Go Back   Steam Users' Forums > Steam Discussions > Suggestions / Ideas

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-06-2012, 02:45 AM   #61
bullexcrements
 
 
 
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2011
Reputation: 67
Posts: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoraustin5 View Post
god op, i hope a game never ever EVER goes with this idea.
I wouldn't be so sure about it. I see in my imagination the company like Activision adding this model to some new CoD - people would jump in this in the minute, I gua-ran-tee you that :P

And by people I mean dumb, overpayed s or their stupid children, who just can't stand without daily dose of their virtual drug. I wouldn't buy any game with this kind of payment method.
bullexcrements is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2012, 03:09 AM   #62
SavageCorona
 
 
 
Join Date: May 2012
Reputation: 0
Posts: 13
So I have to pay to play a game I already paid for? This is a ing idea.
SavageCorona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2012, 01:06 PM   #63
jacek2144
 
Join Date: May 2010
Reputation: 66
Posts: 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by TotalWarWally View Post
Not sure if this idea has been suggest before but i'd like some feedback.

I recently read how SEGA though CreativeAssembly gave too much to players of their Total War series, implying they should just give a minimum and pump the game sales!

This might make sense for a multinational game developer but for gamers this just means cheap play-once crappy games! But if a pay-as-you-play system was setup then developers AND players would benefit from addictive, mass-replayable games.

Money would be stored in a steam account and every time you play (fully without crashing), say, $1 dollar is removed from your account. Intial cost of a game could be dramatically reduced .. .. maybe? so encourage more people to buy games! A certain piece of code would need to be downloaded each execute to make the game run and anyone trying to run a game offline would be hunted down by steam-warg Riders!

The more talented developers would be rewarded more, while duds would not, a pure capitalist game development system?

Sounds good to me!

TWW.
Ugh worst idea ever!
jacek2144 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2012, 01:15 PM   #64
KnownUnknown
 
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2012
Reputation: 204
Posts: 510
The only way I'd even tolerate this is if we didn't have to pay a total playtime amount worth more than what the game would normally sell at retail. Once I hit that price point, the game is mine to keep and I pay nothing further for it.

Honestly though, the whole idea reeks of "pay-for-play demo", and I don't like the smell of it. Why don't pubs just release an actual free demo and be satisfied with users paying full price for the final product?
KnownUnknown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2012, 01:46 PM   #65
Skars
 
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Reputation: 0
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckethead_Inc View Post
This might be the worst idea anyone's had since they invented bacon flavored toothpaste.
This! lol!!

@topic

You should work at Activision! They will love your idea and will apply in their next games, I'm sure!.
Skars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2012, 06:32 PM   #66
DrHerpington
 
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Reputation: 0
Posts: 12
I would boycott any publisher who adopted this model.
DrHerpington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2012, 07:25 PM   #67
andy rofl
 
 
 
Join Date: May 2011
Reputation: 105
Posts: 308
My insightful and profound opinion: NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!
andy rofl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 04:32 AM   #68
TotalWarWally
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Reputation: 0
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parlock View Post
This would do 3 things:
1) Set a dangerous precedent. We've already got locked-disc content, day one DLC and the state of launch-day games is usually terrible. They're already getting enough of our money.
2) Overprice games like Skyrim or Minecraft. This would make everyone make sandbox games to get people payinh for longer.
3) Underprice short-but-sweet games like Portal. You could play these games in one sitting, so you'd only pay once for this.

No, terrible idea. Sorry.
Of course 1-3 play RPG type games wouldn't be used for this payment method.

Activision! stay within the LIGHT! they're thick as thieves!

TWW.
TotalWarWally is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 04:44 AM   #69
TotalWarWally
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Reputation: 0
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braveheart1295 View Post
Hmm.. trying out a game before you buy it for a paid price... wow, such a brilliant idea. If only there were such a thing as free demos so that people can play a game in order to see if they like it or not...

Some people.. have to wonder about their stupidity.
Oooo! Joined a year ago but only 5 posts, a setup?

Instead of paying $40 for a game upfront, you pay $5 for a FULL GAME and 50c per play / time. That means you will have to play 70 times to break-even. If it's a boring game you'd only play a few times .. SAVING $30!!! huge biccies for a poor teenager.

Of course sellers won't like this system, and i understand how gamers won't like strangers accessing their money just for playing a game .. even if it saves them money. This is understood.

Obviously the wrong time for this model.

TWW.
TotalWarWally is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 06:05 AM   #70
damaged
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Reputation: 8680
Posts: 7,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by TotalWarWally View Post
Oooo! Joined a year ago but only 5 posts, a setup?

Instead of paying $40 for a game upfront, you pay $5 for a FULL GAME and 50c per play / time. That means you will have to play 70 times to break-even. If it's a boring game you'd only play a few times .. SAVING $30!!! huge biccies for a poor teenager.

Of course sellers won't like this system, and i understand how gamers won't like strangers accessing their money just for playing a game .. even if it saves them money. This is understood.

Obviously the wrong time for this model.

TWW.
I'll feed you, one, last, time.

You are completely missing everyone's point, you are assuming we will stop playing at play #69 or #70, what if we play it 200 times? The game developers will know this and work their games so the consumer will have to keep starting the game paying .50 each time artificially inflating the cost of the game.

It's not that it's the wrong time for this model, it's a bad model, at any time, period.

Last edited by damaged: 05-07-2012 at 06:18 AM.
damaged is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 06:36 AM   #71
TotalWarWally
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Reputation: 0
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by damaged View Post
I'll feed you, one, last, time.

You are completely missing everyone's point, you are assuming we will stop playing at play #69 or #70, what if we play it 200 times? The game developers will know this and work their games so the consumer will have to keep starting the game paying .50 each time artificially inflating the cost of the game.

It's not that it's the wrong time for this model, it just that it's a bad model.
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!!"
TotalWarWally is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 06:47 AM   #72
Montyleeny15
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Reputation: 140
Posts: 462
This system is good, but it's too exploitative. What about players who disconnect due to bad internet? Do they have to pay $1 again?
Montyleeny15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 07:04 AM   #73
Anarchisteve
 
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Reputation: 3843
Posts: 1,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by TotalWarWally View Post
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!
What if the player only plays for 30 minutes a time? That would make it 48 hrs for $48, not such a great deal.

Also, why should we pay more for getting full use of our games? What if you buy a DVD and watch it 20 times, should you pay more for that than somebody who watches it only once?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TotalWarWally View Post
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.
Yes, hacks would be an enormous problem. Piracy would most likely be a bigger problem as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TotalWarWally View Post
Looks like replayability is DEAD! Gamers want their one-hit wonders - flashy lights - sales spin - "who's gunna preorder FIRST! YEAHHH!!"
Why is replayability dead?

It seems the problem you are trying to solve is people buying expensive games without doing any research then finding out they've wasted their money on a dud. Why should the rest of us pay for their mistakes? If they don't want to waste their money then they should find out more about the game before buying.
Anarchisteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 07:43 AM   #74
yentass
 
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Reputation: 170
Posts: 392
I think the suggestion is good if reasonable rates could be determined. The one fatal problem is that in order for it to work, this system should be endorsed globally (not only on Steam), and given the fact that the major benefactor of this system is the player and not the developers (most of which aspire to maximize profit with minimum effort, mind you) - the system would never be implemented.
yentass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 07:48 AM   #75
cylon
 
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Reputation: 780
Posts: 3,423
With the 50c per play policy:-

L4D so far has cost me $549
L4D2 so far has cost me $242
TF2 doesn't show game launches unfortunately. (but i have over 10 times game time as the above two combined, so its fairly high!)

Now, i do like L4D and TF2, but in no way are they worth over $1000 together. That's quite some expensive games there!

EDIT: Also makes christmas gifts etc. a little less "gifty". Here son, have this game for $10 and you can pay whenever you want to play it.

Last edited by cylon: 05-07-2012 at 07:53 AM.
cylon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Steam Users' Forums > Steam Discussions > Suggestions / Ideas


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site Content Copyright Valve Corporation 1998-2014, All Rights Reserved.