imaging logging into the internet and going to vgchartz.com,

once you get there you reach a gate and you have to pay 50 dollars to enter.

the site runs fine, provides news updates ect. and then the owner shuts it down and directs users to a new website called VGGraphs.com, but there's a gate, for the first 3 monthes the entry to access and use the site is 50 dollars, the price declines over time.

I usually refine my posts, checking grammar, ect.

But I've been thinking about this for a while and I'm suprised people haven't said anything similar loud enough/ not a lot of people.

Imagine the whole internet was pay a premium per website, after having bought the "console" to access it.

I'm not going to be buying any more consoles in the future if I can help it to have the self-control and will power.

If I do I'd want a reasonable pricing stucture, simliar to cable tv, cable internet, telephone bill.

unlimited games for a monthly fee - it's reasonable.

30-50 dollars, how much cable tv/cable internet costs (either seperately or combined)...

gives more value than 5 to 15 to 100 hours for the money than a single video game typically offers.

it doesn't make sense to be unquestioning and continue in this model.

(may'be i'll edit this in the future) (this was mostly just a flow without using backspace, for the most part)

(if i didn't rush this out typing i wouldn't post it and just let the frustration muster)

thats cloud gaming and if one of the Big three which are certainly looking at it are able to make a cloud base gaming system were you pay an monthly fee and play as many games you want streamed to your TV it would be great. 

problems with that is the Internet is too slow and downcaps too small. but the future is the future 

You could still have a "pay for each tittle" cloud-based system tho.

It's called Gamefly. 

And no, it's not reasonable pricing structure.  Developers are already having trouble making money as it is and doing your structure would cripple the industry.  Say I buy 3 games a month, that's $180.  You want people to pay $50 a month, making companies lose $130 of profits.  This month I have played $240 worth of games.  That's $190 companies will lose, it would never work.  The only thing plausible is to have each publsiher have their own pricing system, so you'd buy an EA, Activision, MS, Sony, Nintendo, etc... monthly subscription and the cost would be ridiculus, especially if you don't play many games that month, like last month, I only beat 1 game.

Drop the 5-15-40hr long storybooks and value replayability over the temporary badassery you felt.

Then and only then do games blow every other entertainment medium out of the water $/hr.

Some modern gamers scoff when they hear people paid the equivalent of £100-$200 for a 16bit game like Street Fighter 2. What they fail to understand is that, at the time, SF2 and others had far more replayability than the 40hr long(tops) dogshit that is served up these days.

I'd be insulted to have some storybook-one time play game like Bioshit on the same shelf, at the same price, as a CoD, WoW, Halo, Kart etc...... and then they have the cheek to complain about used games.

No i would hate that tbh.

If that happened then the would be a serious DOWNGRADE in game quality. Honestly why would a dev poor his heart and soul into a game when a dev which just chungs out any old crap gets the same money?

How will the money be split between the devs. What if a game is played by 10,000,000 people and another by just 10,000 people. Will the be a way for the devs to get more money out of the game?

3 games per month is well over the average. Let's say a console is actively used for gaming just during about three years. The average gamer would buy a game less than every three months.of use and that's using an end of generation attach rate of 10.

Companies would profit over the average gamer $1800 after three years in software alone. That's triple the ammount of an attach rate of less than $600. It would be much better to them. Of course I could see them agreeing in something like that only if profits are properly split by the popularity of the games.

If you don't like Bioshock that's your problem only sir, and you should keep your insults to yourself. Mind you that people might have similar opinions about the games you praise and obviously prefer. Would you like to hear them speaking their minds? I guess not.

Oh, we don't insult games we dislike on forums anymore? Sorry, I didn't get the memo.