A View From The Road: The Perfect Subscription
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
A reasonably priced lump-sum is probably the only thing that'd get me to subscribe to any online game so this seems like a good idea to me.
Well. I dont know what the standard price is for games in russia. If the "trial" version plus the full upgrade is equal to a standard games cost, its great. If the trial+full upgrade is more expensive than a standard game its not.
I can imagine playing SC2 for the campaign, and VERY seldom online with a friend or two...but I'd like the possibility to play it online 2 or even 5 years from now without having to cough up more money than for a regular game.
I can imagine playing SC2 for the campaign, and VERY seldom online with a friend or two...but I'd like the possibility to play it online 2 or even 5 years from now without having to cough up more money than for a regular game.
Just a question, how does this affect Single Player? I'm assuming that Battle.net features would also be disabled (so no cloud saving) but offline play would keep working, correct?
I do have to admit it to be an interesting system, although I have my doubts it will be widely available in the future, since it seems to be bound to undermine Multiplayer longevity for games. (although admittedly, I wouldn't be surprised if several companies actually wanted that)
I do have to admit it to be an interesting system, although I have my doubts it will be widely available in the future, since it seems to be bound to undermine Multiplayer longevity for games. (although admittedly, I wouldn't be surprised if several companies actually wanted that)
I fully agree with this article and have been clamoring about something simmilar for a while now. The cash investment for a single brand new retail game is fairly steep for many people, and often not worth the 10-hour single player that seems to have become the norm in the industry. By providing people with a lower price requirement that lets them play the game the way they want, the publishers indeed stand to make more money.
Unfortunately, this will not catch on. The only reason Blizz is doing this in Russia is because it's basically the Pirate Central of the World, so they're trying to get SOME cash out of that place. Western gamers don't pirate enough for such a model to be considered for them...
Unfortunately, this will not catch on. The only reason Blizz is doing this in Russia is because it's basically the Pirate Central of the World, so they're trying to get SOME cash out of that place. Western gamers don't pirate enough for such a model to be considered for them...
Ultimately, it's an experiment. Personally, I don't think it will work too well. That said, I'm not going to complain about Blizzard giving it a go.
That said, if they decide somewhere down the line to pull the "pay once" version, I'm going to be an unhappy bunny. (Even if it's only in Russia)
(Off topic: anyone heard anything on the UK price for the Collector's Edition?)
That said, if they decide somewhere down the line to pull the "pay once" version, I'm going to be an unhappy bunny. (Even if it's only in Russia)
(Off topic: anyone heard anything on the UK price for the Collector's Edition?)
AFAIK, offline (as The Guest, at least) is full and not time limited with this model.Xocrates said:
Unless I'm mistaken, the math you've provided means getting the game in full (no limits to play times) costs ~75 bucks, and that's not even considering the fact that you're gonna have to buy the expansions if you want to keep up with multiplayer (I won't even get into the issues that arise from planning expansions/DLC for a game before it even comes out). I dunno if that's standard in Russia, but if I had to pay that much and knew ahead of time that I'd need to buy 2 more expansions to get the most of it, I'd probably hold off until the battle chest comes out.
I doubt that price points are finalized, especially upgrade. It makes little sense to ask for more than full retail price. I think this model would work well for selling games in poorer countries, but in the "west" not so much. For publishers/developers that is. Localized prices are something that is missing right now. In Poland due to effort of local publishers like CD Projekt new PC games are very cheap. 25/30 euros is a steal when most games on steam are 50 flat. Sadly this is not the case for console games with makes them essentially twice as expensive. average Joe earns about 400 euro/month. Cheaper localized games would definitely help rampart piracy in this country.
Not a shabby way of doing it.
Its not like the game is full priced for half a game, its half the price for all of the game, for just a shorter time.
I think we would be seeing less need for the silly day-one-DLC stuff, if games were cheaper.
But it means the game needs to have more than 4 months worth of game-play though, or certain restrictions to lure people who liked the game into buying the full version.
In the end, I am all for different payment models, as long as they are fair.
Its not like the game is full priced for half a game, its half the price for all of the game, for just a shorter time.
I think we would be seeing less need for the silly day-one-DLC stuff, if games were cheaper.
But it means the game needs to have more than 4 months worth of game-play though, or certain restrictions to lure people who liked the game into buying the full version.
In the end, I am all for different payment models, as long as they are fair.
What a brilliant way of ripping even more money from gamers, Blizzard. No, really, respect. Impressive business.
I think that this is an amazing idea - were this plan used in the US, I'd be much more inclined to buy the "demo" version of the game without ever having to worry I won't like the whole thing or stealing it (probably to play it once or twice and never touch it again).
And the example you used for Battlefield and Left4Dead 2 makes the whole thing seem even more brilliant - I'd definately like to get around to trying out the modern battlefield gunblamdeath games some day, but don't exactly have the means to spend ~$100 on them. If I could buy a copy to effectively just try them out at a much lowered cost, the studios and publishers are happy that they get some money and I'm happy in that I get to try the game. Win for everyone
And the example you used for Battlefield and Left4Dead 2 makes the whole thing seem even more brilliant - I'd definately like to get around to trying out the modern battlefield gunblamdeath games some day, but don't exactly have the means to spend ~$100 on them. If I could buy a copy to effectively just try them out at a much lowered cost, the studios and publishers are happy that they get some money and I'm happy in that I get to try the game. Win for everyone
I personally love this idea, mainly because I spend time on multiplayer (if at all) after completing all the single player stuff. Also, $20 is a lot easier to fit into monthly finances, than a full $60.
My hope would be that the digital download version would be in jewel-case prices.
My hope would be that the digital download version would be in jewel-case prices.
Personally, i think its a great idea, because, as mentioned, it gives the consumer options, 10 quid for a game ur not sure about would definately convince me to at least try it, anf hey, if I like it then yeah I'll upgrade, IF its a game I want to play online, or I need to because of DRM crap, providing the upgrade doesnt push the price over the full game price we pay now. I'd love to see this model introduced in the west as I see it stimulating the games market by helping "chuck" make the most of his disposable income.
Lets face it, I know the I personally, and probably many others, hate when u buy a game for £40 odd and it turns out to be shit and sits on the shelf unplayed, it feels like a waste of money.
Lets face it, I know the I personally, and probably many others, hate when u buy a game for £40 odd and it turns out to be shit and sits on the shelf unplayed, it feels like a waste of money.
