I have mixed opinions on the subject.
To be honest I don't see this working very well to be honest. I, like many people do not care for the whole "free to play, but buy items to progress" model. As they even say above the idea is pretty much to break the "moneywall" and get people to pay more than the general $60 price of admission (as if DLC wasn't already doing this) that isn't going to work for a lot of people.
Consider that some of these games touting "more players than WoW!" are gaining a lot of those players from eastern markets. The Eastern and Western mentalities when it comes to such things are very differant. One of the major differances being that Westerners expect what amounts to a level playing field at least to start. Easteners do not. The "pay as you go" type format gives people with a lot of money a decided advantage in these games because they can level up faster, have better items faster, and basically buy their way to the endgame or high PVP ratings. It's also quite possible (and dare I say expected) that those who pay for content are going to "lock out" those that do not.
I think it has a lot to do with a capitolist society (everyone can advance and it's a shark race, but we have a definate belief in fundemental equality) compared to others where people are taught more to accept their lot in life, advancement is comparitively rare, and games like everything else simply represent the social order.
I also think education plays a role. While a lot of people like to say that countries like Korea, China, etc... are ahead of the US in terms of education when it comes to mathematics and such, it should be noted that less of the population is actually educated to any extent (compared to the US where most people are). Look back at things like the SARS epidemic which started with people in China living with their livestock and the scenes you saw there, along with the fact that the Chinese more or less forced their "peasants" off the streets for things like The Olympics to only put their best foot forward. Not to mention the fact that academic competitions are rigged (oftentimes having American public school students going up against those from Genius programs in other countries, as opposed to us putting our best people forward to represent the country) but this comes down to another entire discussion.
At any rate, the guy who has to chase his goat away from his computer, or can only afford to play at a local internet cafe (or Bang as they call them in Korea if I recall) has a definatly differant attitude. Spending a few bucks each time to play a game can be like going to see a movie or whatever, and it's affordable on their pay scale, and really the guy probably isn't smart/educated enough to know when he's getting boned. Not all Chinese are like this of course, but we're talking about those unwashed millions of cheap-labour factory workers that are filling out that gaming population.
Now sure, a game that gets millions of people from a larger population to pay a couple of bucks a day for something new, is going to outperform one using a flat monthly fee, a single high admission price, or both, but you have to look at the cultures who are doing that as opposed to the ones in the civilized Western World (and honestly given the conditions that lead to that cheap manufacturing and such that they exploit, I've long been reluctant to actually consider China civilized... civilization being defined by the most enlightened people on the planet at a time. Leading to concepts like Neo-Barbarism as opposed to actual Barbarism... but that's again another discussion).
I think Korea is a step up from China here on a lot of levels, but still has a lot of the same factors at play. Given that video gaming is akin to a major sport there (which I personally think is kind of retarded. If it wasn't real I'd almost suspect it was something an actual racist would have invented for a KKK pamphlet). I think it's a big deal in part because of the social structure and the amount of "oomph" you need to be able to have to
play games that much.
What does this have to do with streaming games? Well basically I don't think that the Western Market would embrace the way they want to market it, and honestly I'm not sure if I can see it working any other way. Plus developers (who are increasingly greedy) miss the entire "disc in hand" attitude of consumers. The idea that we in the US want a physical product we can keep, and the abillity to take what we see as OUR game and plug it into an old computer and play 20 years later if we get the craving. Just as many people STILL rev up their old Commodore 64s type Load "*" ,8,1 wait for it to say ready and then type "Run" and play their old games (even if they are admittedly becoming increasingly uncommon, there are entire subcultures dedicated to stuff like this and the Apple II), people want the abillity to do that with their old games. You know, when I'm in a nursing home I might just get a craving to play the original Silent Hill and not want to have to pay money again for something I already bought.
Generally speaking game companies are moving increasingly towards online "direct to drive" games for the PC, but I sort of suspect this is part of why Consoles are exploding.
Besides, anyone with half a brain knows that once they lock in a market they are going to want to charge that $60 admission fee and THEN charge for the content. Look at like Champions Online. They seem to want to get $50-$60 for their base software, charge a monthy fee, and then pay extra money to remain competitive.
Oh sure, someone out there will say that this will be great for consumers because of how it will lower prices, but even the sheeple get smart after a while (we always hope). The whole Direct To Drive thing that sold networks like Steam was supposed to lower game prices by cutting out packaging and distributers. In the end all it did was amount to you paying the same thing for a game without a physical copy, with more profits going directly to the producers and developers.
All streaming games are going to do, is be another version of "Steam". Heck, since Steam plays by the rules it isn't even a good way to get around censors and sales regions. I fail to see the point entirely from the perspective of a consumer, though I see why producers and developers who are contemplating a second Lamborgini love the idea.
