BrandX, on Jan 31, 2013 - 1:45 AM, said:
With a subscription model that would be 50cents a day, I dont see the problem with P2P. 50 cents a day is not a lot.
My biggest problem with P2P is that I don't like the feeling of obligation that comes with it. I like being able to hop between my games as I want, and if I'm paying like $15 a month or whatever I'll always feel like I have
to play it, or I'm not getting my money's worth. God forbid if I go on a spree with another game and just squander a bunch of money. I wanna pay when I want and when I feel it's worth it. Every month? Not with how I play games. Nope. If I just paid while I felt I'd still get my money's worth, I'd play for a month or two, maybe three tops. Maybe come back when there's a big patch that really
intrigues me and I feel is worth paying for, I dunno. But otherwise? They're not getting money. They'd also get LESS money out of me in the long run because I spend money on games in bursts. So, I mean, imagine how many players that are exactly like me when it comes to this that they'd be losing, compared to just those that are hardcore P2P elitists that can't even play B2P because they're too convinced everything but P2P is shit.
B2P will get them the largest audience for the longest amount of time. They'll also get way more money from burst spenders like me. I also personally feel that BnS isn't really worth a subscription. Yeah, it's great, sure but... it's not really all that innovative, to be honest. It's not a special kind of different that's really grabby for a large amount of people. B2P and a CS? Hell yeah I'll pay for that.
'Course this'll just be blown off as "IT'S JUST YOUR OPINION YOUR ONLY PROBLEMS ARE OPINIONS" even though I've provided plenty of facts in the past regarding payment methods but yeah
This post has been edited by Vile Samael: Jan 31, 2013 - 2:20 AM