Mp pay for play - would you?

[theavonlady 2]

I clicked "I would refuse to pay", but I think that if I only had to pay to play online, and the game itself was free, then I'd pay up to $10 a month. I just don't like being charged twice for the same service.

Of course, this wouldn't work very well with games that had single-player components.

Assume there is an SP component in the game.

[blackdog~ 0]

I would NOT pay. Two people in my household play OFP already, we will NOT pay. I am already paying over $99 a month for the dedicated server and I'm not going to spend any more.

[theavonlady 2]

I would NOT pay. Two people in my household play OFP already, we will NOT pay. I am already paying over $99 a month for the dedicated server and I'm not going to spend any more.

Just for clarification: I am not talking about OFP, in case that was an assumption.

[killswitch 19]

I find myself reluctant to answer anything but a firm "No" on this. The reason being that the four first points are "academic assumptions" or, as I would express it, "something only a suit-wearing capitalist hippie high on glue" could reasonably believe in:

...

1. the game is great,

2. the code is very stable,

3. tech support is supreme,

4. the game will be around for years to come,

...

See, companies are bound by law to do one thing, and one thing only: make more money. While a game might be great, points 2-4 will inevitably fail in reality.

Case in point: Cornered Rat's "WWII online". Its, what, two years since release and still a steaming pile of something you dont want to step in. This is but one of the many subscription-based abominations that keep popping up. Sadly, this seems to be where it's headed. And do believe me, that you will never get a good software product, even after having spent $500 over the years for it. Corporations and software quality dont work together in the same sentence. It's up there with "peace in our time".

Now, don't get me wrong. I suppose that in a world where we could have honest companies giving us all that Avon listed, I'd see it as an alternative to a one-time purchase. I just dont see it happening in a satisifying way for customers. As a company, I'd do exactly what they are trying to do right now, i.e boil the frog slowly and promise all suckers out there that things will be better if you "hook up with some of my fine shi*".

Remember, the first ride is for free, kids.

[theavonlady 2]

I find myself reluctant to answer anything but a firm "No" on this. The reason being that the four first points are "academic assumtions"

Yes. I am intentionally trying to make an assessment based on a theoretical, maximally optimized scenario, where the developer/marketer has done the maximum possible to the customer's satisfaction.

So the only factor remaining is really the financial willingness of the player to agree with this payment scheme and, if so, to what extent.

[drewb99 0]

I once had the opportunity to try Earth & Beyond for a 14-day trial- I'd probably pay $10 or $20 for a month or 2, but it isn't interesting past that. The problem with most MMORPGs is that they're all RPGs

[edc 0]

I wouldn't be willing to pay, regardless of how many bugs (or lack there of) there were. Something like that would absolutely kill the number of people playing MP. I'd rather just pay more to purchase the game.

[GoOB 0]

I once had the opportunity to try Earth & Beyond for a 14-day trial- I'd probably pay $10 or $20 for a month or 2, but it isn't interesting past that.  The problem with most MMORPGs is that they're all RPGs  

Ehehe, that is why they have "RPG" in the title. MMORPG

There are others, like planetside (wich has RPG in influences) and WW2 Online.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]So the only factor remaining is really the financial willingness of the player to agree with this payment scheme and, if so, to what extent.

VERY VERY low thats for me , and probably the majority since not everyone is glued to one game 24/7 until unless its REALLLLLLY GOOOOD , or an exception like OFP

[ralphwiggum 6]

Assuming that:

1. .....

2. .......

3. ........

4. .......

5. .....

6. ........

which of the above poll choices would you select?

to be quite honest, i really hate this kind of question. they remind me of those pesky questions one of my exgirfirend used to ask me "will you save me if i started drowning while swimming?", "will you..." blah blah blah blah.

i play SP and MP, but not often enough to justify paying for monthly fee even if the assumptions were satisfied. as hellfish6 said, unless the game was free, i would have hard time to subscribe, and even if it was, i'd be hesitant.

[theavonlady 2]

to be quite honest, i really hate this kind of question.

Who cares, as long as you answered it, which you did.

[Blink Dog 0]

I used to play alot of Everquest but stoped doing so when in my opinion they ruined the game balance and started raising the monthly fee. I voted $5 U.S for such a game, but I would have to add that the either the game includes some single player ability, basic editor or the software itself be free.

[Heatseeker 0]

No. There should always be free public servers for all games where players can play with user made maps/missions and mods .

Pay for play=ghey!

[theavonlady 2]

/bump

More votes welcomed.

So far, things are pretty much what I expected.

Keep those cards and letters coming, folks.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

No.

[Bernadotte 0]

Here are 2 "what if" questions:

1.  What if a reasonable portion of the revenue went towards paying prize money to the games top players?  Perhaps the games best 25% would not even have to pay for the following month.

2.  What if online game levels featured ingame commercial advertising as an alternative to paying?  I suppose it would be like commercial TV vs pay TV.  Would that be a troubling development?  (Is anyone already doing this?)

[theavonlady 2]

Here are 2 "what if" questions:

1.  What if a reasonable portion of the revenue went towards paying prize money to the games top players?  Perhaps the games best 25% would not even have to pay for the following month.

It's not the case.

Quote[/b] ]2. What if online game levels featured ingame commercial advertising as an alternative to paying? I suppose it would be like commercial TV vs pay TV. Would that be a troubling development? (Is anyone already doing this?)

This too is not the case and wouldn't really fit in with the gameplay.

I think someone tried this years ago and got nowhere. Anyway, there's always GameSpy!

[toadlife 3]

The majority of the world is on 56k and no one would pay up for a LAGGY session... if its free people would have a go yeah but paying on 56 k isnt suitable.

Is that really so? How do you define majority? I'd really like to see numbers on that one. You can only count ppl being online on a regular basis for that numbers. At least here nearly every second person has internet and nearly none of them has modem anymore, isdn/dsl all the way ;)

Where is the 'here' your are reffering to benu? In the United States there are MANY MANY places that don't have broadband yet. It's due to us being so spread out....

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

Internet Connections at home

Broadband..................38,957

Narrowband.................69,647

Source: Nielsen//NetRatings, May 2003

http://www.nielsennetratings.com/pr/pr_030618_us.pdf

[Bernadotte 0]

It's not the case.

Umm... If it were the case then they wouldn't be called "what if" questions, would they?  

[theavonlady 2]

It's not the case.

Umm... If it were the case then they wouldn't be called "what if" questions, would they?  

Yeh but this is my thread!

Anyway, the poll is for an actual game. The game will not have commercials.

The main goal of my poll is to see the maximum number of people willing to spend a sum of money for an MP subscription service, with an assumption that they really like the game and there's nothing from the developer's/host's side that is technically detracting.

That's why gripes about 56K'ers are quite legit for this poll. Part of the market has that problem no matter how terrific a game itself might be. That is a real life limitation on the potential player's side - something the developer has to consider.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

No time to play - not worth it.

Consider this: you go to work at 8.30am, you are there until 5.30pm. YOu get home at 6pm, completely knackered. Then you have to cook dinner. Then wash the dishes (you may have to do this before dinner as well). By the time you are finished it is 8pm. Then you watch news. 8.15pm. To be ready for the next strenous day, you have to go to bed at 10.30pm to 11pm. It is hard enough for me as a single guy to fit in 2hrs of playing time, considering I also want to have a bit of a life. For someone with a family, this is next to impossible.

Weekends, you may ask? Like I said, I want to have a life, too Same thing with family men/women. Whilst online play would work well with children and students, I can't see working men+women or family people using such a service much - it is simply not worth it.

[ozanzac 0]

I would Definantly never pay to play online.

Firstly, if say a server provider wants to find revenue, they can do it by advertising e.t.c, that I don't mind. But I enjoy money in my pocket for Real world activities. I could live missing out on MP PC gaming just as I had when I didn't have a decent PC. Pure and simple.

Secondly, I would't like the method of payment, seeing as it would probably involve me giving bank and credit card details to parties other than me, my bank or a trusted financial manager.

Thirdly, what would be my rights should ever the company running the gaming servers abuse their position. It's not like I can go to the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumers Commision) and make a complaint for which they can impose fines or punishments for poor service. At least with my ISP, I have somewhere to go should I feel that I've been under done by. On the multi-inter-national internet, where can I go, the UN?

Fourthly, I wholeheartedly beleive the internet is free. I pay my ISP to access it, and thats the only charge I'm willing to concede for anything internet related (except hardware and protection software), no matter what the service is.

Fifthly. If I wanted to pay for MP gaming, it would be $10 a month at the Arcade for one lock-in session per month. More games, and real interactions with people.

Sixthly. I play a couple of other games online. If they started charging money, what would I be working for. Just to play games. Pffft. No thanks.

Seventhly. It's an invitation for More spam in my inbox. No thanks.

Eighthly. You have no idea how pissed off I was when I discovered payTV still had paid advertisments. I thought that's why I paid, to get rid of the ads!!!!!!!

I think that pretty much covers why I absolutly hate the idea of paying for online MP gaming.

[Bernadotte 0]

...Anyway, the poll is for an actual game.  The game will not have commercials.

I see.  So this is a bit like an informal focus group study.

Btw, I hadn't envisioned commercial TV-type ads in games, but rather posters and billboards.  I've just finished Raven Shield SP and those levels were often full of such ads, but the companies were all bogus.  Substituting genuine brands might have earned UbiSoft some genuine ad revenue, methinks.

[theavonlady 2]

Interesting points. Some comments:

Quote[/b] ]Thirdly, what would be my rights should ever the company running the gaming servers abuse their position.

Chances are, at the worst, you're out $10. Again, just for the sake of this poll, the assumption is that the software, server and support quality is to your satisfaction.

Quote[/b] ]Fourthly, I wholeheartedly beleive the internet is free.

It could be argued that the Internet is still free but the privately owned software and hardware running the servers isn't.

A commercial establishment is providing a service, time and equipment that has nothing to do with your contract with your ISP and this establishment is entitled to be paid for it. That is not far-fetched.

The question is more whether the suggested payment method, by monthly subscription, will work, versus just charging for the game at purchase time from the store shelf.

[theavonlady 2]

So this is a bit like an informal focus group study.

More like a market sector sampling.

Quote[/b] ]Btw, I hadn't envisioned commercial TV-type ads in games, but rather posters and billboards. I've just finished Raven Shield SP and those levels were often full of such ads, but the companies were all bogus. Substituting genuine brands might have earned UbiSoft some genuine ad revenue, methinks.

Games could also consider doing what movies do today. That is, use brand name props, whether it's a Swatch watch, a Toyota car, a Samsung cell phone or Heinz ketchup.

In any case, none of this is applicable for this particular game.