MDMAlliance said:
Obviously you didn't even read what you said yourself with that last point. You were talking about them deciding what is added for things like DLC. If only subscribers had a say, that would definitely not represent people as a whole. If DLC was supposed to be a pull factor, why limit input from people who are already subscribed? I am not entirely sure you know the exact expenses of doing all of this on a regular basis. If it were to be something they wouldn't put much effort into, why make it subscription based? If it were to be worked on a lot, it doesn't matter if it's online or the game engine was already developed, $2 a month from 2,000,000 people = $4,000,000 a month. $4m revenue, minus the costs of paying all these people working on it, plus the costs of hiring people, plus the operating costs that would come up for having something separate for those subscribers. Even if it turns up in profit, the profits would be very small. Not even worth the initial-cost investment that is sure to create a loss at start if subscription were to be $2.
|
The DLC would only be available to subscribers, since they're the ones funding it. If non-subscribers wish to have a say, they have to subscribe. The point is that it provides a platform to maintain games that a group of people are willing to pay a little extra for, and the pull experienced would be from other purchasers of the game who enjoyed it and would like to see more.
You'd only be hiring people for the initial period. Afterwards, the subscription rate pays for these wages. You tell me how many in wages you believe would be required for an additional level for an already established game. A month's wages for 1 or 2 level designers?
The idea is NOT to make too much of a profit. In fact, if the idea worked properly it should be investing more towards further sales through upkeep of existing software. The investment is to steer their existing library towards something that can potentially drive more profit in the long run.
