A View From The Road: The Perfect Subscription

[SwimmingRock]

I am so in love with the idea of this model. I hate playing any game online and frequently feel ripped off when I have to pay full price for a game I just want to play through in single player while knowing they spent a good chunk of development on the multiplayer that I will never use. I'm paying for crap I don't want that's packaged together with things I do want and this model would fix that.

Ofcourse, the question is whether or not developers are willing to let people like me get away with paying less for the same product simply because we're not going to use parts of it. After all, the development costs are the same. Sure, more people might be willing to buy it, but some of the people who would buy the cheaper version are currently buying the full version. I'm not sure the extra sales would compensate the loss of sales per game. Still, I hope they at least try it before worrying about this.

 

[DividedUnity]

Oh god no. First day-one dlc now this. Im all for extensive demos but this will just open the door to more money grabbing

 

[Worgen]

I dont like it, it reeks of renting instead of owning and didnt we already have that conversation with the install limit drm bullshit

 

[Dreyfuss]

I didn't realize that the Starcraft 2 subscription model worked this way. I would be happy to do something like this, even knowing I'll be buying the full game at launch. The only issue I still have with the game is this "map marketplace" BS that they're cooking up...

Just keep in mind it's not Blizzard that chooses what is paid and what isn't or sets the prices, everything is under the map maker's control, Blizzard just takes a small cut of the map maker's earnings for distribution.

Anyway, this model is brilliant. I would still get the $100 collector's edition, but there's absolutely no downside to this pricing scheme, and it would be easier to convince more of my friends to give the game a try.

 

[Therumancer]

I have no major objection to the system as long as it's marketed only as an alternative system and you can still pay a single one-time fee which is no greater than it is now for the entire game right from the get go.

If they were to release that system and make it mandatory it would be nothing but a giant cash grab, and guaranteed it would be abused almost immediatly.

In the final equasion I think the game companies are getting too greedy, there is no real need to change the current "disc in hand, containing a complete game the purchuser can install and play any time he wants"... other than sheer greed. All the microtransactions, paying to unlock stuff on your discs, tiered purchusing models, and other things are just ways of trying to gouge users for more money.

If it was to become mandatory I see the tiered purchusing plan as basically combining the worst aspects of DRM and microtransactions. Eventually it will turn into a method of raising prices, probably with the initial "version" costing as much as a game does now, with each "tier" of unlocks costing the same. On top of this what you puchuse will only be part of the game and you'll be dependant on the company to get the rest.

Inevitably someone will come up with the idea that they can sell the first "tier" of a game and only develop more of it if they sell enough, ultimatly leaving users with partial products.

No matter how they portray this, the potential for abuse is massive if it was ever to replaced regular sales.

That said so far they haven't used it as a replacement (from how things were updated) so really I don't care. They bring it to the US, I'm unlikely to ever use it. I'm pretty sure it would be one of the most epic failures in the industry.

 

[pneuma08]

I agree that such a model would be great because it gives the consumer options, but I'm not convinced it would make more money than the current model. Also, on a slight tangent, more options typically serves to fluster and confuse consumers as well.

It's a grand experiment and I certainly hope that they can refine the model and bring it over here.

Furthermore, I feel the need to point out that the "make more money because more people buy it at a lower cost" is flawed because the former does not necessarily follow the latter. Example: if I sell a million people something at $0.01 profit, I make (significantly!) less money than if I sell something to a hundred thousand people at $1.00 profit.

 

[ZephrC]

Meh, I'm not impressed. First of all it only works if you're certain that the online multiplayer is still going to be good enough a year down the road that it's worth paying money for. That's great for Starcraft, but most games can't really afford to bet on that. So they'll have to keep back other features to encourage people to upgrade, otherwise the community will just completely die as soon as the packaged time in the early boxes starts running out. Then you've essentially just got EA's paid demos.

Also, I think while a lot of people here are fairly educated consumers, (or at least we like to pretend we are and then make impulse buys anyway) most people either just want to buy a game and be done with it, or they are already willing to pay a subscription. There aren't a lot of people in the middle for this to win over, and $30, $15 or even $1 is still more than free, so I don't see it doing much to stop piracy.

I mean, it's a good idea. Options are always nice. I just don't think it will work.

 

[Aurgelmir]

I dont like it, it reeks of renting instead of owning and didnt we already have that conversation with the install limit drm bullshit

Renting instead of owning?

Yeah the cheapest version of the game can be called that. But that version isn't the "full retail version" of the game. It is almost as good, you can enjoy every aspect of the game, but not for the rest of battle.nets existence.
Would you rather pay half price for something that was just half the game? Lets say, just half the Online maps, and Half of the campaign? (Which by the way is something other companies are suggesting)

If you want to own the game, you buy the full priced game! nuff said. You didn't loose anything.

Your argument sounds like:

"I can't afford the full game, but I am sure as hell not going to buy a crappier cheaper one either!"

Or you just totally misunderstand the concept presented here.

 

[PotatoHunter]

...I disagree. I want to pay, like what 50 bucks? Then thats it. And if I want, expansions.

For MMORPG's, I'll pay per month. Because I pay for additional content and balancing and good service. MMORPG subscription = service, you aren't paying for nothing.

And if its not an MMORPG, an RTS or an FPS, I refuse to pay any extra money, especially DLC. I refuse to play any game with DLC that I have to pay for, or I shall wait for the Game of the Year edition for all the DLC (I did that for Fallout 3 and Oblivion), or for mappacks (we can make maps for free on decent FPSs) so why should I pay?

Thus, I pay for the game, only the game, and maybe its expansions if they are worth the money, and for MMO's I will subscribe for the services I receive. Screw that Russian system...freakin Reds.

 

[Omegatronacles]

If there's a down side to all of this, I certainly can't think of one. You get a full game for potentially a quarter of the cost; a company gets to recoup its investments without asking consumers to drop a good chunk of change. Even if many buyers don't upgrade, a lower price means that more people are likely to make an impulse purchase - you make up for the lower price with raw volume of sales.

The downside would be that very few games have real longevity now.

Not counting multiplayer, and I do realise that this is the angle that your article is coming from, it rarely takes me longer than 3 days to complete a game. I have a full time job and a 1 year old son as well, so games aren't my primary focus.

So this business model only works if your game is going to be huge online. But how can you tell if it's going to be huge? Gaming publishers would be taking a risk by presenting their titles for half price with limited play time. And I don't think it would be a risk that pays off.

L4D2, MW2, L4D2, these games, and any sequels they may have, are guaranteed to be big online business. But what about games like Splinter Cell or Crackdown, who's gameplay and style doesn't have the large rabid hype fanbase built around them? Can you guarantee that anyone will be playing these games online in 4 months? And if no-one is playing online, then the publisher has to hope that game sales doubled the expected target, otherwise that's an awful lot of money gone.

 

[Worgen]

I dont like it, it reeks of renting instead of owning and didnt we already have that conversation with the install limit drm bullshit

Renting instead of owning?

Yeah the cheapest version of the game can be called that. But that version isn't the "full retail version" of the game. It is almost as good, you can enjoy every aspect of the game, but not for the rest of battle.nets existence.
Would you rather pay half price for something that was just half the game? Lets say, just half the Online maps, and Half of the campaign? (Which by the way is something other companies are suggesting)

If you want to own the game, you buy the full priced game! nuff said. You didn't loose anything.

Your argument sounds like:

"I can't afford the full game, but I am sure as hell not going to buy a crappier cheaper one either!"

Or you just totally misunderstand the concept presented here.

no the argument here is that your charging 900 for limited access to the game that ends after a set period of time then you either pay 1200 more for real access to it. The real problem with game pricing is its just too high, if it was more like movie pricing then you would get many more impulse buyers but at 60 bucks its costly enough so that someone is going to demand as much as they can for it, and from how this pricing thing works, it doesnt sound like its that good a deal at all for the consumer, because your being charged over that amount no matter how you turn it, its just not all at once.

 

[Plurralbles]

So... to play full star craft and not be removed from battle.net multiplayer... one will eventually have to pay $150 or maybe it'll escalate to 200. I like that... totally. That's TOTALLY FUCKING FINE.

 

[mexicola]

As long as you have the choice between this and the "normal" version, it's fine by me.

 

[jasoncyrus]

No no no and NO.

By accepting this derranged pricing model we are simply giving them even more encouragement to charge obscne prices for games.

Brand new games are $60-$100 now. WTF?! They used to be $40 or less. Anyone whos willing to pay THAT much for a game that barely uses the available technology of today has far too much money for their own good.

Yes, you have money, NO you shouldn't automatically spend huge amounts on normal things. Why? The same reason you don't do it in games. It screws up the economy for that particular item and then people on lower incomes like new players and say...most students find it harder and harder to be able to afford them.

Hell, the $60 price tag has put me off a LOT of games because for $60 I want something with 50+ hours game play MINIMUM. Final Fantasy so far is the ONLY game that would ever qualify for it because of the sheer mass of content. With $60 I can fill the tank on my car and more.

 

[theSovietConnection]

Having recently just gotten back into WoW (courtesy of FanofDeath), I think there is a way this subscription could be improved, and actually any MMO subscription model could be improved. As opposed to buying a subscription that expires 30 days after activation, make a subscription that will last for x amount of days worth of gameplay. I say this because I don't have the ability to put much time into my games, MMOs in particular, so if a 30 day subscription would last me for 30 days worth, I'd feel more like I'm getting my money's worth. I sincerely doubt many, if any, games have a subscription model like that, though.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

You forgot to mention Blizzard's other brilliant subscription scheme, whereby when you purchase the game you get one campaign, and then if you like that you can buy the other two as expansions to see what happens next.

 

[sir.rutthed]

Great idea. I play WOW, but I don't mind a subscription fee because it's constantly being up graded and there's always new content. With a game like Starcraft, this would be impossible but I think Blizz has struck solid gold with this idea. I know lots of people are gonna love the Uber Trial Version, but I'm gonna go collector's edition right off and I think we'll all be happy with this pricing model.

 

[sir.rutthed]

You forgot to mention Blizzard's other brilliant subscription scheme, whereby when you purchase the game you get one campaign, and then if you like that you can buy the other two as expansions to see what happens next.

Standard for any RTS. Buying expansions is the nature of the beast. Besides, it's not like you have to buy the expansions to play the other races in multiplayer. Besides, I think for most people the main appeal of SCII will be the multiplayer, so it won't matter as much.

 

[Alar]

The main thing that bothers me about this is that you have to be online to play -any- version of the game, at least so far as I've read from Blizzard posts. This bothers me, as I prefer my offline single-player mode (I think they said you can only play offline AFTER logging in online and clicking on an option, which pisses me off even more).

LAN support? Forget about it! What the hell is LAN support?

 

[John Funk]

No no no and NO.

By accepting this derranged pricing model we are simply giving them even more encouragement to charge obscne prices for games.

Brand new games are $60-$100 now. WTF?! They used to be $40 or less. Anyone whos willing to pay THAT much for a game that barely uses the available technology of today has far too much money for their own good.

Yes, you have money, NO you shouldn't automatically spend huge amounts on normal things. Why? The same reason you don't do it in games. It screws up the economy for that particular item and then people on lower incomes like new players and say...most students find it harder and harder to be able to afford them.

Hell, the $60 price tag has put me off a LOT of games because for $60 I want something with 50+ hours game play MINIMUM. Final Fantasy so far is the ONLY game that would ever qualify for it because of the sheer mass of content. With $60 I can fill the tank on my car and more.

What?

You clearly don't remember the days of the N64. Games were $80 then.

Hell, WC3 and Diablo II were both $60; Blizzard has been doing this for ages. And SC2 has already lasted me dozens and dozens of hours in beta form.