Jazz2K said:
twesterm said:
The problem is how do you decide how that money gets split among the developers?
With many games and third party developers, generally the publisher makes their money back and then developers start getting some sort of royaly from each game (and there are many variations on that). So if EA were take $100 from you to play their backlog, how do you decide who gets the money?
Should that be counted as a sell for all those major games listed? What about the smaller ones? What about the ones I never play? How much of that subscription fee goes to EA and gets split among the chosen developers?
It seems like something like that would only screw the developers.
|
Devs would get more money depending on many things like how many times their games are played and for how long. Also if someone wants to buy their game that person's money would go directly or in part to the devs.
|
Again, shitty system.
It punishes smaller games and games with little replay value. Just because I play through Mirror's Edge once and spend 8 hours but then spend 20 hours on Mass Effect 3 and Call of Duty doesn't mean they should get more money if I actually liked Mirror's Edge more.
And what about bad games that take a long time?
And what if Square Enix decided to do that? That would be great for the Final Fantasies and other RPG's but what about something like Tomb Raider where it will probably take 8-ish hours? Should those developers get penalized? Just because a game is long doesn't make it better.
And money would never go directly to the devs, that's just a sad truth.
