How does that make a difference to you, the consumer, though? Obviously, the game would have to be quality to hold your interest either way, but does there being a physical space hosting the machine the game runs on, a distributor who brings the new games in and takes the old games out, and maybe a repairman to work on the machines make that much of a difference to your gaming experience?
okay, there's the local business argument. Granted, but what's wrong with the same model direct from the publisher directly to your own hardware you have anyway? I just don't understand why it's okay in one setting but not the other.
well, that's what I'm saying. instead of having to buy the game, you just pay for your use of it. no continuing subscription, no $70+ upfront fee, no paid dlc, just logon, insert your (metaphorical) coin, and play a match.
It makes a difference because software as a service is a tremendously anti-consumer practice. Also, if a purchase isn't ownership, then piracy isn't theft.
yeah, but the arcade was the same way, there were just more middlemen involved is my point.
...and the online portion of any game has been that way for a while now anyway...how many games actually feature user-hosted server capabilities, let alone lanplay (god, I miss that...)?
I dunno about that...it's a model that worked well for quite a long time in the arcade market.
Arcade is different, because you're paying to access a game someone else bought on hardware they own.
How does that make a difference to you, the consumer, though? Obviously, the game would have to be quality to hold your interest either way, but does there being a physical space hosting the machine the game runs on, a distributor who brings the new games in and takes the old games out, and maybe a repairman to work on the machines make that much of a difference to your gaming experience?
okay, there's the local business argument. Granted, but what's wrong with the same model direct from the publisher directly to your own hardware you have anyway? I just don't understand why it's okay in one setting but not the other.
Is this a real question?
"Why does it cost money per-ride to take a taxi somewhere, but I don't have to pay per-ride for a trip in my own car?"
"Why do I have to pay hourly at an Internet cafe when I don't have to pay hourly on my own PC?"
People are okay with paying per-ride or per-time because they understand it's in exchange for exclusive access to someone else's resource.
well, that's what I'm saying. instead of having to buy the game, you just pay for your use of it. no continuing subscription, no $70+ upfront fee, no paid dlc, just logon, insert your (metaphorical) coin, and play a match.
It makes a difference because software as a service is a tremendously anti-consumer practice. Also, if a purchase isn't ownership, then piracy isn't theft.
yeah, but the arcade was the same way, there were just more middlemen involved is my point.
...and the online portion of any game has been that way for a while now anyway...how many games actually feature user-hosted server capabilities, let alone lanplay (god, I miss that...)?