It This What UBI Aiming For ?

[walsh2509]

http://www.gametrailers.com/episode/bonusround/402?ch=2&sd=1

It This What UBI Aiming For ?

but would it work in a game/sim with a weapons development time line.

[ParaB]

Microtransactions and pay to play (for non-mmorpg games) will kill PC gaming for me. Simple as that. The industry WILL push for this, no doubt. But as a consumer I have the right to say, "no, thank you". If that means I won't be able to play Modern Warfare 5 and Half-Life 3, then so be it.

[Platapus]

Charge per hour to play a submarine simulator where you spend hours patrolling? :nope:

I am afraid that any monthly or hourly subscription to a submarine game would be a non-starter for me.

DLC I could tolerate as the player/customer would have a choice whether to buy the upgrade or not.

I understand the software game developers need to make money, but it would be better if they invested their efforts in to making games that people want to buy.

[Webster]

this all seams to be that way the game companies want but as i said in another thread they should just stop playing around and go straight into a pure pay to play system.

the way it works is you own nothing, you download the game you want for free and to play you log on and buy server time. its as simple as that, it goes back to the days where its all an arcade and you dont play unless you put money in and when you leave you leave empty handed.

there are no game resales, no manufacturing costs because there are no disks, and since there are no disks there is nothing that can be pirated since the free download is free and it runs the game but it cant get you on the server without a credit card to buy time.

in the same as prepaid cell phones work you can prepay for server time by buying a predetermined block of time or like phone minutes you get billed by the minute based on usage.

[ReFaN]

Charge per hour to play a submarine simulator where you spend hours patrolling? :nope:

I am afraid that any monthly or hourly subscription to a submarine game would be a non-starter for me.

DLC I could tolerate as the player/customer would have a choice whether to buy the upgrade or not.

I understand the software game developers need to make money, but it would be better if they invested their efforts in to making games that people want to buy.

Agreed, DLC's are *ok*. but charge per hour is phff

[Nordmann]

I said it in another thread, and I'll say it here. If I wanted to pay a subscription, I'd play an MMO. Pay to play single-player? No way, not happening.

I understand the software game developers need to make money, but it would be better if they invested their efforts in to making games that people want to buy.

Exactly. Companies are scratching their heads, wondering why they aren't making as much money as they used to, when the reason is obvious. Most modern games are shallow, linear and short lived. Too much time is spent on flashy graphics, when the focus should be on game mechanics. Micro-transactions, pay to play and whatever else they come up with are not the answer to their problems; make a decent game, and you will make money.

Ripping off customers is never a wise move, especially with the recent economic issues. If you want to make sales, the product has to be what the customer is looking for, and at the right price. If you do not meet these requirements, obviously you are not going to sell your product.

the way it works is you own nothing, you download the game you want for free and to play you log on and buy server time. its as simple as that, it goes back to the days where its all an arcade and you dont play unless you put money in and when you leave you leave empty handed.

If this ever occurs, gaming as we know it will die, and take a multi-billion dollar industry with it.

[Webster]

if i can take a game out of the box and play through the whole thing to the end in 2 hours then its not a complete game in my book.

soo many games nowadays do this with short story lines an not much of a campaign so its wham bam your done.

to me its like seeing a short movie where when its over i say, ok ive seen it already why watch it again? but if its a good movie and a long movie i want to watch it again or in this case play the game several more times.

[swampa]

The amount of games that are coming out that are buggy and crash, oh and unfinished, not much play/short story they want to charge per hour for us to try to play them.:har: What planet do they live on

[Iron Budokan]

I play World of Warcraft. I admit I enjoy the game very much.

I will NEVER play World of Subcraft, however. I don't care how many people on Bear Creek get hare-lipped over it. That's where I draw the line.

Moo.

[malkuth74]

Its funny the talk about the NFL, because in the NFL the experts or talking heads that talk to you on your TV Talk out of thier asses too, just like these clowns do. They think they know what they are saying, and what they are talking about. But in the end they are just full of crap. Lots of crap.

Thats what I think of the idiots that do the so called professional game reviews. I would trust a Regular player that actually plays a game before I would trust the talking heads of the BIG Game review sites.

Same with NFL talking heads, I truest the fans and there opinion before the blow hards that talk on TV.

[Jerik]

I sincerely doubt that any company will move to a pay-to-play system. It works in MMO's since you are subscribing to a service: you get a number of content updates, as well as live support and server access for a multiplayer experience.

It's not even worth worrying about: for those of you in the USA, look for the local arcades in your area. You'll quickly find out there is maybe one, or none -- the American consumer just won't stand for that sort of presentation anymore. Shifting to a pay to play system would have to either be substantially cheaper than buying a game, or offer something else (like the ability to play a multitude of games for a subscription fee).

[Webster]

I sincerely doubt that any company will move to a pay-to-play system. It works in MMO's since you are subscribing to a service: you get a number of content updates, as well as live support and server access for a multiplayer experience.

It's not even worth worrying about: for those of you in the USA, look for the local arcades in your area. You'll quickly find out there is maybe one, or none -- the American consumer just won't stand for that sort of presentation anymore. Shifting to a pay to play system would have to either be substantially cheaper than buying a game, or offer something else (like the ability to play a multitude of games for a subscription fee).


actually making and maintaining the arcade machines was the problem because the arcade owners made the money not the game makers.

pay to play online without having to make machines or print cds would be a gold mine for them and very attractive to gamers.

if you can have every game ever made if you want, and all for free and you only pay for playing time.

are you trying to say gamers wouldnt like to choose from hundreds of games on demand any time they want them just for a small fee like the cost of prepaid minutes on their telephones (just to use as a cost reference)


and yes i think they could charge as little as 50 cents or $1 a day for server access and be making more money then they make now by selling the game. if the average player plays the game for 2 months then thats $50-60 right there and the game lives as long as they keep it working good and interesting so profits could be 10 fold with zero piracy.

[Jerik]

actually making and maintaining the arcade machines was the problem because the arcade owners made the money not the game makers.

pay to play online without having to make machines or print cds would be a gold mine for them and very attractive to gamers.

if you can have every game ever made if you want, and all for free and you only pay for playing time.

are you trying to say gamers wouldnt like to choose from hundreds of games on demand any time they want them just for a small fee like the cost of prepaid minutes on their telephones (just to use as a cost reference)


and yes i think they could charge as little as 50 cents or $1 a day for server access and be making more money then they make now by selling the game. if the average player plays the game for 2 months then thats $50-60 right there and the game lives as long as they keep it working good and interesting so profits could be 10 fold with zero piracy.

People are resistant to the pay-per-use model, as evidenced by the recent Hulu backlash, and music industry suggestions and backlash.

That said I don't think pay-to-play is an absolute impossibility for gaming -- in some ways, it might be convenient, as I wouldn't have wasted $60 on games like Crysis or Spore that I only played for a few hours and ended up disliking. That said, it is difficult, if not impossible, to take back the idea of "owning" a product once the user has had that experience; pay to play has to be carefully framed, and the option to own must still exist. It has to be an alternative, not the only option; it must also be carefully designed to ensure that the public does not perceive it is paying more.

An approach that might be a bit more successful is to meld the two: perhaps allow the user to either pay to play or purchase the game outright (perhaps at something like $45). Later, if the user wishes to own the game for unlimited play, they could pay some sort of larger fee, $60 or $70, less whatever they've already spent on the content. Users could then "work up" to owning a copy of a game they really like for unlimited play.

I think that most people feel that pay to play (or even rental -- See how Blockbuster has been doing lately?) services are essentially throwing money away. Netflix has succeeded because it presents the product in a way to suggest that the user is getting a benefit: you could watch 8 movies a month for the price of two Blockbuster rentals! However, I feel that many Netflixers, like me, will rent a movie and leave it sitting on the TV for weeks; I am under no pressure to watch it, because there's no late fees or hard cost to see, just a subscription that gets taken off the card.

Pay-to play is a dead end, unless it's similar to a lease-to-own model. Subscription based services, or one-time-fee is what the American population likes (I speak not for other nations, as I don't know them), and deviation from that irks them.

[Webster]

my brother does netflix (i think) and he no longer rents, he goes online and pays just $1 to watch any streaming movie anytime he wants to do it so no download or mail at all now unless he wants to actually buy the movie.


i see this being the way games are going to be done soon so we have different opinions on that

[Seafireliv]

If we accept UBI`s Draconian DRM we will eventually see Pay to Play that will start first on possibly yearly, then 6 monthly, then monthly basis. they may even skip straight to monthly.

Their excuses will range from more conveninet to players to piracy protection to maintenance of servers we didn`t ask for.

Are you people willing to condone this?

If so, enjoy your rented game.

I will not be a part of it. They will not get a dime\penny\euro from me.

Just remember, it started from Steam and now the companies are using their own versions and slowly pushing it further and further up you.

[Webster]

and slowly pushing it further and further up you.


http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-signs022.gif http://www.myemoticons.com/images/emotions/angry/no.gif (http://www.myemoticons.com/emoticons/emotions/angry/no-07118/) dont cross the line please http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-char022.gif

[FIREWALL]

To most of of your Micro Mania posts you, don't make any sense to us any more.

We as hardcore simmers on this site understand SH5 and where it's headed as of market form.


But don't tell us we have to like it.


As proven in past we'll be here long after your gone.


The SubSim Arkives prove it.

[JScones]

http://www.gametrailers.com/episode/bonusround/402?ch=2&sd=1

It This What UBI Aiming For ?
No question about it in my mind.

[Schunken]

My point of view differs a little....

I start in the early Commodore VC20/C64 days....

In the last 8 years I buy about 100 PC Games, mostly Simulation and Strategy stuff.... and sure the famous GTA series :03:

But when it come to replay values its reduce to maybe 5-10 Games like FSX,SH3 and GTA...

I often find after play a game 5h its become boring, is not what I expected and I felt a little ripoff....

...so 100*30(avergage) Euro is 3000 Euro.

But when a game copy is free and I buy 10 hours for 5 EUR and than I dont like its only 5 EUR, not 40-60 EUR...

I mean I also rent DVD movies....why not games?

I often finde me give my 1 year old games to some kiddys instead of let collect them dust on the shelf....

This is only valid if the copy of the game is free...for sure

...pay for the game copy AND must pay a monthly fee sure is a no go....

My last desaster was star trek online....I pay 40 bucks and after 3 days I think: What a crap....! Lesson learned....

Andreas

[urfisch]

I said it in another thread, and I'll say it here. If I wanted to pay a subscription, I'd play an MMO. Pay to play single-player? No way, not happening.



Exactly. Companies are scratching their heads, wondering why they aren't making as much money as they used to, when the reason is obvious. Most modern games are shallow, linear and short lived. Too much time is spent on flashy graphics, when the focus should be on game mechanics. Micro-transactions, pay to play and whatever else they come up with are not the answer to their problems; make a decent game, and you will make money.

Ripping off customers is never a wise move, especially with the recent economic issues. If you want to make sales, the product has to be what the customer is looking for, and at the right price. If you do not meet these requirements, obviously you are not going to sell your product.



If this ever occurs, gaming as we know it will die, and take a multi-billion dollar industry with it.

i totally agree!

:up:

[The Enigma]

That view scks:stare:
Did you see the dollars signs in the eyes.

"We don't want them (the players) to keep playing the game over and over again, even if they like it"

Who is he to make such decisions for me.:down:

[ryanglavin]

That view scks:stare:
Did you see the dollars signs in the eyes.

"We don't want them (the players) to keep playing the game over and over again, even if they like it"

Who is he to make such decisions for me.:down:

As long as there's us to buy the product.

I'll buy SH5 if it has DRM.

I WILL NOT buy SH5 if it has a pay to play!

[piri_reis]

In the video, guy in the middle could talk all day long, he doesn't make any sense other than getting creative with reaching into gamers' pockets for more and more money. He and his ideas just suck, they will try to represent this DRM/DLC/subscribtion stuff as the Next Thing in gaming but it's all smoke and mirrors, it will NOT work! :nope:

[LtCmdrMaverick]

To me the views they express all aim for one thing and one thing only...to increase their profits. I doubt that anyone can find anything where 'change' has occured in either gaming or in real life and the customer has been better off. Everything is done now for the benefit of shareholders.

The gaming companies, like just about every other industry in the western world, are feeling the pinch and as someone has already said before, they want to target their 'customers' to pay more money for a game they have already purchased. 'You like our game...well to continue to play it we we want more money from you!!'

Seems to me that the gamer will never win and what's coming will come regardless of what we think. Things do not look to good for the future.

Maverick :down::down::down:

[609_Avatar]

Good posts in this thread. I have to agree about the sentiments with the guy in the middle. Just the way he comes across is one of entitlement as far as the game companies are concerned. I'm sure it's not his intention but it's almost like "how dare we get to play many games for endless hours on end and the companies just don't profit from it"... Maybe it's my age and the ingrained resistance to change and familiarity that us humans have but watching that and reading about all these new ideas for game companies and ways for them to be more profitable just leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. There are very few games that I keep playing for years, IL-2 (because I'm in a squad with a bunch of other old farts that do online wars with other old farts and we have a blast), SHIII & IV (though I haven't played III in over a year now, especially since discovering the beauty of OM!), HOI series and the Total War games. I used to buy a lot of games but most of them got "old" for me pretty quickly so I'm more judicious in my buying the older I've gotten. Not because I can't afford it but because I just don't like wasting my time or money. In some ways the way Webster is presenting it I would actually benefit from his expressed model but I will resist it nevertheless. It just rubs me wrong and I won't support it, even with games that I think will be great or have been looking forward to. Maybe I'm biting off my nose to spite my face but I do try to stand on principle when I feel something is wrong, even when it harms me in the long run. Some principles are worth it, imho.

[Platapus]

Emotionally, I would have a hard time enjoying a game where I was paying per hour. Even if the amount were very low, the fact that a "meter" is ticking would always be in the back of my mind. :yep:

My normal evening of playing SH4 consists of about three hours squeezed in to about four hours. I frequently have to pause the game to

feed the dogs
depoop our foster puppies. :woot:
Interface with The Frau
eat/clean up
drop my own depth charges in the reading room
...

I don't save and log out when this stuff happens, I just pause the game. Sometimes I will pause a game for an hour or so while I am preparing dinner. The idea that I am "on the clock" during this time, I would find difficult. I would emotionally feel that I am being rushed.

I would really have a hard time playing a sub sim that is metered.

Now, would I pay a monthly fee to play SH5/6? I might, but and this is a big capitalist but, I better get something for my monthly fee that I feel is worth more than the bucks it costs me.

I just don't think that Ubi can offer me anything in a single player game that I would be willing to pay a monthly access fee. Back in my WoW ways, sure, I had no problem paying the monthly fees because I was getting something that I could not get in a standalone game e.g., the other people online.

But in a stand alone game such as a subsim, what can they offer me that would compensate not only for my money but for the increased inconvenience for the modders.

Now, if a select population wishes to have wolfpacks, and UBI offers a voluntary service of hosting multi-player on-line wolfpacks, that would be a good idea... and the players should pay for it. But not for a stand- alone game. :nope:

[Brag]

To me the views they express all aim for one thing and one thing only...to increase their profits. I doubt that anyone can find anything where 'change' has occured in either gaming or in real life and the customer has been better off. Everything is done now for the benefit of shareholders.

The gaming companies, like just about every other industry in the western world, are feeling the pinch and as someone has already said before, they want to target their 'customers' to pay more money for a game they have already purchased. 'You like our game...well to continue to play it we we want more money from you!!'

Seems to me that the gamer will never win and what's coming will come regardless of what we think. Things do not look to good for the future.

Maverick :down::down::down:

If we stick together and tell them HELL NO!

They can't get away with it. Without Ubi we're ok. Without us Ubi dies.
Bad things happen to customers when customers allow them to happen.

Moo!

[609_Avatar]

To me the views they express all aim for one thing and one thing only...to increase their profits.

My feeling also. I remember when game companies used to be proud of the fact that some of their games were still popular and played with years after their release. Now, after watching that clip, they feel like it's something bad and not desirable... all because they don't profit from it... :nope:

[Apos]

Im totally against any payperplay, buyable items, premium stuff, better than stock one.

Maybe i could change my mind if 1 euro would cost 1 PLN (polish złoty), not 4.50. I won't spend 1/10 or 1/5 of my salary for premium items only cos i have to have them to play on even rules with other european players.

I pay 100 or 150 PLN for game and thats it. Every player should have even chances to enjoy game not only those who spend more euros then others.

[Galanti]

Emotionally, I would have a hard time enjoying a game where I was paying per hour. Even if the amount were very low, the fact that a "meter" is ticking would always be in the back of my mind. :yep:

My normal evening of playing SH4 consists of about three hours squeezed in to about four hours. I frequently have to pause the game to

feed the dogs
depoop our foster puppies. :woot:
Interface with The Frau
eat/clean up
drop my own depth charges in the reading room
...

I don't save and log out when this stuff happens, I just pause the game. Sometimes I will pause a game for an hour or so while I am preparing dinner. The idea that I am "on the clock" during this time, I would find difficult. I would emotionally feel that I am being rushed.. :nope:

Exactly, I sometimes have the damn thing running all weekend long, as I take time out to manage my own unruly crew: The First Officer of the Watch limits her participation in the ship's affairs to complaining about the volume of the depth charges if they interfere with her Olympics watching and my three year old Chief Engineer issues commands to the boat seemingly at random.

Pay-per-hour? Nope.

Don't think we'll see it for long, long time, if ever, but this DRM BOHICA we're about to receive may be the first tentative steps in a new industry business model, and we need to act now or suffer the same fate as the proverbial boiled frog.

[Dutch]

The guy third from the left needs to be slapped or preferably shot.

He didn't know anything that he was talking about, comparing some farm game to MW2, plus any time some disagreed with him he pretty much said yea I understand but it makes me more money.

The guy is a dumbass.

[Firebird]

An approach that might be a bit more successful is to meld the two: perhaps allow the user to either pay to play or purchase the game outright (perhaps at something like $45). Later, if the user wishes to own the game for unlimited play, they could pay some sort of larger fee, $60 or $70, less whatever they've already spent on the content. Users could then "work up" to owning a copy of a game they really like for unlimited play.

I really do think this would be the best of both worlds.

First of all, nothing has to change for a game like SH3/4/5. Pay up front and you can play as much as you like. A pay-per-hour system doesn't make any sense for veteran subsimmers who know what they want ;).

However, what if you want to try something new every week? It'll only cost you a few euros/dollars for each game. If you do happen to like it, you can happily keep on playing until you either don't want to spend anymore money on it or until you decide to pay the remaining fee and actually own the game.

Seriously, what are the downsides? The choices we get are not replaced, they're increased dramatically. My only question is whether this would be a viable business model for the game publishers.

Speaking of which, what's with all the negativity towards the fact that yes, they want to make money? They're not exactly doing it for the good of mankind. If the above system means that I'll have paid the equivalent of one game every month instead of making a gamble on one game every two months, at least it will have been on exactly what I want.

[609_Avatar]

Speaking of which, what's with all the negativity towards the fact that yes, they want to make money? They're not exactly doing it for the good of mankind. If the above system means that I'll have paid the equivalent of one game every month instead of making a gamble on one game every two months, at least it will have been on exactly what I want.

I don't think anyone is faulting them for wanting to make money. But for me, they are either not making what they used to due to poor business decisions, poor game design (and thus not many wanting it), or just a poor game and they are trying to figure out how to make up for the profit that they aren't getting any more. If it's none of those and they are still making the same amount of profit on these types of PC games and just want more, then it's perceived as greed and that also rubs many like me the wrong way. Especially when bean counters see what kinds of profits console games make and wonder how they can "maximize" their profits with PC games this reaction is not surprising. Obviously we're not in the "know" and only they, UBI, know for sure what the real motivation is. All we can do is speculate. And as you pointed out the obvious, they are not doing it for our benefit at all, but to make a dollar/euro, etc. so of course people will assume the worst. The days where people take pride in their work, have integrity about how they do their work and honestly care how the consumer feels about their product sure seem to be coming to an end. I remember my parents saying much the same about my generation (50's baby boomer here) and how egocentric we were... things have only gotten worse since that time, not better. You see this in many types of businesses, especially the service ones. That's why I go out of my way to compliment people who are actually polite and appear to have an honest interest in doing their job well. People get too much of the negative side of things all the time and rarely get a compliment when they do it "right" so I try not to add to that. :)

[trenken]

Ive never really had a problem with microtransactions. Ive purchased many on the xbox 360 if they interest me, and ill do the same on the PC.

If its something I dont care about, well then I dont need to buy it. But I certainly dont blame them for doing it. It's another one of these things that isnt going away, but at least with these you have a choice.

Its there for those of us that want it, and if you dont, you still have the base game to play, just without these extras. Not a big deal.

[Frederf]

I certainly don't see that pay-to-play necessarily means a poor deal for the customer. There is certainly the theoretical possibility that X hours as Y per-hour comes out to less than Z, the normal retail price. X*Y < Z, deal for the customer.

Of course it's absolutely clear that the motivation for a company to change to this model is to somehow increase profit-per-product ratio. Trying to search for why a company would want to give more product for the same price or the same product for cheaper is fruitless.

I think the only way to even half way present pay-to-play to the customer (or any feature) is to make it optional parallel to the normal scheme. If there is a choice of A and B and the customer picks B then you are pretty certain that the customer is happier picking B. Simply forcing change by dogma expresses a lack of confidence in your own product actually being better.

[Wolfehunter]

I said it in another thread, and I'll say it here. If I wanted to pay a subscription, I'd play an MMO. Pay to play single-player? No way, not happening.



Exactly. Companies are scratching their heads, wondering why they aren't making as much money as they used to, when the reason is obvious. Most modern games are shallow, linear and short lived. Too much time is spent on flashy graphics, when the focus should be on game mechanics. Micro-transactions, pay to play and whatever else they come up with are not the answer to their problems; make a decent game, and you will make money.

Ripping off customers is never a wise move, especially with the recent economic issues. If you want to make sales, the product has to be what the customer is looking for, and at the right price. If you do not meet these requirements, obviously you are not going to sell your product.



If this ever occurs, gaming as we know it will die, and take a multi-billion dollar industry with it.Right on! :rock:

I wonder who are the people now running all these game companies. Can't be the same people that ran the place 5 or more years ago.. Can't be..:nope:

[BarjackU977]

You wish to get a better idea of a game before you buy it?
Welll, that's what free demos and game reviews are for.

Pay2play =

back to the most binding DRM scheme: you depend on the availability of an online service to be able to play single player
"pay per hour of play" case: you don't feel confortable if you take your time in the game, as you virtually pay more.
"monthly subscription" case: any hour you don't play that month is virtually wasted money


They're looking for more revenue? Then I'm OK with a higher initial price, and paying for more content with DLCs or game add-ons.
There is nothing wrong with the current licensing model, and the idea of paying more for additional content. That model supports the game for further development, and remains the most fair for us.

[MasterCaine]

The game publishers are always looking to milk every last dollar or pound from the consumer. Gamers these days are getting too much value and replay for their money, and the greedy publishers aren't happy about it- not at all. If this is the path they choose to take, the future of gaming is dead. :dead:

[piri_reis]

The game publishers are always looking to milk every last dollar or pound from the consumer. Gamers these days are getting too much value and replay for their money, and the greedy publishers aren't happy about it- not at all. If this is the path they choose to take, the future of gaming is dead. :dead:

No I think the publisher that get greedy like this will die, not the gaming industry.
Most of today's publishers are making a profit right? Let's say they spend $100K to produce a game, and make $150K when they sell it. Most of them must be profiting because if they weren't they would be out of business.

The problem is, this is just not enough for them, they want more! They want to make short/quickly consumable games, and games with subscriptions so they can milk the gamers, alright what a good idea, only we're not cows, just try and see :nope:

[artao]

The more I read about the 'new direction' in gaming, especially PC gaming, the more disappointed and depressed I get. :shifty:
Companies complaining about profits. Fine. They still profit, just not perhaps as much as they'd like to. Well, make better, more original, polished, non-buggy games, and the titles WILL sell better.
I keep thinking about 'the old days' of gaming, before we could download patches and upgrades. Games were released FINISHED and, for the most part, without bugs-a few sometimes crept in, but generally nothing game-killing. These days one can expect the initial release to be buggy, and expect numerous patches to 'fix' it.
I think fondly about games such as the Ultima series (1 thru 7), where each contained hundreds and hundreds of hours of gameplay, with incredible replay value. Heck, I still play Ultima IV thru VII now and then, and they're still pretty fresh every time even tho I know the overall plots. And the Ultima series did just fine financially. Sure, Ultima is online-only now ... I don't play MMOs ... thus I go back to the originals ...
When I buy a game, I WANT the disk ... I want to be able to play it just on my machine without being online ... I want to be able to pull it out and play it again in 15 years or so ... I'm not into 'renting' my entertainment, or companies cutting me off a game I enjoy if/when they stop supporting it ...
But, apparently, developers, or at least publishers, don't WANT us to have games we can play over and over for hundreds upon hundreds of hours. They just want to release the same games over and over again, with maybe 40-60 hrs of gameplay, then update the graphics, slap a slightly different story-line on it, and sell it as a new game. Sure, Ultima was the same story-line too, but at least each new release had hundreds of hours of gameplay in there, plus re-playablility.
As far as simulations, they've always been a niche market, yet they've never gone away. The best sims have always come from companies that clearly love the genre as well. We don't, apparently, currently have that.
I forget where this paraphrased quote comes from, but, "The tighter they squeeze their fists, the more gamers will slip through their fingers."
That's all for now, just my rambling $0.02 ..... :|\\

[rditto48801]

I am a console gamer and a PC gamer, so I won't be to badly effected if the PC gaming industry decides to hang itself.
I for one like having a box/case and disk I can hold in my hand. I like to OWN my games.
I have no idea how long it has been since I have rented a console game or a movie. (A few years at least)

To the subject at hand.
As is, when we pay for PC games, if it turns out to be utter junk, we are basically out of money.
Even if a PC game is junk, we bought it, and the makers take said money, possibly don't bother fully fixing the junk, make another pile of junk, make said junk look good with marketing, promise it works this time, and sell it. People buy it, and by the time bad reviews and word of mouth kill off sales, the company has money to rinse and repeat with some spin.


If there was pay to play, it would have one upside.
Natural Selection. It weeds out the weak, the sick, the helpless, and in my opinion, the incredibly stupid.
Companies would be forced to make games that work and are fun/enjoyable to play, or else they won't make money, and will go belly up, or get gobbled up by the companies that have plenty of money to spare due to putting out working games that are fun and enjoyable to play.


Paying for extras in an MP game to avoid working/grinding for things is possibly another game ruining thing in some ways.
What of people that like to accomplish and achieve things? Where's the point of being the proud possessor of some hard to get item if suddenly anyone can just pay to get it from the start?
What will happen to the quality of such MP games, what will happen to the professionals and the vets that like to work hard to get where they are at, just to find out anyone with a credit card has access to gear and weapons that can foil the best of tactics and strategies, or otherwise ruin a delicate balance in the game?

And what about 'single player' games that have leaderboards and whatnot? How would you even know if you are competing against the score of someone with a lot of skill and hard work, or just someone that spent a lot of money to get things to make things easier for them?

DLC that adds stuff that cannot be 'earned' normally is alright with me in many cases, such as extra maps, or getting a few new toys for use in a single player game. Those more add to things rather than just giving shortcuts or unfair advantages to people with money to spare.

Although, there is one possible exception for me being opposed to Pay to Play.
A company that has already done pay to play, but in a 'good' way.
WildTangent.
I bought a game from them once.
They have a nifty setup if I understand things right.
You can try games they have for free, with 2 free 'sessions' (a session lasting until it is ended/you quit, the game is idle for 20 minutes, or if it has lasted for 24 hours strait).
You can buy 'coins' for additional sessions. The coins are not limited to any single game. If you get coins to play a game, and come to not like the game, you can use the leftover coins to play other games they have. There is an 'option' to play offline (one way transfer of coins from the online account to the game client, so coins can be used when offline). There are 'bundles' to get many coins at once at a discount, so those who play a lot can save some money there.
You can purchase the game, usually by downloading it and buying it to get the unlock code. Once downloaded and unlocked, it has unlimited play, no more sessions/coins, and I think no more online connection needed to play it. There is at least one game I know of they also sold in retail (the one I found and bought in a store).
If you used coins on a game, and then buy it online, a discount is applied based on how many coins you used to play the game previously, so it is also a sort of 'rent to own' sort of thing also.

I guess it is the excellent well working idea that other companies wish to rip off, pervert, break, ruin and otherwise corrupt for their own misguided and selfish reasons.

[Webster]

A company that has already done pay to play, but in a 'good' way.
WildTangent.
I bought a game from them once.
They have a nifty setup if I understand things right.
You can try games they have for free, with 2 free 'sessions' (a session lasting until it is ended/you quit, the game is idle for 20 minutes, or if it has lasted for 24 hours strait).
You can buy 'coins' for additional sessions. The coins are not limited to any single game. If you get coins to play a game, and come to not like the game, you can use the leftover coins to play other games they have. There is an 'option' to play offline (one way transfer of coins from the online account to the game client, so coins can be used when offline). There are 'bundles' to get many coins at once at a discount, so those who play a lot can save some money there.
You can purchase the game, usually by downloading it and buying it to get the unlock code. Once downloaded and unlocked, it has unlimited play, no more sessions/coins, and I think no more online connection needed to play it. There is at least one game I know of they also sold in retail (the one I found and bought in a store).
If you used coins on a game, and then buy it online, a discount is applied based on how many coins you used to play the game previously, so it is also a sort of 'rent to own' sort of thing also.

I guess it is the excellent well working idea that other companies wish to rip off, pervert, break, ruin and otherwise corrupt for their own misguided and selfish reasons.


if you like it thats great but the fact that you cant get rid of things like WildTangent without going through all sorts of stuff is a deal breaker for me.

see here: WildTangent Removal Instructions (http://www.pchell.com/support/wildtangent.shtml)

now im not saying WildTangent is good or bad but anything that is that pervasive and resistant to being removed with normal uninstal process is just a camouflaged type of virus in my opinion.

yes maybe you believe its not harmfull in any way but if it were truely benine then it wouldnt require special instructions like registry editing to get rid of it.

[TteFAboB]

$1 for homing-torpedoes
$2 for improved radar detectors
$5 for 5 more crewman slots, an incredible bargain at only 1$ per crewman!

I can't wait! :arrgh!:

And sure, I'd love playing SH6 in real-time, enjoying the sunset, doing a test-dive, knowing every second is being charged.

I now regret ever giving away many old games I had to poor children through the years, now that I realize that they are a dying breed, in advanced extinction.

These old games are a Museum of Freedom and Success. They are fun, they sold and made money and they can be played whenever, however, wherever, for how long one desires, without a hassle.

If I were a millionaire I'd build a museum of old games, for in 10 years time they will look completely alien to humanity, and I don't mean in terms of outdated graphics and compatibility, but in the spirit that was behind them and their creators.

[rditto48801]

if you like it thats great but the fact that you cant get rid of things like WildTangent without going through all sorts of stuff is a deal breaker for me.

see here: WildTangent Removal Instructions (http://www.pchell.com/support/wildtangent.shtml)

now im not saying WildTangent is good or bad but anything that is that pervasive and resistant to being removed with normal uninstal process is just a camouflaged type of virus in my opinion.

yes maybe you believe its not harmfull in any way but if it were truely benine then it wouldnt require special instructions like registry editing to get rid of it.

Yeah, it likely has its shortfalls (AV programs used to give false positives for WildTagent, for example), but it is one of those 'better than nothing', or perhaps it could even be viewed as a 'lesser of two evils' if the big publishers like EA or Ubisoft decide to go with a Pay to Pay setup.
The basic concept is interesting, at least, and seems less restrictive than what big publishers might put forth if they went with a Pay to Play method of some sort.
That said, the only WildTangent game of theirs I own is one I found at retail (Fate).
I lack a credit card, otherwise I would have more first hand knowledge of the stuff you mentioned and would have tried it out a lot more.

I double checked the uninstall issue, and it seems to be a simple fix. Apparently uninstall problems can come from file damage (AV/anti-spyware programs giving a false positive and quarantining it or deleting some key file?)
If WildTangent refuses to uninstall right, apparently you just 'reinstall' it from the main site to 'fix' the installation, and that it then should uninstall normally. (info found when poking through their Knowledge Base)

*snip*

I now regret ever giving away many old games I had to poor children through the years, now that I realize that they are a dying breed, in advanced extinction.

These old games are a Museum of Freedom and Success. They are fun, they sold and made money and they can be played whenever, however, wherever, for how long one desires, without a hassle.

If I were a millionaire I'd build a museum of old games, for in 10 years time they will look completely alien to humanity, and I don't mean in terms of outdated graphics and compatibility, but in the spirit that was behind them and their creators.

I can agree with much of that. I personally would love to found a company that remakes and re-releases old games, in more or less DRM free formats, along with stable emulators (and be a major supporter of DOSBox), and even 'retro-gaming' machines designed for properly playing old PC games and handling the older OS's.
I have a Sega Gensis, SNES, N64, Dreamcast, etc, and I still play them on occasion, simply because they were fun and enjoyable games.

I have PC games going back to 1994 (and the remains of a PC from 1994 that still sort of worked). I recall when copy protection was nothing more than certain parts of the game popping up and asking a question or requesting a number/word that could only be known by having the instruction manual on hand, or simply needing the disk in the tray.
Of when companies like EA would be more than happy to send you a new CD key just by emailing them a scan of your game disks that you managed to buy used from a gaming store that bought and sold used games in general. Or of playing SH4, and getting the strong desire to toss it aside and dig out SH1.


Back to the topic at hand.

For now, I ponder one of the videos linked to on this site. Of a sub captain looking through his periscope, when suddenly 'something' blocks the view as he lines up an enemy ship, and the captain apparently starts asking the crew if they have money. :o

And if Pay to Play becomes a standard thing in the future...
How far could it possibly go? How far would greed and ignorance drive them to go?
Will there be day that computers will require a change machine and credit card reader as standard equipment for games to even install?
Will arcades return, but in a form where PC gamers need to take their PCs for inspection, while also getting ID checks and strip searched, with armed techs tearing open and hooking up PCs to a special server? All just to play a game the gamer owns, or even to be able to play a Pap to Play game, where the actual games never actually get installed on the gamer's PC?
Console gamers will be happy at home, while PC gamers slave away at corp run gaming cafe's, not just worrying about that foul mouthed newbie on the other team in a death match, but the jerk in the next cubicle over that won't shut up about how many people he has tea bagged that day alone or trying to focus as the guy down the row screams gibberish as medics attend to them as they yell out about another EDOD (energy drink over dose) victim, and the nearby drink vendor jokes about 'another satisfied customer'... :-?

:shifty:

Okay, maybe it's a bit outlandish, but when money makes the world go round (for those with to much money and power, that is), it makes one wonder of just how far game publishers will go in the future. And I now wonder how long it might be until PC gaming is strangled by greedy companies, with console gaming also taking a possible big hit, and board games and maybe even old fashioned arcades making a big comeback. :-?

[longam]

The guy who was so stuck on the farm game has no clue about the other games. He must have come from HABO.

[JScones]

I can agree with much of that. I personally would love to found a company that remakes and re-releases old games, in more or less DRM free formats, along with stable emulators (and be a major supporter of DOSBox), and even 'retro-gaming' machines designed for properly playing old PC games and handling the older OS's.
I have a Sega Gensis, SNES, N64, Dreamcast, etc, and I still play them on occasion, simply because they were fun and enjoyable games.

I have PC games going back to 1994 (and the remains of a PC from 1994 that still sort of worked). I recall when copy protection was nothing more than certain parts of the game popping up and asking a question or requesting a number/word that could only be known by having the instruction manual on hand, or simply needing the disk in the tray.
Of when companies like EA would be more than happy to send you a new CD key just by emailing them a scan of your game disks that you managed to buy used from a gaming store that bought and sold used games in general. Or of playing SH4, and getting the strong desire to toss it aside and dig out SH1.
Have you ever visited gog.com? gog stands for "good old games". Old games, already pre-programmed with DOSBox and ready to simply install and play. Cost $5.99 or $9.99 per title, which is nothing for that great game from the 1990s (they've just put up Caesar 3 - a game I had all but forgotten about but one I played for many an hour back in the day).

[kylania]

Just remember, it started from Steam and now the companies are using their own versions and slowly pushing it further and further up you.

Steam and this Ubisoft DRM are not in anyway the same. Steam has methods for you to play offline, UPlay doesn't. Steam also has a lot of really great value sales and introduces a lot of unknown and wonderfully made games to people. Lets you store your INSTALL on their servers so you can play from anywhere.

Steam = good
Ubisoft = pure selfish and stupid evil