By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
twesterm said:
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.  


Smaller games with little replay value don't sell that much anyway. Games like Mirror's Edge never sold as much as Mass Effect so they never got the same revenur anyway. Bad games are not supposed to sell that much.

It's not just about how much time you spend playing the game but if you played it. I think it would be a great system that could replace renting and could give money to devs instead of giving money to Stores. Also if you want to buy the game nothing stops you from doing so.

There's also one big advantage for devs. Games that cost 60$ are that expensive because of many things including packaging, saving on these could see games sold for way less than what they're sold today so gamers could spend the same amount of money but getting more games. How about not choosing whether you get COD or Halo for but get both for 60$ or just pay your subscription to play the game.

devs don't make that much already, they need publishers and publishers rape them, so gamers can buy less games... with a subscription it would allow more devs to make money since they games would be included in the subscription instead of having to buy it and choosing another because your finances tells you you can afford only one.