Creative Assembly Would you be a paying subscriber to Total War ? [Archive]

GilJaysmith

11-12-2002, 13:39

Admittedly software doesn't (or shouldn't) rust like cars do, but you do pay ongoing costs for your car: in the UK you have a legal requirement to have it MOT'ed (for people outside the British Empire, an MOT is a mandatory annual inspection for roadworthiness) and to make sure it's otherwise serviced, and you can upgrade it.

There's also the question of whether software creation can become as mature as car creation in the time available. It's taken a hundred years, some questionable business practices, and some revolutions in industrial work for cars to become what they are now. Realistically, you're going to get a better product earlier if you pay more for it, or if we can explore different ways of developing it.

This might not be to everyone's liking, and I can't diss a paying customer for wanting better-quality stuff for less money. But my impression is that PC software is approaching the point where something new may have to be done, and subscription funding is a possible approach.

Gil ~ CA

falaffel

11-12-2002, 13:56

I don’t think people understand the potential of such a subscription. If there were 1000 subscribers to total war i believe it would mean

1) Guaranteeing the continued development of a game you love. No more "I hope there'll be a sequel".
2) No need to go and spend 30$ on a add-on product for the subscribers, already been paid for and you knew what you were getting all along.
3) Imagine polls from the developers like: what would you guys like to have in the next patch, a couple of more tactical scripts, new castle types or men on the walls ?

Everybody would win http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

ToranagaSama

11-12-2002, 14:01

I don't like subscriptions either. You get nickeled and dimed to death. All these $5 and 10, etc monthly fees add up. Personally, I would be resistanct to another "monthly" fee on my CC.

But, I would be will to pay a One time, perhaps yearly, fee. Especially, if I felt asured that I'd get "value" for the fee. Your poll doesn't include this option.

Lastly, I WOULD pay whatever it takes for Campaign Multiplay

How about a "Subcription" model for Campaign MP....hmmmmm....

CA THINK on that why don'tcha??

ToranagaSama

11-12-2002, 14:08

Quote[/b] (falaffel @ Nov. 12 2002,07:56)]I don’t think people understand the potential of such a subscription. If there were 1000 subscribers to total war i believe it would mean

1) Guaranteeing the continued development of a game you love. No more "I hope there'll be a sequel".
2) No need to go and spend 30$ on a add-on product for the subscribers, already been paid for and you knew what you were getting all along.
3) Imagine polls from the developers like: what would you guys like to have in the next patch, a couple of more tactical scripts, new castle types or men on the walls ?

Everybody would win http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Interesting, so why don't they start making some proposals???

This may turn out to be a VERY good idea, if it means we get Campaign Multiplay.

So how about it GilJaySmith?

Do you need some more feed back from us, in order to present this to the Powers That Be??

What do you need to make C-MP a go? D### it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

falaffel

11-12-2002, 14:18

Quote[/b] ]Interesting, so why don't they start making some proposals???

Because right now they dont think it can fly and might be correct abaut it.

Quote[/b] ]Do you need some more feed back from us, in order to present this to the Powers That Be??

I would guess that there would need to be atleast 100 people that vote that they are willing to pay before i would recommend GilJay of bringing this up and then there would be another sighup where poeple would have to put their names to show that they are truly intrested. And if that to worked then the developers might start taking things seriously.

But one can always hope http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Prodigal

11-12-2002, 15:48

You should pay an subscription in the form of an upgrade. This means you pay less than retail to the dev. for the NEXT game, that gives them the capital to start or continuing development on a next installment, in the series, when it's complete you get it free of charge as you've already payed for it with the subscription. Then of course you pay for another upgrade & so on.

LordKhaine

11-12-2002, 15:52

Subscriptions are for massively multiplayer games that need the money for running servers... not for games like MTW.

GilJaysmith

11-12-2002, 16:08

Quote[/b] (ToranagaSama @ Nov. 12 2002,07:08)]So how about it GilJaySmith?

Do you need some more feed back from us, in order to present this to the Powers That Be??

What do you need to make C-MP a go? D### it ;)
I'm interested in getting a feel for what people think, and hearing about alternative ideas, but I'd better make it clear that this is a bit of personal research which I think might prove useful for us. It isn't any kind of official or unofficial testing of the waters for anything we've got planned at the moment. So please don't get your hopes up that if this thread collects 250 positive responses that we'll then ask you for some cash and start work on a multiplayer campaign :) At the moment it's just a thought experiment, no more.

But since you mention multiplayer campaigns...

Can anyone give me any feedback on the Civilization 3 "Play The World" multiplayer game? We haven't gotten a copy yet - it ships next week or so in the UK, and my copy's on order. However, most of the reviews we've seen have expressed dissatisfaction with the results. Does anyone have anything they'd like to say about their personal experience with it?

(As a small point of interest, the 'time limited turns' system which is one of the four game styles in Civ3PTW is the way the multiplayer campaign was going to be done in Shogun. So if you've any comments on how successful that mode of play is in Civ3, that could be what you would have thought of it in Shogun.)

If you don't want to post a long opinion here, I've set up a Hotmail account at multiplayercampaign@hotmail.com. This will be read-only I'm afraid, so don't expect a reply to anything you send - but I promise I'll read it all. Please try to avoid sending general pleadings and longings for C-MP... but I'm very interested in specific feedback on how you think Civ3PTW works, and indeed on other C-MP games you've played, e.g. Emperor, EU2.

Thanks in advance for anything you'd like to say, and belated thanks for this thread in general: it's very interesting.

kyodai-britishbeef

11-12-2002, 16:34

I personally wouldnt pay any sort of subscription fee, for any game. I think the amount of money we pay for a newly released game (35-40) pounds should ensure the game is fully operational (sp and mp if advertised to have mp capability) and should ensure game is patched as required.IMO.

PugPenguin

11-12-2002, 18:00

I totally understand what Gil is saying. At the end of the day, one has got to pay for how one benefits.

But the thing is that unlike houses and cars, games shouldn't be such a commitment. I know people would debate over this, but for me, particularly when I was a student, such continuous commitment on a product would gutter me (probably worse if you're still a child). The only understandable exception (maybe) is on hardcore-continuous product like MMORPG, where you're literally getting a substantial upgrade on the product every so often.

Of course, if we were to get a free "upgrade" (by subscription) from STW to MTW, and consequently to Totalwar3, then that'd be a different matter all together. But I believe you guys are talking about subscription on one installment, right?

On the other hand, if you're on a full time job then I guess one game would be a peanut for you... let alone a "small" subscription fee.

I do understand the need for more cash injection though, particularly with current economic climate. I guess "taxation" by annual income might work on games too =D Then kids and students wouldn't be taking the "damage". On the other hand, a rich person would have to pay more than anyone. Sounds more fair.

Satyr

11-12-2002, 19:46

I used to subscribe to a forum and recorded games provider to help them stay in business and continue to provide the services I so desired. I would certainly contribute to a fund to provide better gameplay in MTW. But I would rather there was a 'once a year' option because I have too many monthly bills already.

ToranagaSama

11-12-2002, 20:29

Quote[/b] (LordKhaine @ Nov. 12 2002,09:52)]Subscriptions are for massively multiplayer games that need the money for running servers... not for games like MTW.

Quote[/b] ]Subscriptions are for massively multiplayer games that need the money for running servers... not for games like MTW.

Basically, correct, BUT, in my vision of C-MP, they'll need to run servers, if only, for tracking purposes.

Frankly, in my ultimate C-MP vision, they would create something akin to a "world" ala Tribes. For that, servers and subscriptions would be a must. Though this would be VERY ambitious and probably take a couple of years.

cart6566

11-12-2002, 22:50

To heck with a persistent world and MMORPG-like service (which is very bad usually). I would pay upwards of $10 per month for more frequent patches, tweaks, mini-campaigns, custom battles, and perhaps more controversially, more access to the programmers for subjects like modding and game-mechanics. I really think that the surface has barely been scratched with respect to the potential of this game.

hrvojej

11-12-2002, 23:10

As long as there is a solid SP game to follow, I don't mind what the MP looks like or do you have to pay for it. Or, you can have special add-ons for this sort of things, like subscriptions, etc., purchase or download of which would be, of course, optional.
Also, I am looking for a good cost vs. benefit ratio. If I have to pay another $40 over 4 months just to make this game more playable, I'd rather buy another game, or a full expansion pack (which usually costs less than that anyway).

edit: And I tend to disagree with the car analogy. How many cars do you own, and how many games do you own? The issue is also with availability, market differences, government control and laws, overall need, etc.

Postino

11-12-2002, 23:42

if you pay monthly you should not have to pay for the software up front. or perhaps relaese a "free" copy for MP and subscride for access, and charge for the full game which then lets you play all the SP you want and, say, 1 month of free MP access. patches free to all but perhaps special add-ons for MP subscribers, and expansions for SP players(which would not work for the MP copy).

ah, the ethics of commercialism

hrvojej

11-12-2002, 23:49

Yes, what Postino said. This doesn't involve the overall support though, such as patches, etc. I mean, if you can buy BMW that requires you to pay for MOT service, and Audi for which the MOT is free, and presuming that they cost the same although BMW has some more features, which one would you choose?

Negative

11-13-2002, 00:15

I would be willing to pre-pay for upgrades on a monthly basis say $5.00, but this would mean that I am expecting steady upgrades and improvements. I would also pre-pay for upgrades say $20.00, but if not enough money was gathered to make the update worthwhile I would expect to have that money returned. That's an idea CA could collect money from those interested, and if there is enough there they could go ahead with production, but if there wasn't enough then the money could be refunded. We could be offered a basic idea for the update to drum up interest, and if the response was good CA could start taking orders. Once a certian financial benchmark was reached (given a reasonable ammount of time) production could then start. Orders could continue to come in during and after production of course http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Brown Wolf

11-13-2002, 01:09

Quote[/b] (GilJaysmith @ Nov. 12 2002,06:39)]Admittedly software doesn't (or shouldn't) rust like cars do, but you do pay ongoing costs for your car: in the UK you have a legal requirement to have it MOT'ed (for people outside the British Empire, an MOT is a mandatory annual inspection for roadworthiness) and to make sure it's otherwise serviced, and you can upgrade it.

There's also the question of whether software creation can become as mature as car creation in the time available. It's taken a hundred years, some questionable business practices, and some revolutions in industrial work for cars to become what they are now. Realistically, you're going to get a better product earlier if you pay more for it, or if we can explore different ways of developing it.

This might not be to everyone's liking, and I can't diss a paying customer for wanting better-quality stuff for less money. But my impression is that PC software is approaching the point where something new may have to be done, and subscription funding is a possible approach.

Gil ~ CA
You are a programmer and I respect what you have to do. But I do not like the idea of having to start paying monthly or even for patches (now there is rumors about Microsoft wanting to charge for their security updates). I can't afford it and to be honest I would have to consider stop playing games if this was to happen a lot. Especially with a game like Shogun Total War that was extremly unstable and even with all of the patches it still does not work correctly on my computer. I am completely against the idea. Maybe there can be a limeted amount of free patches or maybe some kind of a limited-guarantee that the program should at least work on the computer?

Negative

11-13-2002, 01:16

Brown Wolf, I don't think this thread is so much about patches as it is about updates. Hopefully the money coming in to support the updates would subsidize the patches so they would be free, more frequent, and thorough. Those who bought the game and were satisfied with it (that means it works the way it was originaly intended to) would not have to put any more money into it. Those who would like to keep putting a little more money into it would get more long term enjoyment.

Chubby_Chuck

11-13-2002, 01:22

That’s a really interesting business model. Customers pay "X" amount of cash for a product that doesn't work as advertised so customers must now pay "Y" amount monthly to have the product work as advertised.

Give me a break. If you want to have dedicated servers and add new content on a monthly basis much like the MMORPGs, Everquest, Ultima and Asheron's call then go ahead and charge away. But don't expect us/me to pay for patches that fix problems that shouldn’t be there in the first place.

Chubby Chuck

Orda Khan

11-13-2002, 01:26

Papewaio

11-13-2002, 01:28

The ethical problem with charging for patches is that it rewards the shoddier or less ethical companies. Ones that will ship it at the required date and have a massive amount of known bugs. Which the end user has to pay for.

Added features beyond what is stated on the product I can understand paying for. Extra feautres for free being added so that the next version of the product will sell more leads to excellent customer service. To be the best is to provide a product whose TCO is justified for the customer using it.

But I definitly do not like the practise of paying for a patch for a product when it is a defect on a valid system. I can understand having to pay for patches on non supported equipment (MTW on a C-64). Or paying for a patch for a defunct OS like DOS.

Also by paying for patches of product defects it may actively encourage less ethical companies to purposely ship 'undocumented features' knowing the customer will have to pay for the fix to these bugs. I know programmers try and make the best product available... but they are surrounded by nefarious types like managers, sales and marketing http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif not to mention shareholders barking for ROI http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif.

I can understand paying for a subscription fee for feature updates, multiplayer online campaigns and other enhancements. If this was the case I would like to see a reduced cost for the next in line version of the game or software (like upgrading an OS versus buying one in full) for subscribers (linked to the amount of time being subscribed).

Negative

11-13-2002, 01:31

I just had a thought that I hope will clairify my intent. Think of the Sims. You buy the original game which works fine and stands alone. Now you can stop there, but eventually you get board and want to move on. Now you have two options. 1. Get a new different game. 2. Purchase the expansion/update pack. If you picked 2 then you continue to get enjoyment out of the game for a little more money. I am just proposing that they do this for MTW. If we prepay for the updates/expansion it will just show that there is a viable interest in it.

Azrael

11-13-2002, 02:17

No way. I paid for my game (and in the UK I probably paid more than in the U.S.) £ 34.99.
In England people have a big problem when it comes to customer service.
They're afraid to stand up for their rights. We already pay almost twice as much for CD's in the UK as in the US.
Besides, it would be a difficult thing to maintain a universal update, considering the amount of copies the game has sold.
If you don't have a Nividia graphics card, do you really care about a fix for it? (Not saying that issues like that shouldn't be addressed).
My MTW has always worked fine, pre-patch and post patch.
Lucky me, but what do you expect them to do each couple of months? You can extend the Campaign Map, or add new Units, but eventually their going to be grasping at straws.

Should the question be, now that the Computer Gaming industry is rivalling and exceeding Hollywood Blockbuster profits, why don't they cut the Price in Games or offer us these regular add ons for free anyway.

If they handle MTW the way that STW went, I don't see myself having any complaints in the future.

Azrael

Heinrich VI

11-13-2002, 02:22

Quote[/b] (ToranagaSama @ Nov. 12 2002,13:01)]Lastly, I WOULD pay whatever it takes for Campaign Multiplay

How about a "Subcription" model for Campaign MP....hmmmmm....

CA THINK on that why don'tcha??
me too

YunDog

11-13-2002, 05:32

[/QUOTE]Can anyone give me any feedback on the Civilization 3 "Play The World" multiplayer game? We haven't gotten a copy yet - it ships next week or so in the UK, and my copy's on order. However, most of the reviews we've seen have expressed dissatisfaction with the results. Does anyone have anything they'd like to say about their personal experience with it?

(As a small point of interest, the 'time limited turns' system which is one of the four game styles in Civ3PTW is the way the multiplayer campaign was going to be done in Shogun. So if you've any comments on how successful that mode of play is in Civ3, that could be what you would have thought of it in Shogun.)
[QUOTE]

Gil,
I have played CIV3PTW both LAN and over the modem. I dont know what has been said on the forums at CIV3 but from my opinion can I say I was one of the loudest voices against MP campaign - But having played Civ3PTW - I am a convert - IT WAS GREAT FUN I player the turnless first - which was fast and furious - I can imagine initially green players would this very hard to come to terms with and it is alittle frustrating trying to launch battles and campaigns trying to keep up with whats going on - you have to have your automations and builds production etc all set up in the menus and let the manager handle it cause once you get a few cities there is stuff going on everywhere and its fast so it will not suite the strategic players who like to take an hour to decide where or what to build - but I found it to be exciting and entertaining and certainly playable. More surprising was the simultaneous turns option which was great fun allying with my buds over the internet and playing against a number of AI opponents. Gil let me tell you we have had several GREAT GAMES Again you dont have forever to make your turns but you soon get the hang of the game pace and I was able to go and refill my beer at some stages but this is rare because if your in a game with pros then the turns are almost as fast as turnless - the game roles on regardless of you trying to conduct negotiations or whatever - and while I can imagine some will not like this - I found it great fun and soon was teaming up with my Human neighbour to launch massive campaigns against the AI which was launching large scale attacks with numerous boats landing on my shores. I guess some dudes will be saying they dont like this or that or it would be better done like this etc but I had great fun - luckily my connection held the whole night *thankyou GOD* - but the non availability of a save/load multiplay option really hurts the game - imagine your frustration after playing for 6 hours then you get dropped and cant resume your game at some earlier stage - Im not sure if this has been fixed but it is critical because while the games are faster than single player ones they will still go for at least 3-4 hours (for a short game). So I could imagine that alot of people are unhappy about this because it is a critical feature - that is essential. In summary Gil while it had some shortcomings it was very playable with the only lag taking place at the end of turns which has little effect on game play making it playable even with slow modem connection *YAY*
I now believe that Medieval MP Campaign would revolutionise the MTW and gaming world and would not only be very possible but extremely playable entertaining and exciting - because Gil - WE GOT THE BATTLES DUDES and civ3ptw dont
so I am certain we would get a much wider audience playing MTW. Civ3ptw is the beginnings of a dream of playing multiplayer wars against your friends - MTW Online will be the fullfilment of that dream.

Regarding Pay to Play Online: it is an evil worse that any illicet drug that currently exists - why because it will available to everyone - it is sucking away peoples lives and money - making possible the first destitute computer game junkies ever - stealing to get money to maintain their online characters -

IT IS EVIL AND SHOULD BE SPOKEN OUT AGAINST IN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS - I DECLARE A HOLY CRUSADE AGAINST ANY SUCH GAMES

Inferno

11-13-2002, 14:58

I'd pay a reasonable amount of money to subscribe, but they would have to fix EVERY bug in MP before that.

MonkeyMan

11-13-2002, 15:22

I'm happy to pay a reasonable amount for an add-on (about half what i payed for the origional) but subscription fees or fees for a patch is not the way to go. Online play maybe - if you offer a service and have big servers and dedicated staff that require upkeep. But even so i hate monthly fees for anything, it ruins my enjoyment of something, rather than me playing because i want to, i play because i feel i need to get my moneysworth for the month and it becomes a chore i could do without. something like my gym subscription.

Until fast broadband connections are the norm and i buy games online, and download them in their entirity I will oppose any such system. Games are to all intents and purposes disposable consumer items that i purchase in a shop for a one off fee and enjoy until i am bored. They are not an ongoing service like water and electricity, and i would resent monthly charging, particularly as those selling the service often retain the right to raise the monthly fee, tell you by making a hidden one line anouncement on their website and direct debit you the charge.

The cynic in me can only think that such methods are ways to milk more money out of us stupid consumers, and i'd much rather have a one off, upfront fee that i can take or leave at my own descression.

One more point is that i go on and off games, i'll play one for a week or two, then a different one, and then go back to something else. This way of doing things would be preventative, such that i wanted to go back to a much loved game from 2 years ago, find it no longer exists or that i have to pay £5 for the privelege and not bother.

well i've rambled on for far too long and no doubt repeated myself a few times.

ToranagaSama

11-13-2002, 16:34

Well, I hope this thread continues with eventually everyone checking in with an opinion.

One thing that can be gleaned so for, is that most are willing to adhere to some sort of "fee" system; BUT "what" we're willing to pay for is quite vague.

Let's say that "patches" to fix bugs are a given. What else, should be involved with a "fee/subscription" service?? The goal s/b to enhance the whole Total War experience

Please refrain from the kneejerk response and give it some good consideration. They ARE listening.

Inferno

11-13-2002, 16:38

Let me be 100% clear on what I would pay for:

I would pay a subscription fee for the right to connect to the Gamespy server with the intention of playing MTW. The subscription fee shouldn't be more than £5 a month (About 7.50 euros).

What I would expect from CA/Gamespy/Activision is that every bug that is found/confirmed is fixed and patched within 1 fortnight.

That's it really.

ToranagaSama

11-13-2002, 19:34

I'd pay for C-MP, whatever it takes.

I'd also pay for, regular communication and dialogue with the Devs.

From that input I'd expect, regular Tweaks, in whatever form, patches, updates, etc. doesn't matter.

Let's say Quarterly, we could expect a some "update". Note, we're not talking "Add-On", but game ENHANCEMENTS.

Enhancements could take the form of New units (balanced to the game of course), Tweaked Units, New Battle Maps, New and/or Tweaked Strat Maps, New and Tweaked AIs (both Strat and Battle). Imagine that, regularly tweaked AIs AIs with differing Characteristics, etc.

Yup, I'd pay a subscription for interaction with the Devs and have that interaction result in regular game enhancements.

No more of this silent treatment, more of, What Do You Want; How'd You Like For This; That'd Be Difficult But We'll Look Into It; We Looked Into It, These Are the Issues; How Would You Prefer We Deal With It....etc.

Where do I sign up???

MizuKokami

11-13-2002, 19:40

i voted no, but if a multiplayer campaign were to become available, and the lag and drops lowered to less then 5% of all games, i might consider it. 10 dollars a month would be fair for that. but i don't do credit cards, so there would have to be a way to pay by mail.

RectalDamage

11-13-2002, 23:29

If I had a choice between a game that was fantastic with a monthly fee and a game that was only above average without the fee, I'll take the one that is above average.

I don't want to keep paying for a game, especially if I don't play it for a couple of months.

YunDog

11-14-2002, 02:40

you guys are crazy - how much does that mean you would pay for playing that marginally better game -

imagine STW was pay to play and all the developments were free upto MTW

the fee to play was say $A20 per month

your comparing $250A for STW MITW MTW

with say $50A game purchase + $750A to play it for the last three years as you have done
Your going to pay $800 for a bloody game - you guys really are fools - and the fact is if you took the more realistic sum of 40$A / month aka Ultima Online/ Everquest
then the bill for this 1 game which would be the only game you played (cause your paying for it) would be A$1500 - I guess a fool and his money are easily parted but youd be a real game bore too cause that would be the only game you would ever talk about and your whole bloody life would revolve around it - but go ahead and put your hands in your pockets - better still volenteer to put your hands in your pockets - but if you really want to throw away you money then send it to me - Ill make over my back yard - and go on a world trip - cause thats what the guys at Activision would be doing and laughing their heads off the whole way..

SUCKERS there really is one born every minute http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

kyodai-britishbeef

11-14-2002, 10:36

brilliant yun dog http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif exactly

RJV

11-14-2002, 10:41

Hi,

Let's just get one thing straight here - if I buy something, then I expect it to work as advertised. Simple as that. I expect to receive what I have paid for. Game quality and content varies across the industry of course, but here in the UK you can expect to pay around £35 (give or take) and get a good number of hours gameplay. Mileage will vary, with favourite games (MTW included) getting more time than others, but in principle we want to get a good product for our cash.
If there are bugs, or it is discovered in the first couple of weeks of release that the game is unbalanced or whatever, then this should be patched, free of charge. Outside of that, then any update to the game should be chargeable, as it is additional to the original product (there is a tangent to the original argument here of companies putting less into the original in order to get more cash for 'improvements' but I won't go there, I'll assume for now that everyone's ethical(&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif).
As to whether we'd be looking at monthly versus one-off, well, that would depend on the update strategy. If we were getting, say, a couple of new maps, an editor and a bunch of new units/campaigns, then this would be to me like a one-off type payment, much like an X-pack. If we're looking at providing SUPPORT for the gaming community - managing, providing servers for c-mp etc - then this is going to be subscription.
Hmmm... there are lots of areas to consider here aren't there. In general I prefer the one-off fee for a good value game, followed by free and timely patches/fixes if required, with then a one-off cheaper X-pack cost - but then I am an SP gamer in general. For MP I'd consider a subscription on top of that, but only if the service was DAMN good.

OK, that'll do for now.

Cheers.

Postino

11-14-2002, 10:44

YUNDOG thats what comercialism is all about.

if you pay for the game then you should not pay for the connection, or the other way around.

a subscription should include a team at CA constantly developing the game and 24/7 access to multiple servers. also an "all players" ladder: stats listed for every game played with another person.

a patch only fixes current game issues FOR FREE.

an add-on adds playability and new features to the origional game FOR MORE MONEY(but less than the origional software)

the problem is that you can have only SP (and only pay once for the software) or you can have only MP (and not pay for the software). or you can have both and charge for the software.

everCRACK is the devil b/c not only do they charge for the expansion, but you must also pay to play the game. this one reason cause me not to touch it.

monkian

11-14-2002, 10:53

If something I shell out £30-£40 for isn't playtested enough or they release it whilst actualy knowing that theres are problems then theres no way I should have to pay more to get these issues resolved.

I have no problems with paying money for addons/expansion packs as they are totally new products/items.

If they happen to contain fixes then thats great but these patches should also be avaliable to download for free.

*steps off soapbox*

falaffel

11-14-2002, 11:28

For those of you who dosent bother reading the replies on this thread before replying yourself. I think everybody agrees that the subscription basis has little to do with fixing current problems. It's for additional features, servers and addons. I think everybody agrees that bugs already in the game should be fixed outside such a system.

The main ideas of a subscription system is as i have written before, ie:

1) Guaranteeing the continued development of a game you love. No more "I hope there'll be a sequel".
2) No need to go and spend 30$ on a add-on product for the subscribers, already been paid for and you knew what you were getting all along.
3) Imagine polls from the developers like: what would you guys like to have in the next patch, a couple of more tactical scripts, new castle types or men on the walls ?

And YunDog, did you know that if they were to charge 150$ for the game and then 50$ per month it would be 750$ a year to play a game, OMG, how stupid do you have to be to buy that, how could people spend so much money.

Ofcourse if we instead set a reasonable amount, say 5$ a month and waive the initial amount of buying the game since this would be development upon MTW then we are down to 60$. While this is not cheap i would claim it is something worth paying for being a part in such a community, effecting the development of a game you love.

/ Falaffel

V'ger

11-14-2002, 12:14

Hi,

I'd pay for an expansion, a one-shot fee. I wouldn't pay monthly, even if they came to my door and personally defragged my hard drive and reinstalled XP. I don't care about MP, only SP.

As others have said, once you're paying monthly, it would become a chore, not a pleasure. Heck, I haven't even stayed online to keep FREE characters alive because it became tedious.

There's also the "good money after bad" problem. If you have to pay to continue to play, what do you do when you're tired of the game. With many games I set them aside for a bit, then come back and take up where I left off. If you have to either shell out a large fee to do that or have lost the opportunity entirely, then forget it.

I love MTW so much I may never play anything else again, but I still have some of my sanity left.

Erado San

11-14-2002, 13:59

Ok, let's try and look at this from a different perspective.

The majority wouldn't like to change anything. They want to pay for their games, sequels and add ons the way has been the case for Total War games we have seen until now. There's no problem with that.

Yet, the community also wants better support from CA/Activision, with more patches, more options, the MP Campaign, dedicated servers and what not.

Also, it appears that the majority plays this game SP only, and a certain percentage plays the SP regularly, or only a few times, and plays MP a lot.

So, how about offering a number of optional support programs? Let's see...

Program 1 - SP game only

This program would be more or less the situation as it stands now. People buy the games and sequels and addons, get one or two patches per product, and that's it. You know what you buy and get what you pay for. No MP is included, and many wouldn't need it

Program 2 - SP and MP

You pay for the game as usual, but you pay an additional fee, either once only per game or a fixed fee per month, which would allow you to play the game both online and offline. The additional fee could go towards providing dedicated servers and additional support for online improvements, like patching aimed at online issues only.

Program 3 - Total War subscription

You don't pay for any game, sequel, addon or whatever. Instead you pay a fixed fee per month, say $5 or $7.50, and for that you get every game, sequel and addon that they release, all patches, online and offline play, and since this would obviously include the group of players that is totally hooked on Total War anyway, this is likely to contain those people that would want to play the MP Campaign, so the MPC could be made available to the subscribers only. Of course, you would have the option to resign from the subscription program. That would open up the option to wait for the release of a game, and then immediately resign after a new release. So an added rule that you can't resign within three months after a new release would seem logical.

With these optional programs, nobody would feel ripped off. After all, you know the options and are free to choose. With the fees only those people pay for online play that actually want to play MP, and the fees would provide enough funds to provide a solid MP environment.

It also puts more pressure on the developers of course. They would have to expand probably to be able to support these programs, and become very active in their own community.

For the record, I have played Air Warriors III for a while, where the game is distributed online for free and you can play it stand alone, although it's not very interesting. It comes to life if you pay a fee per month and play online. Playing the Battle of Britain online with a few hundred planes in the air, some controllers on the ground directing you to where the bogeys are and everybody communicating, screaming, yelling and occasionally crying 'AAAAAARrrrrgggghhhh the B#^%$#& shot off my tail WAAAAAAHHHHHHHRGGGGGGG' (obviously only once http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif was absolutely fantastic for a while. You knew what you were paying for, and got exactly that.

ToranagaSama

11-14-2002, 14:58

Quote[/b] (YunDog @ Nov. 13 2002,20:40)]you guys are crazy - how much does that mean you would pay for playing that marginally better game -

imagine STW was pay to play and all the developments were free upto MTW

the fee to play was say $A20 per month

your comparing $250A for STW MITW MTW

with say $50A game purchase + $750A to play it for the last three years as you have done
Your going to pay $800 for a bloody game - you guys really are fools - and the fact is if you took the more realistic sum of 40$A / month aka Ultima Online/ Everquest
then the bill for this 1 game which would be the only game you played (cause your paying for it) would be A$1500 - I guess a fool and his money are easily parted but youd be a real game bore too cause that would be the only game you would ever talk about and your whole bloody life would revolve around it - but go ahead and put your hands in your pockets - better still volenteer to put your hands in your pockets - but if you really want to throw away you money then send it to me - Ill make over my back yard - and go on a world trip - cause thats what the guys at Activision would be doing and laughing their heads off the whole way..

SUCKERS there really is one born every minute http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

I think this Post was Abrassive and Offensive, additionally I don't think the poster bothered to read the thread before posting. Some Mod should drop this guy a note Ya know, form letter typ, Be Polite

My first response was to say so and so is an A hole, but I wrote the above instead.

Anyway, I suppose A$ is Austrailian dollars? What does that convert to in US$? How much money is cheapo talking about? Probably waste more money at the Pub weekly http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

ToranagaSama

11-14-2002, 15:31

Quote[/b] (falaffel @ Nov. 14 2002,05:28)]Ofcourse if we instead set a reasonable amount, say 5$ a month and waive the initial amount of buying the game since this would be development upon MTW then we are down to 60$. While this is not cheap i would claim it is something worth paying for being a part in such a community, effecting the development of a game you love.

/ Falaffel
I think US$60 is incredibly cheap

Do you people realize that the PC Game Industry is "Marginally" profitable, AT BEST

I think there are certain realities that everyone should have in mind when responding to the query.

[My may be a bit dated, but nonetheless will serve as example. If anyone has more up to date info please advise.]

One, is that of all the Game Marketers, only 2 of them are profitable. I believe EA is one. I do not believe that Activision is the other.

Of all the game developers, such as CA, VERY few are profitable; and of those most are only ONE loser away from losing it all.

Just think how many 10 year old game developers are there??

Been to your Game store lately?? Where the heck are the PC Games???? Its Console City Have you asked yourself why?

Check this, How about pay a Subscription or Get NO freaking TW at all

Just looking at MTW, all the missing stuff, broken stuff, etc. This screams, "Make the Release Date at all cost"; and that Development Resources are an Issue.

If you want all that STW was in addition to all that MTW is then your going to have to fork up more dollars; or accept a "Less Than What It Could Be Game" (The Throne Room and Cut Scences might be permenant history) or NO GAME at all.

So, I'll pay the US$60 for the game, US$3-5 monthly subscription, and another US$40 for a Add-On. Gosh, basing this on a yearly bases, the total would be $160 per year; And actually you wouldn't be getting both a New Version and an Add-On in the same year, so it'd be even less on a yearly basis. Probably best to view it on an 18 month basis.

So that'd be $190-154 per 18 months depending upon Subscription amount ($3-5).

What'd you be getting is more than you EVER receieved from any game period.

Brown Wolf

11-15-2002, 01:49

I still feel uneasy about having to essentially pay a bill for games.

YunDog

11-15-2002, 02:35

Toranaga,
Sorry if you were offended by my last post - not personally insulting any person on this forum - did not think the post was offensive. It clearly showed I had some passion about the subject, and the only abuse was directed at 'the game' which does not have feelings. I made some general statements about fools and money which unless your one of the fools should not have offended you. And I will not reply to your personal attack on me (or do you find it flattering when someone calls you a tight arse, and and A hole). But I would suggest mine was not the post that required moderating. nuff said

I have one further point to make about pay to play - its called QUALITY CONTROL.
Currently when you buy games you are acting as QC for that game - if a game was complete rubbish - you probably wouldnt buy it. Hence the game maker loses money. This is not talking about additional features or personal bugbears that we may not like about certain games. If the game is faulty then the developer/publisher has some corporate concience to provide some sort of fix so the game can run (even if minimally so). But with monthy patches and fixes and fees who will be doing the QC? Who is to say what exactly your 20$AUSTRALIAN 0.65 of the USDOLLAR entitles you to? How much of an upgrade, how many fixes, surely no company could fulfill all the wishes of the whole community? So who will be deciding the QC - the fans? they are hardly unbiased and clearly love the game - can they be expected to be unpartial judges - and what is enough for some will be nowhere near enough for others. And if they dont do enough - what will you do about it - write angry posts - stop playing (and lose all the investment you have made in your online character/your position as number 154 in the world league) hhhmmmm? maybe? or maybe youll be so in love with the game you wont notice that the changes are becoming less, and the upgrades non-existant - or the server crashes more frequently - but whos to blame for that and how can compensation be decided. The game makers will argue that the fans are never satisfied and are divided in their opinions, and that they have fulfilled their corporate obligation - so what exactly would a monthy fee entitle you to and who will decide when that obligation is met or not http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

ps Tornaga - just because someone doesnt agree with you opinion doesnt mean their post should be moderated

falaffel

11-19-2002, 15:12

The replies on this thread seem to be in line with what research on subscription for internet sites has come to conclusion ( with some derivations ). For everybody that buys TW you probably get 5% as core customers that love the game and create a community around it. Of the core users, about 5% would probably pay an additional content based subscription ( what that additional content will include is another story ).

More info on this research can be found here:
http://www.avault.com/developer/getarticle.asp?name=bwardell12

It's also worth to note that perhaps it was somewhat unclear in the beginning of this thread what the subscription was about. This is supported by the fact that when I edited the first post to contain more information on the purpose of this poll, the people that were positive to subscription increased by 10% and this was done in the later stages of the poll.

I'd further guess that the results from this poll shows that it is uncertain if we'll see a subscription based service in the near future.

It would be fun to see any official CA comments on this though ( or the poll for that matter ) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif.

Rosacrux

11-19-2002, 15:42

Toranagasama has some interesting points there. It is true that the gaming industry is not really in it's ups and the profits they make are definitely not something to be proud about.

What keeps them in business? Well, what keeps 90% of the IT companies in business? 90% of IT is at loss, you know. What keeps them from bankrupcy?

Circulation of money. They produce, they earn, they pay the bills, they borrow to grow, produce, earn, take a loan to pay the bills, grow, get another loan to pay the installments of the previous loan and the bills and so on.

Some companies - as EA - are the exception: they are making a shetload of money. But they are big and they do not depend on PC games to get the cash in - they got the fat cow that reads "Console Games".

I cannot play console games (99% of those are too stupid to bother and action has never been my thing) and I would be extremely dissapointed to see the PC gaming industry vanish or diminish to a few producers with crappy games...

but you can't save the PC gaming industry by just applying paid subscription fees to gamers. It doesn't work that way. Either you have something people want and you have secured the means to distribute it and keep away from copycats, or you are in deep shit. And that's precisely where PC gaming industry is right now, because piracy cannot be stopped. Generally, in the Software industry this is a quite hard task, but the SW houses have a basis market share in business and that's where their profit comes from, not individuals; that's not the case with the gaming industry, for I don't think any manager would buy MTW as a productivity tool http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Eventually, subscription shall be the dominant trend in the gaming industry too, but we are still some years away from it right now. By that time, the PC game industry probably will be screwed badly - I think. But applying such concepts now, when the whole picture isn't complete (for instance, MS just released Xbox LIVE and their modest predictions speak about 500.000 subscribers in a year - compare that to the one billion gamers worldwide to understand that there is much way ahead us) would be suicidal for any game distributor. If Activision sold 100.000 copies of MTW (just a raw estimation of mine, which must be close to the actual number) in the "traditional" way, they wouldn't pull out 1/20th of it if it was "subscription only".

Of course there is always Everquest, but that's a different story (and market) we are talking about.

Most people (that reflects in the poll results too) are not willing to "pay to play" on a regular basis. Of course most also do not realize that in the connected world of tommorow (which might be quite close) subscription is the way to go, like it or not. We'll pay monthly fees to watch TV, listen to music, using the railway or the bus, playing games etc. etc. That's the world the CEOs are building for us. We may not like it, but it's quite inevitable.

falaffel

11-19-2002, 15:55

Rosacrux,

you see most of the negative sides ( additional cost ) but none of the positive ones.

While these services would mean additional cost for us customers it would also mean additional content as the developer would have a bigger budget. Also do not hasten to assume that it'll be like having a newspaper subscription ( ie. no affect on content except by very secondary means ). If done correctly a subscription might enrich a players experience and add his involvement in the community. Perhaps i'm an optimist, just look at the music industry, but then again, i would doubt that CA is anything like RIAA.

/Falaffel

Vanya

11-19-2002, 17:23

GAH

Who y'all kidding? Paying for playing is for chumps. Vanya expects to cut heads off for free GAH

That being said, should Activision (or whoever) make MTW or its sequel (if any) pay-for-play, Vanya predicts two major things will happen (among others):
1. The maker will feel the pain, as far fewer people would buy the game. So, the 'few' who like it buy it. But the numbers would never match what it was before. Can they make it up by sticking it to these poor saps with 'higher fees'? Will there be hidden fees attached? Will your card be autocharged every month? Will there be a spamming fee, a blasphemy fine, or a 4v4 surcharge? Will they pay 10 cents for each game logged to pay for the disk space to hold their 'history'? GAH Where does it end? Next thing you know, you're calling ditech.com to get a 2nd mortgage on your house just to get another shot at Magy's horse archers GAH

2. The people that complain about the game as it is will complain even more so... because with pay-for-play, they will feel ENTITLED to force-feed their views of the world upon the devs and the community. You thought you've heard whining by now? The worst whining you've seen so far would PALE in comparison to even the mildest criticism under a pay scheme.

And that does not even bring into account the possibility of using pyramid schemes to play Or, automated voice messages left on your answering machine or service saying things like "Magy woke up today, pushed his principle wife aside, for he had a vision of stuffing your head up your arse today. Sign on and duke it out NOW", "Chef Krast cordially extends an invitation to you and your family to be the main course at a 'Feed the Homeless' campaign he is launching in the Toronto ghettos today.", or "Problems with bill collectors? Are you facing foreclosure? Bankruptcy? Get online and play MTW now Vanya will solve your problem with a swift strike of his legendary axe"...

GAH

Pay-for-play sounds nice on the surface as a means to keep the game fresh. But, Vanya liked STW and likes MTW just fine. Vanya does not gripe about this or that. Vanya just goes out and cuts heads off

Will a 10-year old be able to pop in a credit card to play?
Will a spouse allow their loved ones to spend a grand a month to cut heads off?

GAH

The voices of discontent will be far louder under a pay to play scheme. And they would be lead by criticism of the whole scheme to start with, or, as Vanya calls it, "the fleecing of the gamers".

GAH

1dread1lahll

11-19-2002, 17:58

I voted that Ide pay 10 a month..... I am a true fan of this game and not other types out there so why not for a great game... also I am not a poor kid that has to beg mom for the cash, The down side I see is that the less dedicated or poor kids would be pushed out of the game, leave it for some senseless shootum-up game....

NagaoKagetora

11-19-2002, 21:13

$10 seems to be the ball park figure in this thread.

10 Dollars a month is not alot of money. But it mounts up over time.....

Is Total war worth it at the moment? I think everyone knows the answer to that. This would be a major risk for someone like CA or whoever to undertake. A games company would have to perform a minor miracle every month to keep its customers happy....or else they would vote with their feet.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/p.crozier/zerokage1.jpg

YunDog

11-20-2002, 02:45

Inevitable Yes sadly your probably right, pay TV , pay internet subscription and one day yes probably pay to play - But my opinion differs from that of Falaffel in that rather than the brave new world of super games he describes I see a far bleeker picture - mainly due to capatalism and greed - that we would not see great games developed because of the bigger bugets for developers but we would get the MINIMUM additions for the MAXIMUM cost - because companies even game ones will always want to maximise profits and minimise expenses and they are generally short sighted in their vision. This means we'll be getting the same bugged, half finished games, there will still be all the problems we experience now - why wont we go somewhere else - because like it is now all the games will be like this so we'll grumble and settle for second best again because we have no choice.

I also agree with Vanya that players would be like insurance salesmen ringing and emailing you to get you to join their game - I experienced this first hand when some of my friends started Ultima, all they could talk about was the game and they pushed pushed pushed to try and recruit other people online. It was like game AMWAY http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
GAH to that alright

Itll be a brave new world alright but more of a Huxley'esc one http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

DarknScaly

11-20-2002, 04:38

Quote[/b] (ToranagaSama @ Nov. 14 2002,08:31)]
Quote[/b] (falaffel @ Nov. 14 2002,05:28)]Ofcourse if we instead set a reasonable amount, say 5$ a month and waive the initial amount of buying the game since this would be development upon MTW then we are down to 60$. While this is not cheap i would claim it is something worth paying for being a part in such a community, effecting the development of a game you love.

/ Falaffel
I think US$60 is incredibly cheap

Do you people realize that the PC Game Industry is "Marginally" profitable, AT BEST

I think there are certain realities that everyone should have in mind when responding to the query.

[My may be a bit dated, but nonetheless will serve as example. If anyone has more up to date info please advise.]

One, is that of all the Game Marketers, only 2 of them are profitable. I believe EA is one. I do not believe that Activision is the other.

Of all the game developers, such as CA, VERY few are profitable; and of those most are only ONE loser away from losing it all.

Just think how many 10 year old game developers are there??

Been to your Game store lately?? Where the heck are the PC Games???? Its Console City Have you asked yourself why?

Check this, How about pay a Subscription or Get NO freaking TW at all

Just looking at MTW, all the missing stuff, broken stuff, etc. This screams, "Make the Release Date at all cost"; and that Development Resources are an Issue.

If you want all that STW was in addition to all that MTW is then your going to have to fork up more dollars; or accept a "Less Than What It Could Be Game" (The Throne Room and Cut Scences might be permenant history) or NO GAME at all.

So, I'll pay the US$60 for the game, US$3-5 monthly subscription, and another US$40 for a Add-On. Gosh, basing this on a yearly bases, the total would be $160 per year; And actually you wouldn't be getting both a New Version and an Add-On in the same year, so it'd be even less on a yearly basis. Probably best to view it on an 18 month basis.

So that'd be $190-154 per 18 months depending upon Subscription amount ($3-5).

What'd you be getting is more than you EVER receieved from any game period.
Activision shares soar on higher forecast

October 30, 2002 6:07:00 PM ET

LOS ANGELES, Oct 30 (Reuters) - Shares in No. 2 independent video game publisher Activision Inc. (ATVI) soared on Wednesday after the company reported a profit higher than expectations and raised its fiscal-year forecast.

The positive results and forecast came as the industry gears up for the all-important holiday season, expected to be a blockbuster one for the top companies in the business, as video games move increasingly toward a place alongside movies and music in mainstream entertainment.

Activision shares ended higher by 11.6 percent, or $2.11, at $20.32 on the Nasdaq, and traded as high as $20.74 during the session. It was also among the most active stocks on the exchange.

On Tuesday, Activision reported a quarterly profit of 13 cents a share, higher than the 10 cents expected by analysts polled by Thomson First Call. Revenue was $169.2 million, above the company's own $155 million forecast.

The company cited better-than-expected sales of its "Street Hoops" basketball game and continued strong sales of titles released in past quarters, like those based on the "Spider-Man" franchise.

Those results were somewhat offset, though, by disappointing results from the company's "Mat Hoffman" and "Kelly Slater" extreme sports games.

Activision also raised its revenue estimate for the fiscal year ending in March to $934 million from $920 million and its earnings per share estimate to $1.29 from $1.25.

"In our opinion, (Activision) has a sound balance sheet that it can leverage to its advantage as the current-generation hardware cycle accelerates," said Edward Williams, an analyst at Gerard Klauer Mattison, in a research note. He also raised his estimates for the company.

"We continue to expect Activision to execute well in a strong industry environment as the company prepares to launch approximately 27 more (products) this fiscal year," he said.

Wedbush Morgan Securities analyst Michael Pachter, also in a research note, reiterated a "buy" recommendation on the stock and said it presented a good investment opportunity.

"We believe that shares of this high-quality company are significantly undervalued, and that its strong prospects for continued growth deserve a premium multiple, rather than a discount," he said. "We would be aggressive buyers of Activision at current levels."

Neither analyst has shares in the company. REUTERS

Thane Talain MacDonald

11-20-2002, 06:35

Quote[/b] (DarknScaly @ Nov. 19 2002,21:38)]
Quote[/b] (ToranagaSama @ Nov. 14 2002,08:31)]
Quote[/b] (falaffel @ Nov. 14 2002,05:28)]Ofcourse if we instead set a reasonable amount, say 5$ a month and waive the initial amount of buying the game since this would be development upon MTW then we are down to 60$. While this is not cheap i would claim it is something worth paying for being a part in such a community, effecting the development of a game you love.

/ Falaffel
I think US$60 is incredibly cheap

Do you people realize that the PC Game Industry is "Marginally" profitable, AT BEST

I think there are certain realities that everyone should have in mind when responding to the query.

[My may be a bit dated, but nonetheless will serve as example. If anyone has more up to date info please advise.]

One, is that of all the Game Marketers, only 2 of them are profitable. I believe EA is one. I do not believe that Activision is the other.

Of all the game developers, such as CA, VERY few are profitable; and of those most are only ONE loser away from losing it all.

Just think how many 10 year old game developers are there??

Been to your Game store lately?? Where the heck are the PC Games???? Its Console City Have you asked yourself why?

Check this, How about pay a Subscription or Get NO freaking TW at all

Just looking at MTW, all the missing stuff, broken stuff, etc. This screams, "Make the Release Date at all cost"; and that Development Resources are an Issue.

If you want all that STW was in addition to all that MTW is then your going to have to fork up more dollars; or accept a "Less Than What It Could Be Game" (The Throne Room and Cut Scences might be permenant history) or NO GAME at all.

So, I'll pay the US$60 for the game, US$3-5 monthly subscription, and another US$40 for a Add-On. Gosh, basing this on a yearly bases, the total would be $160 per year; And actually you wouldn't be getting both a New Version and an Add-On in the same year, so it'd be even less on a yearly basis. Probably best to view it on an 18 month basis.

So that'd be $190-154 per 18 months depending upon Subscription amount ($3-5).

What'd you be getting is more than you EVER receieved from any game period.
Activision shares soar on higher forecast

October 30, 2002 6:07:00 PM ET

LOS ANGELES, Oct 30 (Reuters) - Shares in No. 2 independent video game publisher Activision Inc. (ATVI) soared on Wednesday after the company reported a profit higher than expectations and raised its fiscal-year forecast.

The positive results and forecast came as the industry gears up for the all-important holiday season, expected to be a blockbuster one for the top companies in the business, as video games move increasingly toward a place alongside movies and music in mainstream entertainment.

Activision shares ended higher by 11.6 percent, or $2.11, at $20.32 on the Nasdaq, and traded as high as $20.74 during the session. It was also among the most active stocks on the exchange.

On Tuesday, Activision reported a quarterly profit of 13 cents a share, higher than the 10 cents expected by analysts polled by Thomson First Call. Revenue was $169.2 million, above the company's own $155 million forecast.

The company cited better-than-expected sales of its "Street Hoops" basketball game and continued strong sales of titles released in past quarters, like those based on the "Spider-Man" franchise.

Those results were somewhat offset, though, by disappointing results from the company's "Mat Hoffman" and "Kelly Slater" extreme sports games.

Activision also raised its revenue estimate for the fiscal year ending in March to $934 million from $920 million and its earnings per share estimate to $1.29 from $1.25.

"In our opinion, (Activision) has a sound balance sheet that it can leverage to its advantage as the current-generation hardware cycle accelerates," said Edward Williams, an analyst at Gerard Klauer Mattison, in a research note. He also raised his estimates for the company.

"We continue to expect Activision to execute well in a strong industry environment as the company prepares to launch approximately 27 more (products) this fiscal year," he said.

Wedbush Morgan Securities analyst Michael Pachter, also in a research note, reiterated a "buy" recommendation on the stock and said it presented a good investment opportunity.

"We believe that shares of this high-quality company are significantly undervalued, and that its strong prospects for continued growth deserve a premium multiple, rather than a discount," he said. "We would be aggressive buyers of Activision at current levels."

Neither analyst has shares in the company. REUTERS
A winner is you. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

DarknScaly

11-20-2002, 14:51

lol

actually you "do" tend to find that games companies are rather reticent about posting out their profits onto gaming forums.

The "Impression" of them not making much out of games is one that benefits them toa degree.

Having said that Toranaga isnt that wrong , indded quite the opposite, - but he needed to quntify it down to "PC Games". Activision make the overhwleming majority of their "Loot" from the console games, its rare that PC games are anything other than marginally succesful and only a few are "run away successes."

Ironically though thats one reason for building u "series" such as Total War - it helps create a re-sale market of "Loyal fans".

Subscription gaming is, of course, not only workable but already in full swing in the MMOG genre (Pay to Play), as well as via other online retail points such as Freeloader (Pay to download). Other than in the MMOG genre the quality of games is generally low however.

The real question in the debate is not actually whether or not it is "worthwhile" to the gamer - it inevitably IS, however, the problem lies in whether or not the developer is able to meat targets for updates, patches, addons and new games - to do that and meet target dates on what is essentially a contract is not easy... and a legal minefield.