🚀 go-pugleaf

> 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).

Blockbuster game rentals emerged just as arcades were declining.

Entertainment is often more fun when you aren't worrying about paying each time.
But there are a lot of games that are only fun a few times.  Some games are
intentionally designed that way, and I think Sony is even pushing its 3rd
parties to do that.  People often buy games, but get bored so fast that they
wish they had only rented.  So they can sell the game used.  How would you
duplicate online the act of selling a used game and the act of renting a game?
How would you satisfy those mindsets?



> 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.

I think Divx was based on DVD, which is primarily offline technology.  I think
for any media to become popular with consumers, it has to be primarily online or
offline.  Think of TV and VCR.  Most people have both and use them for "online"
shows and "offline" rental movies but not for "online-offline" recording shows
to watch them later.



>> 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.

Maybe it's like paying for telephone service because you keep getting to meet
and chat with people.



> 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).

Really?  I never saw that.  I've only lived in Florida since 1994, where did you
see it?



> 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.

What if there's no initial purchase?  What if Everquest and PSO cost nothing to
start, only for the subscription?



> 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.

How do you feel they should make the next generation of
hardware/infrastructure/business?