Pay each time you play

[bullexcrements]

Originally Posted by majoraustin5

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.

[SavageCorona]

So I have to pay to play a game I already paid for? This is a ♥♥♥♥ing ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ idea.

[jacek2144]

Originally Posted by TotalWarWally

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!

[KnownUnknown]

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?

[Skars]

Originally Posted by Buckethead_Inc

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!.

[DrHerpington]

I would boycott any publisher who adopted this model.

[andy rofl]

My insightful and profound opinion: NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

[TotalWarWally]

Originally Posted by Parlock

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]

Originally Posted by Braveheart1295

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.

[damaged]

Originally Posted by TotalWarWally

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.

[TotalWarWally]

Originally Posted by damaged

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!!"

[Montyleeny15]

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?

[Anarchisteve]

Originally Posted by TotalWarWally

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?

Originally Posted by TotalWarWally

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.

Originally Posted by TotalWarWally

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.

[yentass]

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.

[cylon]

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.