He won't leave it alone. Seemingly eager for the day he's proved right in his prediction that companies will start charging subs fees for multiplayer gaming, Michael Pachter has blamed the appeal of MP mode for the decline in software sales.

"We still believe that the biggest driver of the sales declines over the last 18 months is online multiplayer functionality, with an estimated 25m people playing many titles for hours on end," Pachter told investors.

Games like Modern Warfare 2, Halo 3 and Fifa feature huge multiplayer modes that keep gamers hooked for months or even years. "Based upon statements made by Microsoft earlier this year, it appears that millions of people are playing multiplayer games online for an average of 10 hours a week, making a serious dent in the time available to play other games," said Pachter.

And it's free. But this is something that has to change, according to the Wedbush Morgan man. "We remain convinced that the popularity of online multiplayer gaming has caused a decline in overall packaged product sales, and we expect this decline to persist unless the publishers change the multiplayer model.

"This can, of course, take many forms, including doing nothing, adding premium services for a fee, or limiting the quantity of multiplayer content that is provided for free."

"While we expect the publishers to continue to offer free multiplayer content that is similar in quality to what is offered today; we expect the publishers to channel their efforts on improvements to multiplayer by offering a premium subscription service, in the hopes of driving an ever- increasing number of customers to a pay service."

Pachter has voiced his prediction numerous times that games like Modern Warfare will go the way of the MMO with paid multiplayer services in the near future.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/ar ... ?id=263588

You, sir, are a tw@, like most of the other people in your profession

How old is that article?

The last game I played was Anarchy Online, from 2003 through 2007. It was the chamaradere and the team play that made the game so good. Other than that, I played the odd driving game, but I prefered them in free-play mode, where I could drive around and explore the car and the location, I wasn't interested in races etc. once I'd opened it up - that said, I did do a 100% length Bathurst race, in a Holden V8, I was absolutely knackered after that!

Patcher is a twat tbh. I do kind of agree with him on the point of sales being reduced by MP though. Since I bought Battlefield BC2 there are a good few titles I havent bought simply because I'm too busy playing that. The odd cheap game I have picked up is also sitting on my shelf unplayed (or played once).

I think that people are having to be more discerning. They have a budget and with austerity everywhere getting more from your existing games is what matters. If someone plays halo 3 for hours on the XBox service for which they are also paying for then the they are getting their monies worth. It might be that they simply do not have the money to buy extra games let alone time. I have a few games for my mac and play them for months. So my annual gaming spend is pathetic but the value I get from them is immense. It is that value for money that will keep them spending money on games. If they are not value for money the public will get their entertainment elsewhere.

+1, I barely play online at all, but that doesn't mean I go nuts buying games either

The best way of visualising it is a cost per hour. You could buy a on demand movie for around £4 an hour. Or Call of Duty which might cost £50 but take you 200 hours to complete, that works out at £0.25 per hour, which compared to the movie is great value for money. Do that for a number of hobbies and it makes much more sense. If you add in the cost of online game play which might make that £50 game last thousands of hours and you get a good deal.

Utter, utter horsesh*t.

The decline in software sales is because the games are too dear, too short and too crap.

The average game I would agree. But really good games like Civilisation and Starcraft (my personal favourites) might cost between £30 and £40 but when I work out how much I might play them it works out very cheap, on an hourly basis, pennies per hour. A cheaper game that is dull and only lasts a couple of hours of actual gameplay works out much more expensive per hour of actual play. So my analysis of per hour fits your answer as well.

Agreed.

My point was that IMO people are buying fewer games and playing those games for longer because, in the main, most games that hit the shelves are a disappointment.

If in a crap-saturated market you've finally managed to find a decent game, you're more likely to play it over and over rather than risk more money on what will probably be yet another sh*te game.

IMO of course

I dont neccessarily agree with that 100% as I've recently had single player AAA titles like Assassins Creed 2 and Mass Effect 2 but as soon as the campaign is finished they're traded or sold on eBay. BFBC2 on the otherhand is lasting a hell of a lot longer due to the multiplayer mode. As a single player experience it is actually not as good as the other 2 games I traded.

I do take his point that multi-player modes mean people are buying fewer games.

But if I had to pay extra for every game I had already bought to play online I wouldn't be happy.

I reckon one solution could be to increase the annual price of XBL by a tenner, and then split that between games developers depending upon how much they are played.

Or even make the fee higher but the games free. If it is a crap game then they get nothing at all. If it is great then they would get even more. A huge incentive to produce games people would actually like to play. And if you play a game for five years they still get paid.

he should tell that to Valve, because everyone knows how badly their games do

the headline should read "decline in sales of rubbish games blamed on awesome ones", maybe if other developers focussed on making good games rather than just hitting tick-box features, theyd be doing better.