Poll: Subscriptions for single-player games

[Veret]

This topic generated an explosion of interest when it was posted [http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/05/07/would-you-pay-a-sub-for-single-player/] on Rock Paper Shotgun, so I thought I'd pose it to the escapist community as well.

If a completely single-player, completely offline game required a subscription fee to play, but you kept getting new content each month for your money, would you get it? More importantly, why or why not?

I can see an awful lot of pros and cons for this idea, but I'll weigh in after a few other people have given their opinions first.

EDIT: People seem to be confused about the pricing here, so I will reiterate: The subscription fee replaces the $50-60 you would usually pay for a single-player game at the store. There is no "they make you buy the game AND keep paying for it forever" situation here.

 

[Doctor VonSexMachine]

I don't think I could justify the idea if the only expense was a little extra content each month. Chances are the game couldn't hold my interest long enough to make it past a few updates anyways. I mean, I played fallout 3 for a few months pretty solidly, but I didn't end up buying the expansions. I don't think they would have added a months worth of game play anyways.

I can (barely) understand people paying for multiplayer subscriptions because of the social aspect and grinding to new heights to impress themselves and others. Hell, I'd chip in a bit for my favorite tf2 server, but that's because I friend owns it and I know exactly how much it costs to run and I'd like to keep it going because I enjoy the people who play on it. (But I still haven't found a job for the summer)

 

[Satin6T]

I probably wouldn't, video games are more of a social thing for me now

now if it were something like Brawl that got updates every month
def

 

[Nincompoop]

Yes but ONLY if...

... It really would be worth it. Like, adding new content that kept expanding, and not just tweaks and fixes.

 

[Marter]

No, we already have DLC, which developers can give to people wanting more content. Then it isn't forced, and you can actually make a decision before buying it, and possibly save money if it isn't worth it.

 

[Katana314]

One thing that would work for me is episodic content; if they have a game that's easy to expand on each month, so they come out with new episodes, but you get charged for each one.

Another example might be Gametap, which no one can deny is a pretty good deal; as long as you pay the $10 monthly fee, you get access to some 1000 games, mostly singleplayer.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

No way. Episodic where you download new chunks of a game perhaps, but when I can't play because I'm not paying so much a month then no way in hell.

 

[Dexiro]

Noooo i'm not paying subscription just to keep an offline game.

If i could play without subscription but without the new stuff then sure, but that's basically what we have right now with DLC.

 

[Lucane]

No, we already have DLC, which developers can give to people wanting more content. Then it isn't forced, and you can actually make a decision before buying it, and possibly save money if it isn't worth it.

Yeah that pretty much covers my opinion. Well typed.

 

[jpoon]

Big negative on that, $60 is enough money for any single-player game IMO, most aren't worth that even.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Hell no.

I bought the damn game, it's not electricity where I need more of it.

I buy DLC, that's different.

EDIT: Maybe episodic stuff, but only if each is low priced and they can be replayed and such.

 

[DazZ.]

What exactly is this money going towards?

If it's content then hell no, I'll buy it in episodic/DLC form.

 

[Cherry Cola]

No. That's fucking stupid.

An offline game lasts me a week tops. I'm not going to play it for a week, then wait 3 weeks, just so that I can get 1-3 more hours worth of gameplay for the rest of the month.

 

[Pendragon9]

Sorry, but I hate that idea.

I already paid 60 dollars, screw them if they wanna charge me more. Even if there's extra content, I'd rather buy it at my own discretion then have it forced on me.

 

[NeutralDrow]

A subscriber single-player, completely offline game? How exactly could they even charge that money?

 

[squid5580]

What would stop me from waiting a year, then buying the subscript for a month and playing all the content?

 

[Irridium]

No. No no no no no NO!

The main reason I play single player games is because my internet sucks and frequently disconnects, so it would suck major ass for me.

Plus, thats what mods are for.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

What would stop me from waiting a year, then buying the subscript for a month and playing all the content?

this is a very good point.

i fucking hate subscriptions, this is why i dont play mmo's at all (although TOR is making it very tempting, damn you bioware)

so fuck no

 

[Srdjan]

Fuck no, I won't give them pleasure to rip me off my hard earned money on such lame way.

 

[Veret]

I'm pretty strongly against this idea, but I'm going to play devil's advocate for a while first:

No. No no no no no NO!

The main reason I play single player games is because my internet sucks and frequently disconnects, so it would suck major ass for me.

Plus, thats what mods are for.

This isn't supposed to be UbiDRM or anything. You can play your game offline whenever you want, so long as you've paid the fee for that month. So you would, say, go to the developer's website and buy a month of playing time, which would activate your game for offline play. Then a timer would start (also offline), and after a month the game would deactivate itself unless you paid up again. This is just a suggestion for how it could work; the mechanism could be whatever you want so long as it allows you to play offline.

And amen to the mods thing.

Sorry, but I hate that idea.

I already paid 60 dollars, screw them if they wanna charge me more. Even if there's extra content, I'd rather buy it at my own discretion then have it forced on me.

Let's say the pricing is flexible. Maybe they would take a WoW and start giving out copies of the game for free, knowing that the subscriptions would cover the cost in the end.

No, we already have DLC, which developers can give to people wanting more content. Then it isn't forced, and you can actually make a decision before buying it, and possibly save money if it isn't worth it.

With DLC, the developers only get paid by the people who are willing to shell out for the expanded content, and then only after the fact. If a game had a subscription fee then all of the players would be paying, which spreads out the financial risk by a lot. Each individual player would pay a lot less for each expansion, and the developers would have more money (and financial security) to spend on producing really high-quality updates.

What would stop me from waiting a year, then buying the subscript for a month and playing all the content?

Nothing. The developers would make their money from the people who subscribed on launch day because they couldn't wait, and savvier gamers like you could come by a year later and get a quality experience for cheap. Sound good?

A single-player game has a story to tell. Without that, it is shallow. Adding "content" goes against storytelling. No, and i hope devs never get this stupid idea.

This pretty much sums up my biggest objection to the whole idea. I like to think of the game's "canonical" storyline as whatever was actually in the game the first time I played it, so anything that comes later just doesn't fit in. Constantly downloading plot-essential DLC would completely kill a game's immersion every time you're forced to do it.