Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)
jeff@work.com (Jeff) once tried to test me with:
> and/or h) people who are reasonably concerned that Steam is just
> another step by the software industry towards pay-per-use software
> services that will ultimately cost consumers more than purchased
> software.
Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:
>How do you know it will cost more than purchased software?
Because the whole point of switching to pay-per-use is to increase
revenue. Unless it somehow gets more people to pay for the game, it
can only increase the game's revenue by increasing the amount of money
the average player ends up paying. Since pay-per-use schemes aren't
exactly popular with consumers, they prefer the certainty of fixed prices,
it's much more like that it would be the case that fewer people will be
willing to play the game.
>There's a lot of software I'd LOVE to have a pay-per-use option. There's a
>lot of software I rarely ever use but when I want to use it, I need THAT
>software and it's more or less the only thing that does what I need. If I
>could just pay a nominal fee to use it that one time instead of having to
>buy an unlimited license which I do not need, that would SAVE money.
Sorry, but it wouldn't work that way. You'ld have to pay $50 just to
get the game installed on your machine. You'ld get some "free" play
time included with that, but any additional time would cost extra.
That how the existing pay-per-use games, MMORPGs, work.
In any case, pay-per-use pretty much wouldn't work for most ordinary
game, They don't have much of lifetime on people's computers and are
generally played only once all the way through, if that. There really
isn't a better pricing model than charging consumers a one-time fee for
the game, since they're only going to "use" it once. I can only see it
working with games people play over and over for an indefinate period
of time, like online games.
Valve might be able to convince enough people to play an additional $10
a month to play a game like Counter-Strike online to make it worth while
doing at some point. They'ld only have a fraction of the players they
have now, but it could be a more profitable business. The problem is
that there are lots of other similar games that people can play online
for free. They'd still need to find some way to convince people that
they're offering a "premium" service over thier competitors that's worth
paying extra for.
Ross Ridge
--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/u/rridge/
db //
jeff@work.com (Jeff) once tried to test me with:
> and/or h) people who are reasonably concerned that Steam is just
> another step by the software industry towards pay-per-use software
> services that will ultimately cost consumers more than purchased
> software.
Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:
>How do you know it will cost more than purchased software?
Because the whole point of switching to pay-per-use is to increase
revenue. Unless it somehow gets more people to pay for the game, it
can only increase the game's revenue by increasing the amount of money
the average player ends up paying. Since pay-per-use schemes aren't
exactly popular with consumers, they prefer the certainty of fixed prices,
it's much more like that it would be the case that fewer people will be
willing to play the game.
>There's a lot of software I'd LOVE to have a pay-per-use option. There's a
>lot of software I rarely ever use but when I want to use it, I need THAT
>software and it's more or less the only thing that does what I need. If I
>could just pay a nominal fee to use it that one time instead of having to
>buy an unlimited license which I do not need, that would SAVE money.
Sorry, but it wouldn't work that way. You'ld have to pay $50 just to
get the game installed on your machine. You'ld get some "free" play
time included with that, but any additional time would cost extra.
That how the existing pay-per-use games, MMORPGs, work.
In any case, pay-per-use pretty much wouldn't work for most ordinary
game, They don't have much of lifetime on people's computers and are
generally played only once all the way through, if that. There really
isn't a better pricing model than charging consumers a one-time fee for
the game, since they're only going to "use" it once. I can only see it
working with games people play over and over for an indefinate period
of time, like online games.
Valve might be able to convince enough people to play an additional $10
a month to play a game like Counter-Strike online to make it worth while
doing at some point. They'ld only have a fraction of the players they
have now, but it could be a more profitable business. The problem is
that there are lots of other similar games that people can play online
for free. They'd still need to find some way to convince people that
they're offering a "premium" service over thier competitors that's worth
paying extra for.
Ross Ridge
--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/u/rridge/
db //
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram