Take-Two chief Strauss Zelnick says that the company's looking to exploit a subscription-based pricing model for its AAA titles.
While the publisher's currently focused on delivering its first DLC (for Grand Theft Auto IV and the PS3 version of BioShock), it has other plans in store to boost its bank account, which could see its premium titles take on a subscription-based model.
"The holy grail is taking a business, already a very large and successful business that's focused on packaged goods that you sell once and then are occasionally resold by others with new benefit to us, and turning that into a subscription business or a semi subscription business where we have an ongoing relationship with consumers, giving them products that they want," Zelnick said at last week's BMO Capital Markets conference (whoops, missed it at the time).
Importantly, Zelnick wasn't talking about the established strategy of applying the subscription-based model to MMO games, but to the company's leading franchises, according to Kotaku.
"It's our view that you won't be able to apply a subscription model to mid-tier titles," he said. "The AAA titles that people really want to have... are in the best position for this business model.
"Who's better positioned to do that than the company that has the top franchises?"
Take-Two's best franchises: Grand Theft Auto and BioShock. Go figure.
Come on guys. Be fair. They only made 17 hojillion dollars from GTA and Bioshock. How are their board of directors going to afford their diamond encrusted toilet paper if they can't charge us every month for something that we used to only buy once?
After all, us consumers can't be trusted to buy games these days. Next thing you know, we'll be trading in games and buying second hand! What a disgraceful way to steal money from these poor video games companies. Yes, better to make sure this doesn't happen by forcing us to pay subscriptions.
These are extremely affluent times we live in don't forget...
I have been playing games (mostly consoles)everyday more or less for 25 years and to read this today i feel that the gaming is on a mission to self destruct bigtime. I dont want to pay subscriptions or pay for stupid in-game t-shirts etc. The PSN store will eventually become over-run with over-priced s**t like this. time to hang up the controller and look for a new hobby
this is frankly terrible. MMOs could probably get away with it as its the norm. But for standard games? thats not on. Somehow DPM doesn't sound so bad. As long as i play it on one computer for ever and ever.
But on the other hand if they make the subscription fees very very low. Like say £10 for the game and 2 more for subscription a month, i could save myself money and pay when i want to play it. Or if they put a trial period of a week or something, it should give ample time to complete the game and tell the publishers to go to hell.
Of course if they charge say 30 for the game with a 10 few each month then they're really are taking the p**s.
This is extremely worrying news. The ONLY way this might work is if they give out the retail copies for free (or next to f.all). Paying 40 quid for a game and then a subscription to play it, whether on or offline, is insulting to say the least.
Come on guys. Be fair. They only made 17 hojillion dollars from GTA and Bioshock. How are their board of directors going to afford their diamond encrusted toilet paper if they can't charge us every month for something that we used to only buy once?
After all, us consumers can't be trusted to buy games these days. Next thing you know, we'll be trading in games and buying second hand! What a disgraceful way to steal money from these poor video games companies. Yes, better to make sure this doesn't happen by forcing us to pay subscriptions.
These are extremely affluent times we live in don't forget...
</sarcasm>
Grabbing ba****ds
true, those unicorn burgers they eat in their boardrooms dont come cheap
What the hell is this? First they want us to pay for the actual game (expensive) and then they want us to pay again to actualy play the full game?
I'm looking forward to Bioshock 2: Sea of Dreams but if I find out that you have to pay to unlock content that is already on the disc then they can GTFO.
Looks like activision and take 2 are now fighting for the of "most blatent money grabbing bastards"award with a EA taking a respectful 3rd after beina long time winner bit like federer then
This is stupid, I will not be buying any Take-Two titles if this plan goes ahead. I don't mind buying dlc, but paying them just to play the game after I've already forked out £30-£50. Take-Two go F*** yourselves!!!!!!
I have been playing games (mostly consoles)everyday more or less for 25 years and to read this today i feel that the gaming is on a mission to self destruct bigtime. I dont want to pay subscriptions or pay for stupid in-game t-shirts etc.
I came on to say the same thing.
The whole gaming industry is changing at a very fast rate, I just hope I still enjoy it in a few years time.
what a fantastic idea we get to pay i'm assuming a monthly subscription to wait over six month and maybe they'll be extra content.
The only way such a thing could work is if you payed a subscription for weekly dlc or a set of episodes ala sam and max. otherwise its pointless.
The only games that could potentially get away with this at present are rockband and guitar hero.
I wouldn't entertain the thought of subscribing in order to play the next GTA or BioShock - as great as both are, it's just not right.
Besides, R* can't even seem to get the 360 DLC out on time - are we supposed to pay for 6 months just to get details about how it's 'delayed'?
I wouldn't be interested - it over-complicates something that should be very straightforward...just give it to me over the counter, on a CD and in a case.
If it isn't an MMO - there's no reason to pay a monthly charge.
A yet greater measure of control over the buying public in effect here. What we have is a company who know they can't survive forever without either a buyout, or releasing AAA content every few months- which is non-viable for everyone bar maybe EA and ActiBlizzard.
What they want is to dictate the market through the subscription model. This is a mistake because the consumers first of all are used to paying a flat rate- usually an exhorbentant amount especially in the UK; to play ANY game, not just the AAAs (Which they'll try to exploit with future titles.) and they're also used to a game being fully complete out of the box.
What this does is effectively say- if you want it, pay us extra for it- and could promote extremely lazy thinking on the part of the companys making the games. They won't be shipping a game out of the box, they'll be shipping a micromanaged gaming platform that happens to have a drop of gaming content packed in. It'll be like the commercial software sector, with the likes of Antivirus software providers providing the bare minimum features when you get the trial, and then have to pay the subscription in order to get the full functionality.
In terms of capital, it's a good idea if you're dealing with a massed rank of casual shoppers, but this model can only serve to alienate core gamers, the main group likely to pay subscriptions for anything gaming related, let alone a AAA game that you can buy now for a flat rate, take home and not worry about the company again.
They want too much control over our use of the game- we pay for the game, that should mean we own the license to play the product- we shouldn't HAVE to have an internet connection to play new PC games in much the same way we shouldn't be forced to pay for critical additions to a game to make it complete. This smacks of greed to be honest, and after defending Take Two in their company line in the war with E.A, this is sickening and disappointing.
This is extremely worrying news. The ONLY way this might work is if they give out the retail copies for free (or next to f.all). Paying 40 quid for a game and then a subscription to play it, whether on or offline, is insulting to say the least.
Very insulting and shame to see a gamer of 25 years about to give up too just because companies are all about the money now as they are run by suits. As long as the money rolls in most larger companies do not give a s**t.
Look at Valve though a nice company (admittedly mostly pc based but still) which does not charge you for extra and regular updates/DLC for TF2, provides free modding tools and are planning on doing this for left 4 dead and presumably many more of their games. Let us hope that Valve are not next to sucumb to this evil.
Brilliant comments section once again. It's like reading the letters page in The Sun.
Take 2 have said nothing about pricing, so why do you all assume that you will be paying more? Having a sub based model will, crucially for publishers, mean that they still receive income after the title has been sold as pre-owned. At the moment, the dominance of pre-owned is completely shafting the industry, absolutely none of the profits go to the guys who made the game. As far as they're concerned, when you buy a pre-owned game you might as well have downloaded it illegally.
Enabling a sub based system would mean more profit from older games and, in return, consumers should expect to pay less for their games. Instead of paying £40 for a chart title, you may only have to pay £8. Nowhere in that article did T2 say they planned on charging you £40 and then adding a further charge on top.
So stop being so sensational. It's incredibly dull.
The other thing they want to battle is the second hand market. They hate it as they see it as a licence not sold. If they bind you to a lease where they hold ownership of the product and you simply hire it, they dont lose anythting to the second hand market and when you dont pay one month, you cant sell it on without paying royalties.
Look at Valve though a nice company (admittedly mostly pc based but still) which does not charge you for extra and regular updates/DLC for TF2, provides free modding tools and are planning on doing this for left 4 dead and presumably many more of their games. Let us hope that Valve are not next to sucumb to this evil.
This happens in the MMO world too though. Games like Lord of the Rings Online or City of Heroes have substantial, and yet FREE expansions, and yet other online MMOs (EverQuest, Star Wars Galaxies) have paid for expansions.
I'm not really sure why some publishers/devs do one or the other, but I can tell you what my preference is!
Brilliant comments section once again. It's like reading the letters page in The Sun.
Take 2 have said nothing about pricing, so why do you all assume that you will be paying more? Having a sub based model will, crucially for publishers, mean that they still receive income after the title has been sold as pre-owned. At the moment, the dominance of pre-owned is completely shafting the industry, absolutely none of the profits go to the guys who made the game. As far as they're concerned, when you buy a pre-owned game you might as well have downloaded it illegally.
Enabling a sub based system would mean more profit from older games and, in return, consumers should expect to pay less for their games. Instead of paying £40 for a chart title, you may only have to pay £8. Nowhere in that article did T2 say they planned on charging you £40 and then adding a further charge on top.
So stop being so sensational. It's incredibly dull.
No-one knows what they mean. It was one comment, they probably don't know what they mean yet. It appears as if it will be months, even years before it goes into operation, if it ever does. By that time I imagine they will have worked out a pricing scheme that seems fair to everyone. Because if they don't, no-one will buy their games, which I'm sure T2 are intelligent enough to understand.
Look at Valve though a nice company (admittedly mostly pc based but still) which does not charge you for extra and regular updates/DLC for TF2, provides free modding tools and are planning on doing this for left 4 dead and presumably many more of their games. Let us hope that Valve are not next to sucumb to this evil.
This happens in the MMO world too though. Games like Lord of the Rings Online or City of Heroes have substantial, and yet FREE expansions, and yet other online MMOs (EverQuest, Star Wars Galaxies) have paid for expansions.
I'm not really sure why some publishers/devs do one or the other, but I can tell you what my preference is!
its kinda different when your still having to pay £10 a month, i'd expect those expansions to be free! unless its a major change to the game and its cheap then i can possibly understand
Brilliant comments section once again. It's like reading the letters page in The Sun.
Take 2 have said nothing about pricing, so why do you all assume that you will be paying more? Having a sub based model will, crucially for publishers, mean that they still receive income after the title has been sold as pre-owned. At the moment, the dominance of pre-owned is completely shafting the industry, absolutely none of the profits go to the guys who made the game. As far as they're concerned, when you buy a pre-owned game you might as well have downloaded it illegally.
Enabling a sub based system would mean more profit from older games and, in return, consumers should expect to pay less for their games. Instead of paying £40 for a chart title, you may only have to pay £8. Nowhere in that article did T2 say they planned on charging you £40 and then adding a further charge on top.
So stop being so sensational. It's incredibly dull.
I would hasten to disagree with you there. Once a consumer has bought a product, it is their right to use it or resell it as they choose. To say that this is as bad as illegal downloading is being rather (now what's the word)... sensational.
Not sure why people are complaining about this whilst being forgiving of games with the 'MMO' label.
One repeated never-ending feature of MMOs is that they are basically single-player games with a minor multiplayer component, no different from any other game, but with a subscription attached. The actual 'massively-multiplayer' rarely features in them.
Take 2 are only suggesting doing what MMO developers are already doing, it's just they didn't stick on the 'MMO' label.
I'm currently giving EVE another go, but I'm not sure how long it will last. I've been left very bitter and disillusioned by MMO developers that don't have a clue about what a massively-multiplayer infrastructure can be used for. Instead we get glorifed chat-rooms with mini-games attached.
No-one knows what they mean. It was one comment, they probably don't know what they mean yet. It appears as if it will be months, even years before it goes into operation, if it ever does. By that time I imagine they will have worked out a pricing scheme that seems fair to everyone.
Really? Fair and reasonable to their shareholders may come into it, but the customers, I'm not convinced. We will get charged exactly what they think they can get away with, and not a penny less. Fair or reasonable won't come into the equation.
Because if they don't, no-one will buy their games, which I'm sure T2 are intelligent enough to understand.
I wouldn't be so sure. Liek 'no one would pay a monthly subscription' <points at WoWs 12 million subscribers>, or no one would pay to play online games <points at Xbox Live>...
Brilliant comments section once again. It's like reading the letters page in The Sun.
Take 2 have said nothing about pricing, so why do you all assume that you will be paying more? Having a sub based model will, crucially for publishers, mean that they still receive income after the title has been sold as pre-owned. At the moment, the dominance of pre-owned is completely shafting the industry, absolutely none of the profits go to the guys who made the game. As far as they're concerned, when you buy a pre-owned game you might as well have downloaded it illegally.
Enabling a sub based system would mean more profit from older games and, in return, consumers should expect to pay less for their games. Instead of paying £40 for a chart title, you may only have to pay £8. Nowhere in that article did T2 say they planned on charging you £40 and then adding a further charge on top.
So stop being so sensational. It's incredibly dull.
You make a fairly valid point, however...
It's a fairly stupid comment for Take 2 to release without giving people at least a vague idea of what they might be proposing. As soon as you mention subscription charging, people will automatically assume that you are looking for a way to shaft them out of more money (This is a business we're talking about). So although the comments may seem "sensational", I find it unlikely that if this comes to fruition and we get to see the proposed figures, that we, as gamers, will be better off in the long run.
Not sure why people are complaining about this whilst being forgiving of games with the 'MMO' label.
Agreed, which is why I mentioned on page 1 that some MMOs charge for extra content and some don't. It seems that one rule applies to some, and not others. If Guild Wars can run with no monthly fee, I see no reason why many games can't.
I also agree about your 'chat rooms + mini games' comment. Most MMOs are generally, fairly poor, and very shallow. Which is a missed opportunity, as the theory behind them is brilliant.
f**k that. im not going near any kind of bulls**t subscription-based games. and for the love of god, do not ruin bioshock in that way- it is a piece of art. you may as well smear s**t over the body of christ.
We really need to know how they would work this. I mean, if T2 set some sort of subscription plan on their games and other companies follow suit, how are we going to afford all the games that we want to play?
Think of how many great games we have been treated to over the last couple of months.
Aren't we already doing this anyway? We paid for extra maps for call of duty, we paid for extra maps for gears, stuff for crackdown etc, and i'm sure if the content is there people will buy into it for this.
If you don't like the idea or the content then you won't buy it. Simple as.
Brilliant comments section once again. It's like reading the letters page in The Sun.
Take 2 have said nothing about pricing, so why do you all assume that you will be paying more? Having a sub based model will, crucially for publishers, mean that they still receive income after the title has been sold as pre-owned. At the moment, the dominance of pre-owned is completely shafting the industry, absolutely none of the profits go to the guys who made the game. As far as they're concerned, when you buy a pre-owned game you might as well have downloaded it illegally.
Enabling a sub based system would mean more profit from older games and, in return, consumers should expect to pay less for their games. Instead of paying £40 for a chart title, you may only have to pay £8. Nowhere in that article did T2 say they planned on charging you £40 and then adding a further charge on top.
So stop being so sensational. It's incredibly dull.
I would hasten to disagree with you there. Once a consumer has bought a product, it is their right to use it or resell it as they choose. To say that this is as bad as illegal downloading is being rather (now what's the word)... sensational.
"As far as they're concerned, when you buy a pre-owned game you might as well have downloaded it illegally. "
As for the whole WoW / Guild Wars debate - the reason Guild Wars works without a subscription is that it's not an MMO in the traditional sense. There are a few 'hub' points that act as little more than chat rooms, but the rest of the game is divided into separate, instanced areas. That's not the way most MMO's operate, most are one huge zone with everyone playing in the same 'copy' of the world. That requires infinitely more time, effort and money to keep operational, hence the fees on top of the initial cost of the game. The twelve million are getting their money's worth, no matter which way you look at it.
An initial charge shouldn't be an issue with single-player games, should T2 choose to adopt a sub system, as there's very little server upkeep involved. There's some, but nothing in the same league as keeping twelve million WoW players happy. If they do charge £40 and follow it up with eight quid per month subs you're right, it would be a very poor show. But there's absolutely no indication that's what they're planning. People are getting angry over something that isn't there.
I would hasten to disagree with you there. Once a consumer has bought a product, it is their right to use it or resell it as they choose. To say that this is as bad as illegal downloading is being rather (now what's the word)... sensational.
I think he simply means from the perspective of a business, a second hand sale is a lost sale as is an illegal copy (excluding the whole debate on if they really are a lost sale). So its as bad to them in terms of profit but not bad legally/ethically, and not being sensational at all.
If an MMO was a giant-ass room full of people fighting, hiding behind furniture and throwing furniture at each other. I'd pay a sub for that.
Instead MMOs are all giant-ass rooms full of people playing table-tennis, pool, foosball and occassionally going into a private area to play more of those games, but privately.
It's basically the biggest and most boring youth club in the Everything, except you don't know anyone and it doesn't give you any benefit to even try.
Brilliant comments section once again. It's like reading the letters page in The Sun.
Take 2 have said nothing about pricing, so why do you all assume that you will be paying more? Having a sub based model will, crucially for publishers, mean that they still receive income after the title has been sold as pre-owned. At the moment, the dominance of pre-owned is completely shafting the industry, absolutely none of the profits go to the guys who made the game. As far as they're concerned, when you buy a pre-owned game you might as well have downloaded it illegally.
Enabling a sub based system would mean more profit from older games and, in return, consumers should expect to pay less for their games. Instead of paying £40 for a chart title, you may only have to pay £8. Nowhere in that article did T2 say they planned on charging you £40 and then adding a further charge on top.
So stop being so sensational. It's incredibly dull.
I would hasten to disagree with you there. Once a consumer has bought a product, it is their right to use it or resell it as they choose. To say that this is as bad as illegal downloading is being rather (now what's the word)... sensational.
Is that true? Someone once told me somewhere that it is illegal to resell PC games, that's why you only get trade in on console games. Can't see how that is right though!
Moral rights can be very different to legal rights!
Am I the only one that can see this producing a "SecuRom" like problem. Not in terms of the effect on the computers, but with the lack of consultation with the consumer (I.E. us). To be honest I shy away from games which involve a subscription style payment method, as I don't like to be tied in.
Also as one of the comments stated, the head honchos in these companies don't really care if the gamers get annoyed by what they do, as long as the cash keeps rolling in they're happy. So in terms of anyone that thinks that this will be a good thing for the public, well, I have to disagree!
One other thing on a personal note, if this whole subscription milarky kicks in, CVG please don't hype the games that will contain it! It would be torture to see, say GTA 5 or Bio shock 2 (that use a subscription based model) discussed on here. I don't think I could take it! In fact, come on CVG, take a bit of a stand against SecuRom! I think it's time websites like CVG got involved in the debates in game based politics, not merely commented on them.
They can kiss my a$@# if they think I'm going to pay full price for a game and pay again to play it. Rockstar, my opinion of you has just gone from pretty good to rock bottom. If thats your plan, Gta4 will be the last Rockstar game I buy. You know where you can stick that idea.
One other thing on a personal note, if this whole subscription milarky kicks in, CVG please don't hype the games that will contain it! It would be torture to see, say GTA 5 or Bio shock 2 (that use a subscription based model) discussed on here. I don't think I could take it! In fact, come on CVG, take a bit of a stand against SecuRom! I think it's time websites like CVG got involved in the debates in game based politics, not merely commented on them.
This comment is the best I've read this week and I wholeheartedly agree. C'mon CVG ... grow a set and take a f**king stand. Incidentally, I mailed them about my e-petition to fight SecuROM (points at sig) and didn't even get a reply, nevermind the TOTALLY deserved news article it warrants.
1) If this is indeed meant the way it reads (i.e. subscription to play a non-MMO AAA title,) then T2 will be blacklisted along with EA, Ubisoft and Sony on my purchasing list.
2) I agree with two previous posters: CVG, time for you take a stand. You may argue you are simply a gaming news entity and thus remain impartial to the use of DRM in the form of SecuROM (amongst others,) and limited activations. Fair enough. That is your prerogative, however, if you claim neutrality in the interest of presenting informed reviews about gaming products then that ought to include any known information about DRM in any gaming title that CVG covers and you should directly ask about it during interviews. Why? Because whether you (CVG staff,) are for it, against it, or indifferent, it is a topic of great interest and concern to a great many gamers and we are your life line ultimately. Furthermore, if you truly believe in the idea of free press and presenting informed articles then you will have to concede that the more information any individual has to make an informed choice - be it one you agree with or not - is a step in the right direction if one adheres to the liberal and rights promoting traditions of the Western world over the past two centuries.
What a complete con, I for one will completely boycott anything that charges me an "additction" subscription to anything.
I like the Xbox, but there's no way I'm ever going to line Microsoft's coffers with a monthly subscription and I sure as h3ll won't buy a game that tries to get me to subscribe to it on any platform.
The other thing they want to battle is the second hand market. They hate it as they see it as a licence not sold. If they bind you to a lease where they hold ownership of the product and you simply hire it, they dont lose anythting to the second hand market and when you dont pay one month, you cant sell it on without paying royalties.
Bad bad bad.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but I think Konami have doen this already, for PES you need to register it (pain in the bottom) online, if you've registered it yourself and flog it second-hand, i dont think the new owner can register it and subsequently can't play online with the game.
The other thing they want to battle is the second hand market. They hate it as they see it as a licence not sold. If they bind you to a lease where they hold ownership of the product and you simply hire it, they dont lose anythting to the second hand market and when you dont pay one month, you cant sell it on without paying royalties.
Bad bad bad.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but I think Konami have doen this already, for PES you need to register it (pain in the bottom) online, if you've registered it yourself and flog it second-hand, i dont think the new owner can register it and subsequently can't play online with the game.
If that is the truth of the matter then I'm glad I didn't make an impulse purchase of PES last week while in one of the local media stores. Next.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
