Pay each time you play

[Gustave5436]

Thread should be titled "a modest proposal."

[F-Haters]

This is the most stupid idea on steam they do that ill go else wher and steam will lose sales i am not paying monthly just to play games on my account ♥♥♥♥ that what do i benefit what do devs benifit nothing but money lose is some of this money going to Devs ill also lose out on my accout i ahve alot of money invested in.

[F-Haters]

Originally Posted by TotalWarWally

God how do i answer all this negativity, most trolling.

FIRST, $1 per play was just a suggestion, it could be 10c ?? or 50c .. sheez.

SECOND, what the hell is pay-2-win? I'm talking about pay-2-play.

THIRD, if a game keeps crashing then you'll only play it a few times and put it away - total cost = cheap intial cost + (3 x $1) = SFA.

Fourth, if you play a game > 1000 times surely you should pay more than $100 ?

Fifth, noone owns games on steam, most players buy the right to use the game ONLY.

Sixth, teenagers wouldn't need to hassle their parents each game, as i've said, you'd set up a steam account with $30-$50 in it, try a new game, don't like it = lost $1 (whatever), try next game ..etc. This system would save alot of teenagers paying huge sums upfront to buy 1-play-crap!

Seventh, ARcades were great, put 20c in a machine for a known time period. if you got bored, you went to the next machine - total cost = 20c. Unlike computer games - pay $30, don't like it = tough!

Eighth, donation to developer, what would that do ???? nothing! tell them the reward they will recieve for their game would be based on how many times it is played! .... silence .. horror! ... wheels start turning .. this might work? we'd have to kill all company accountants first ... hmmmm

It would force developers to create addictive games, not 1-play-wonders, addication is good! .. see this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccn9V8V10q4

Arrrh, I get it, alot of posters here are (protecting) game developers who don't want a fair payment system .. ok!.. hmmmm.

TWW.

Who pays for you to play mommy or daddy well guess what bud i live on my own and if this every happened i would
quit gaming and find a better hobby its bad enough some devs i have talked to complain about not making money at all now you wanna do this so what the publisher can take all the cash and divde it how they thinks fit.

[masterchef341]

Originally Posted by TotalWarWally

UG!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq9JaTp7pFo

Ok, 50c per 2 hr gameplay without CRASH!-CTD~

yes, if you play the game 200 times SUCCESSFULLY should you not pay a bit more ??? 50c per 2 hrs, 4 hours per day SUCCESSFULLY, 4 days per week for 3 months = 192 hrs = $48. That's a hell of alot of game time for just $50!

Of course being able to time a player without being hacked etc would be difficult, especially when they're stubbornly opposed to the idea. Wouldn't be difficult for game developers to get kids opposing the idea.

Looks like replayability is DEAD! Gamers want their one-hit wonders - flashy lights - sales spin - "who's gunna preorder FIRST! YEAHHH!!"

This system already exists with a less convoluted implementation. Now you're talking about paying per time. Paying by the hour is too complicated. You'll have tons of transactions, and it will bring up issues regarding whether or not you were playing, AFK, the game crashed, etc.

The way this is done is pay per month. You pay maybe $10-15 / month for access to the game. It does not benefit consumers at all, and the only games that can pull this off are those that are set up with a very long "grind to the top" - because most gamers simply reject the game when they see the cost, and that leaves a small subset willing to pay monthly because they are emotionally / psychologically invested in the grind.

[Shiro1]

No, just no.

[Anarchisteve]

Originally Posted by masterchef341

because most gamers simply reject the game when they see the cost

I've been tempted to try WoW a few times but each time I end up thinking "nah, it's just too expensive".

[synthemesc]

Originally Posted by TotalWarWally

If you don't have enough money to get you through a day then get your life together. get out of the rut. don't work for the man, be the man. learn how to be sharetrader and be one of the 1%.

Implying that you're anywhere near the 1%. Wow... just wow.

Stay classy, kid. Don't forget to kiss your mommy at night and eat your veggies.

[Kelshir]

Arcade this is not.

[Kelshir]

Originally Posted by TotalWarWally

Most gamers are pretty savvy, they'd realise they were being setup and stop playing after a short while. Only addictive games would have the gamer playing on.Saving the gamer money.

I'm not saying this system will be easy, it won't be - convincing people to pay-per-play (time/exec) = HARD, setting up a system that cannot be hacked = HARD. Smart gamers won't like the system because they only buy quality games, and get max hours out of them, giving value for money BUT quality games should have some sort of reward system for developers to produce such quality games. Many gamers have wasted $$$$ buying well promoted dud games, how many games are produced that buyers won't even touch because the inital cost is far too high compared to the guessed at enjoyment return?

When major game developers like SEGA say that games should only have minimum content for max price, you know the gaming industry is heading in the wrong direction. Trying to stop that and return to quality products is the answer, how that is done is the question. Pay per play (time/exec) is just one solution i've come up with, if you have a better solution, I'm all ears. (yes, I know trolls have big ears)

TWW.

First, most gamers would keep launching games and going "oh it is only $0.50" or whatever amount and end up with a large bill. Assuming they like the game.

Second, developers would put bugs into the game causing it to crash at key moments (like right before a big part of the plot is revealed) that would not register and you would have to restart and repay to find out what happened.

Third, this is just a stupid idea.

Edit:
Here is a better idea:
Every time a developer makes a stupid buggy ♥♥♥♥ty game they pay US $1.00 each time we play it.

[Doonbugie2]

CC FEES AHOY

[masterchef341]

Originally Posted by Doonbugie2

CC FEES AHOY

Indeed, if they're going to charge us per launch on each launch, they're going to incur a HUGE amount of lost revenue on transaction fees.

If they're going to bill us at the end of the month, they might as well use a better, simpler metric. Pay per launch, on top of creating a slew of problems, is a really awkward choice of a fee metric, because it simply doesn't map well to usage. Some people might launch more frequently but play significantly less frequently than others. Unless there was some other compelling reason to use pay per launch specifically (if it were easy, reduced some complexity, etc), I don't see why it was even considered.

The reason that pay per real time is used rather than pay per game time is precisely because it simplifies the payment system, and makes charges regular and expected, which consumers prefer. It does this at the cost of not mapping as well to usage as real time would, but it also means that users who pay for the month don't need to manage the cost of the playing the game WHILE they are playing the game. Pay per launch would create more of those types of issues and make payments more irregular, etc. We've gone through this.

[NCPereira]

Originally Posted by TotalWarWally

God how do i answer all this negativity, most trolling.

FIRST, $1 per play was just a suggestion, it could be 10c ?? or 50c .. sheez.

SECOND, what the hell is pay-2-win? I'm talking about pay-2-play.

THIRD, if a game keeps crashing then you'll only play it a few times and put it away - total cost = cheap intial cost + (3 x $1) = SFA.

Fourth, if you play a game > 1000 times surely you should pay more than $100 ?

Fifth, noone owns games on steam, most players buy the right to use the game ONLY.

Sixth, teenagers wouldn't need to hassle their parents each game, as i've said, you'd set up a steam account with $30-$50 in it, try a new game, don't like it = lost $1 (whatever), try next game ..etc. This system would save alot of teenagers paying huge sums upfront to buy 1-play-crap!

Seventh, ARcades were great, put 20c in a machine for a known time period. if you got bored, you went to the next machine - total cost = 20c. Unlike computer games - pay $30, don't like it = tough!

Eighth, donation to developer, what would that do ???? nothing! tell them the reward they will recieve for their game would be based on how many times it is played! .... silence .. horror! ... wheels start turning .. this might work? we'd have to kill all company accountants first ... hmmmm

It would force developers to create addictive games, not 1-play-wonders, addication is good! .. see this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccn9V8V10q4

Arrrh, I get it, alot of posters here are (protecting) game developers who don't want a fair payment system .. ok!.. hmmmm.

TWW.

If you have money to spend you won't mind trying games and checking them blindly. If you don't have that much money you will gather info about it, or even try it before buying it, otherwise you are just dumb.