🚀 go-pugleaf

"Dean Siren" <d...@iu.net> wrote in message news:<ub1n185...@corp.supernews.com>...
> Free is fun, but when people must pay, pay PER play has decades of success
> behind it.  That was how arcade games worked, how movie theaters still work, and
> essentially how Blockbuster works.  It's also how candy, soda and beer work.
> People like to get the latest entertainment for pocket change.
> 

I'd have to disagree with this one.  Most of the gaming public
(consoles or PC's) seem to prefer a one time fee then free play from
then on as opposed to a continous small fee to play.  One of the main
reasons why arcades were successful in the past was because of the
wide quality gap between them and home consoles.  Now that the gap is
removed, most people prefer paying a one-time fee to play.  For
example, most would rather buy a console and games (pay once) than go
to the arcades (pay for each play).

And it's not just gaming.  Look at Divx movies as opposed to DVD. 
Although the price of a Divx movie was cheaper, the idea that you
would have to pay again for subsequent viewings turned most people
off.
 
> 
> >> That goes for PC's or consoles.  Could you
> >> imagine if someone tried to charge for an online FPS deathmatch on
> >> PC's?
> 
> Not on PCs, but Doom might've become popular as an arcade game.
> 

Right, like I said, nobody wants to pay to play.  The only type of
game that has really crossed that hurdle is something in-depth like an
RPG.  Something that involves a lot of time to play or is ongoing. 
I'm not entirely sure why, but that seems to be the way it is.

As for Doom's popularity as an arcade game, it basically did that.  I
remember at least 2 arcades that ran PC networks that you could pay to
play games like Doom, etc.  I still seem some stores that do it, in
fact (ie, Wizards of the Coast, amongst others).

But at home, online?  I still doubt any FPS could break that boundary
now and successfully charge to play an FPS at home.  Once that initial
(expensive) purchase is made, people expect the online gameplay to be
free.

> Exactly.  That's why the only hope for online gaming is as the primary feature
> of the next generation's consoles.

Agreed.  I still think if Sony had done it instead of Sega, it would
have been a success this time.  I think if Sony had online features
out of the box at launch with games to play, they would have been
successful.