The case against making games able to be owned (pay once for unlimited usage)

[UnitSmiley]

richardhutnik said:

UnitSmiley said:

richardhutnik said:

KungKras said:
All I can do in these discussions is to ask. What separates games from comic books, music CD's, books, and so on. Why should games be any different?

It all depends on the lobby involved and what laws they pass.  Libraries aren't allow to lend out computer software, but the can do video games.  If you look at it now, there is active supporters, on here, who actively agree with ending used game sales.  Any industry will push and push and push to get what it wants.  The would actively rather do away completely with even ownership, if they could and switch to a subscription model.  Look at what Sony pushes, with Playstation Plus.  There is a strong push also for MMOs, because that means a steady stream of income to for those making software.

Just to adress your bold. There is no "strong push" for a subscription fee in MMOs. In fact, it's the very opposite. Many MMOs are switching to (and even launching with) a F2P model. Many players chose to spend a lot of cash for the ingame cashop (vanity items, consumables ect).  Mmos like DCUO and LOTRO have gained a HUGE number of players and have wildly increased profit gained since becoming F2P. One of the most anticipated AAA mmos on the verge of releasing is Guild Wars 2, which will be F2P.

Two factors are at work here (well more than two, but I will add this second to here).  There is the desire of companies to push people into a subscription model, so they get an ongoing regular revenue stream, and not the pay once after it gets out the door, and people then own a license for content where they can transfer it.  The other factor is the market reality of too much content, which is pushing PC gaming into a place, based on what you had with app costs, where it is hard to get anyone to pay for anything.  Between these two realities, you do see MMOs being pushed into a free model, where once they get you hooked, you then either get micropayment'd to death, or you then sign up for a subscription.  These two realities are at work.  In the case where the platform is controlled really tight, like with consoles, companies will be pushing a subscription model, to get regular revenue.  When faced with an open platform, like the Internet, they are forced to go micropayment, and have players play later.

In both cases, the subscription and FP2 now, the idea is to get players into a place where you keep extracting money from them on an ongoing basis so they keep paying to play, and you keep you developers funded.  Whatever they charge will be whatever they can get away with and what the market can bear.

Ah I see, so you are saying that the console market and pc markets are different. Which means that the method of exctacting money from the player may differ, but that the goal is still the same.

But even with the consoles. Nintendos online (however basic it is) is free. Sonys online is free (not REQUIRED to have PS+ to play games online) and only Microsofts online is requiring the player to pay to be able to play games online.

I agree that markets between PC and consoles may be slightly different, but most MMOs are going F2P (with the option of spending cash on microtransactions, it isn't required) and 2/3 consoles online services are also F2P. I'd say that the industry as a whole (games in general) are moving towards a F2P platform and any subscription fee added wouldn't be a necessity, but rather paying for "extra" services much like PS+