Forum > Gaming Discussion > Pricing Models
Pricing Models
avatar
Country: UN
Comments: 19375
News Posts: 9398
Joined: 2008-08-18
 
Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:40:42
0

Oh yes, gamers, I know what gets you excited PRICING MODELS!

I've heard the Netflix approach being thrown around for services like Playstation Now, a service that will ultimately allow you to subscribe to a service allowing you to play much of the PlayStation catalog. Some have suggested it as a way for companies like Nintendo to get their money for their back catalog as well.

We have a hybrid pricing model going right now, with a retail price being paid, and then additional charges for experience augmentation like multiplayer, DLC, microtransactions and new levels. It's kinda working for consumers, but mostly for big publishers (with little publishers missing out).

Valve is doing there thing with Dota 2 and Team Fortress.  Free game, give us some loose change here and there (and it seems to be working well for them and end consumers). Then they have their Steam side, which, when it comes down to it is essentially, we'll give you a break on the price to make it a bit harder to pirate.

I heard a new pricing model proposed today on an old IGN UK podcast and that is the Cable Channel model. Simply put, you subscribe to XBOne Online which gives you a basic level of services (that is what we have now, but the box is sudsidized). Then from there you could subscribe to, say, The Shooter Package, where for a monthly bump in price you get access to all the FPS games released that year. Or a EA Sports package, or a Bethesda Package and so on...

I bring this up, not because I support it (or not support it) but it is so rare for me to hear anything new relating to gaming when I do I pass it on.

The existng model is only as fractured as it is because at the same time companies try to figure out how to keep their profits, they are also struggling with a distribution mode that has not stabilized (the tech has way too many moving parts right now).

Edited: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:41:03

avatar
Country: US
Comments: 31783
News Posts: 1717
Joined: 2008-06-22
 
Mon, 27 Jan 2014 17:05:43
+1

If they can reach a large netflix like streaming service to games, and they work well, I would like monthly payments for full access to all games. The amount I spend on games yearly would make a charge as high as $50 viable to me.

660896.png
avatar
Country: UN
Comments: 19375
News Posts: 9398
Joined: 2008-08-18
 
Mon, 27 Jan 2014 20:09:44
0
Dvader said:

If they can reach a large netflix like streaming service to games, and they work well, I would like monthly payments for full access to all games. The amount I spend on games yearly would make a charge as high as $50 viable to me.

PSN+ is there already. If you had the bandwidth you'd be nuts not to have it.

avatar
Country: UN
Comments: 16255
News Posts: 1043
Joined: 2008-06-21
 
Tue, 28 Jan 2014 02:11:49
+1

There is very little appealing about PSN Plus. Borrowing games? What's the point if you don't get to choose which games you borrow? Something along the lines of Netflix where you do get to choose is much more palatable, but even so isn't very appealing. Why the fuck don't we see Steam-like sales on the consoles? It makes no sense.

Edited: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 02:52:47

avatar
Country: UN
Comments: 19375
News Posts: 9398
Joined: 2008-08-18
 
Tue, 28 Jan 2014 11:20:53
+1

Answer to question: Hardware Royalties.

avatar
Country: GB
Comments: 48514
News Posts: 59786
Joined: 2008-06-21
 
Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:09:46
+1

I don't like subscribing for anything.

avatar
Country: US
Comments: 17976
News Posts: 770
Joined: 2009-02-25
 
Wed, 29 Jan 2014 00:06:46
+1

If I had more time to play I would be cool with the PSN + model. For someone who doesn't need to go out and grab that latest game, it seems like a good system. For as little as $5 a month, you get a half dozen different games to play. That's less than the price of a 3-day rental at Blockbuster (back when they were in business) or Redbox. Plus they throw good games at you for the most part, not just any old crap. The problem for someone like me though, is when you have about 10 hours a week to play, you really only want to spend time with the exact game you want to play.

avatar
Country: UN
Comments: 19375
News Posts: 9398
Joined: 2008-08-18
 
Wed, 29 Jan 2014 09:38:11
0
robio said:

If I had more time to play I would be cool with the PSN + model. For someone who doesn't need to go out and grab that latest game, it seems like a good system. For as little as $5 a month, you get a half dozen different games to play. That's less than the price of a 3-day rental at Blockbuster (back when they were in business) or Redbox. Plus they throw good games at you for the most part, not just any old crap. The problem for someone like me though, is when you have about 10 hours a week to play, you really only want to spend time with the exact game you want to play.

Yeah, I can see that.

avatar
Country: BE
Comments: 8246
News Posts: 608
Joined: 2013-06-11
 
Wed, 29 Jan 2014 11:38:47
+1
gamingeek said:

I don't like subscribing for anything.

Same here.  Also, what's the point in having EVERY GAME RELEASED (!!!!) available to you?  It'll only distract you more from the games you really do want to play.  In the end I'd end up sampling a lot of games and getting invested in far fewer.

Personally I'm liking my own model at the moment: consoles for boxed games, at a premium price, but I get to keep them and put them on a shelf, and Steam games for anything I'm interested in, but can't be bothered to pay more then €10 for.

Log in or Register for free to comment
Recently Spotted:
*crickets*
Login @ The VG Press
Username:
Password:
Remember me?