It This What UBI Aiming For ?

[walsh2509]

http://www.gametrailers.com/episode/.../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?

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Platapus

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

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.

Originally Posted by Platapus

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.

Originally Posted by Webster

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.

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. 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).

Originally Posted by 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).

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]

Originally Posted by Webster

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.

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.