YOU I'm sending them; if they want to be greedy, I'll simply take my money elsewhere and buy a competing product at a price point both I and the rest of the industry seems to be comfortable with.

Changing topic slightly, I doubt a developer as talented as Inifinty Ward wants to spend the remainder of its existence cranking out military FPS after military FPS because that's all their publisher wants from them. And, unfortunately, that's all they're ever going to do as long as they stay in bed with a publisher like Activision. Given how Activision cut a game like Brutual Legend loose as if it was a gangrenes limb because it, and I quote, "wasn't exploitable", it's not too far fetched to believe they'd refuse any Infinity Ward endeavor outside of the Call of Duty franchise. Maybe, just maybe, declining COD sales would earn them enough freedom to focus on other things (provided such ventures were "exploitable").

Oh and as far as "Do we keep having to resort to potty talk Jackal?" is concerned...I don't have to but will periodically just for the fun of it provided the person I'm directing my insult at deserves. You do have to admit, though, I have a way with words; you might've been pissed at me for the aforementioned "bean bag", but I'm sure a very small part of you must've been giggling.

Jackal,

Holy s@#$ dude.. I feel like an ass now. I will now have my great big piece of humble pie and apologize again man. No apologies necessary from you. My rant was in an article it probably didn't belong or where it could have been easily interpreted as me defending something I wasn't trying to and maybe I should have been more clear on that.

I read a few of your insults in the beginning which got me all riled up to come back at you with insults. (Yes I did get a laugh at them.. haha) I overreacted when I should have tried harder to comprehend what you were getting at. To my surprise you are a very reasonable guy and I mislabeled you as a whining gamer as well. You seem to have a wealth of knowledge about what is going on in the business from consumer to publisher. More so than I could even admit to having beyond the scope of what's available on consoles and way more than I gave you credit for. I overreact sometimes as (you have to admit) there are a lot of A-holes on here from time to time that just debate for the sake of debating.

See, I've never been a PC gamer myself so I can't even talk intelligently in that area. I've just always been a console guy but understand the appeal of all the customization, flexibility, and variety you get on the PC. A game console has just always been more convenient for me. With that being said.. I don't know any different about what could be available for free or about community mods or anything else I may be missing out on. I guess I could be viewed as naive. Consoles are more limited in being able to customize or enjoy user based content. I guess if I were exposed to that type of stuff more often it would hit me that I may be paying for something I shouldn't be. But I totally get what you are saying and where you are coming from.

I don't blame your frustration at all nor the actions you take in being vocal about them. I guess for me.. I'm use to buying a game and then buying additional DLC later on if I like the game enough and decide it's worth the purchase. Basically I'd have to be a huge fan of the title. I am a huge fan of Halo and COD MW. Now I don't buy ALL my games at $60 all the time. Usually if you can wait long enough these titles do come down in price depending on where you buy it. I always by retail and new because that's just how much I value these works of art. Sometimes titles will come out that I can't wait on and will just cough up the $60 and not wait.

Now I don't wait for deals because I don' t think the $10 price difference between this generation and last are not just. I also don't complain about it cause I understand all the time, money, and pressure that goes into some of these titles to be a success. Take Assassins Creed for example. It was a new IP at the time based on a new graphics engine made from scratch. I paid full price though I didn't feel it lived up to the hype as I found the game very repetitive toward the end. I was not mad that I paid full price though cause I know that the team behind Ubisoft tries to come up with new ideas and not just come out with new versions of the same game EVERY year. I'm more supportive of titles that come out every 2-3 years.

I as a consumer (just like yourself) get to decide when to purchase something at full price though because as both you and I know.. the same care isn't put into ALL games for example.. say.. Terminator Salvation the game. Not to mention that there are so many titles out there that $60 would break a person trying to buy everything at full price when some titles are more polished than others. I guess my argument was that I don't mind that price when it comes to supporting talented companies in the business (Epic, IW, Bungie, Ubisoft, Bioware, Naughty Dog.. etc).. but everyone should pick and choose their battles to decide what is worth that price and what should be sitting on the shelf until discounted because not every company puts out quality games. Two Worlds anyone??

I agree with the shortness of some games too. I like it at times as I get to juggle more games if they are shorter.. but there are some titles I wish could be longer. I'm not one to play a campaign for 100 hours though (Oblivion).. but that is another title in which you get your money's worth. I do enjoy multi-player games a lot though. So while COD4 and Halo campaigns can seem limited.. they do offer plenty of addictive hours online in MP matches.

In any case, I'm sorry I jumped to conclusion and look forward to reading more of your posts or debates in the future as you have a broad knowledge about games and I've learned more about this topic from your posts. So thanks for keeping us informed (me in particular) of things that we may not have been aware of. :)

That's because you are a sheep that follows the herd and can't think for himself!

Matt,

And you apparently think it's a perfectly acceptable practice to charge $5 (each) for alternate costumes that actually exist on and ship with a game's disc (Street Fighter IV, specifically). You also seem to think it's also perfectly acceptable to charge $10 for 3-5 maps less than a week after a game's released. You can call me an underpaying asshole of an idiot and Enduros a sheep, but at least we're not deepthroating someone's fuzzy, fist sized bean bag of a corporate scrotum like you are.

All I'm arguing is about all the whining and how NOTHING is good enough for anyone when it comes to developers. If COD4 takes longer to come out cause it's packed with more maps and they are busy working on the next title so they don't invest in making 3 map packs.. that's NOT GOOD ENOUGH. So if they ship a game with less maps and supply the game with 3 DLC packs down the line... that's NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Everything should be free. Everything should be included in the game. Blah Blah Blah. Again I'm defending the developers.. not greedy publishers. Do we keep having to resort to potty talk Jackal?

Calm down friend. I think it was just a misunderstanding on both parts. I apologize for the name calling as I felt my argument was misinterpreted. I'm not defending Activisions actions. If you care to read my last post (it's kinda lengthy).. it explains more of what I was arguing. I think we all jump to conclusion around here as there can be a lot of jerks on these posts. I understand your argument now and only lumped you in with mine as you were not as clear earlier. Your opinion is valid dude, as is anyone's. I am by no means the voice of EVERYONE nor do I have all the facts sometimes. Some guys just like to come on here and hurl insults.. so I get a little defensive as it has been what I'm use to. Sorry for the confusion. I have no beef with you.