You can't have the hospital (company) involved, just the employees.
The hospital has a shift and will pay a certain amount. Then, the nurses fight it out in an 'auction.' Nurse A decides to pay Nurse B $50 for the shift. In the end Nurse A gets the extra money for the shift - $50.(Net +) Nurse B gets $50 and some time off.(Net +) And the hospital gets the same. (Net =) Everyone wins.
If the hospital is involved, it gets a discounted shift (Net +) Nurse A gets paid for a discounted extra shift. (Net +) But Nurse B gets screwed out of her shift and is on 'forced vacation'. (Net -)
Get rid of the hospital in the equation and it's fine. However, since that's not the case, it's going to backfire on the labor...bigtime. And we'd going to go through another period of HEAVY unionization in the country.
But what appreciation should we show? What has Valve done that is so excellent?
1. They made Halflife, an excellent single-player game that deservedly won many Game of the Year awards 5-6 years ago. It had an excellent story line, and some good AI for some of the enemies (the marines.) The multiplayer was lack-luster and end of the game was weak.
Then what? NOTHING. They've done NOTHING since then.
1. They bought a mod team and distributed a half-baked copy of a great mod. (The great mod being Team Fortress, and the half-baked copy being TFC.)
2. They waited until another mod that they had nothing to do with became popular, (an internet phenomenon actually) and bought that one as well. (CounterStrike.)
3. They took a shot at a Guiness record for most re-releases of the exact same product by changing the box colors of Halflife about a dozen times. (They are only second to Lucas and StarWars.)
4. In the name of Online content distribution, they created the most intrusive DRM software to every make it to production. (It's called a STEAMing pile of crap.)
Valve has only released ONE GAME. They are still new to the business. (but pro's at 'giving the business.') They've been riding the on the success of amatuer mod teams since the beginning.
(Even though HL turned out to be a worthwhile product in it's own right, the great majority of the early purchasers were simply buying it as a platform for the much anticipated (still) Team Fortress 2. Valve had purchased (co-opted?) the design team or else we would have all been playing TF2 on Quake2 instead.)
Anyway...I don't bash Valve for anything to do with HL2. It looks very pretty and interesting. I'm skipping D3, but I'll probably get HL2. However, there's very little else in their entire history to credit valve with...except extreme luck.
The sound isn't working for me, I just get a small 'burst' of noise at the beginning and then silence....but the image is remarkably clear and nice. For a while I couldn't figure out if it was working and I thoguht I was just looking at the 'loading' screen or something.
Then I realized what I was looking at was the camera pointed at his monitor.
Now was this supposed to be a live feed? If it is...that's the best I've ever seen, (over the internet)
Wouldn't it be as simple as requiring your squad to go into 'vunerable' mode while requesting reinforcements.
If whenever you clicked the 'more guys please' button, the people in your squad all sat down and lowered their defense, then it would require a bit more planning than just spamming the 'reinforce' button.
Same with the 'in-squad' upgrades. If you click 'heavy bolt driver' button, then one of your guys just sits down and starts making it. You lose that guy in offence, and he (just he) is weak on defense and has to be protected by the others.
It would mean MOST reinforceing and weapon upgrades would happen outside of the battle. You'd take a weak squad, and pull them back off the lines. Upgrade then, reinforce them, and then cycle them back into the battle.
It would still be better than being forced to run with half squads after a battle, or run new guys up from your base, but it wouldn't allow you to teleport new guys directly into a fight.
I thought that was a touch too convenient while I was playing the demo.
I just bought a 1GB usb key with the ability to be 'bootable.'
So, no only do they have to prevent external storage, but they also have to turn off USB booting, and password the BIOS. I don't know if those are standard practices or not.
And, with this ability to turn of external drives, does that retain the ability to use other USB devices? Wouldn't there be some sort of 'spoofing' that could happen? (don't ask my what...I haven't figured that out yet.:) )
Yeah, both sides take money from 'irreputable' sources, so they both like IP laws.
But, I think his statement was in 'platform' or 'theory' rather than behavior.
Given a stereotypical definition of a liberal or a conservative, they should have certain concepts of 'property rights.' However, given those same ideals, the position flip-flops for intellectual property. Don't think of actual people...think generically on how 'ideas' follow. His point isn't to track voting, his point is that IP does not follow the same rules as real property.
But, to follow your main point... If I work for/have a contract with company A, and company B is paying me (in money or gifts) to do things against company A, I think that would be concidered illegal. Corporate Espionage or something like that.
Well...it's always confused me how politicians, those supposed 'civil servants' who are being paid by the public (i.e. taxes) can accept money and gifts from the private sector (corporations) to do things against the public (DMCA, Copyright Extension, to use your examples) without it being obvious a conflict of interest and illegal.
In my opinion, the main job of 'government' should be to protect the individual from the 'group.' (Be it corporation or foreign government or mob of bullies, etc.)
I'm sure this argument will be echoed by other posters, but I think this "Olympic blackout" policy by the IOC is getting ridiculous.
But I also think that the problem is self-repairing.
As it becomes more and more obvious that the Olympics are becoming NOTHING more than a corporate subsidized media event, the whole thing will revert to non-commercial, non-exclusive, pure competition. (Athletic competition, not commercial.)
Of course, we might have to endure the NBC/Nike Olympic Games! first.
Forbidding the athletes to post their own pictures is insane. I guess since the IOC makes the rules, they can just dis-allow someone from participating for any reason they want...but it's definately insane.
I see absolutely no reason to get this for a PC-keyboard replacement. I guess in extreme ergonomic cases, but something you have to set down and pick up, and CAN'T use one handed if you need to, and have you ever actually tried using a thumb controlled mouse...and...
Anyway, how I see this as a godsend is as a console controller. Plug this into your Xbox or PS/2, and you can switch instantly and seemlessly from kicking someone's butt in Mortal Kombat to taunting them in some sort of in-game chat.
Better yet, for games like FFXI, you have all the power of a keyboard, with all the compactness and 'lap friendliness' of a console controller.
And finally, as consoles become more and more 'internet appliances' you can take one of these and crash on the couch as you chat with your friends in Xbox Live. (I've never seen Xbox live..I don't know if there's a chat.)
Make a PS2 or Xbox version where I toggle between keyboard mode and 'controller' mode. Have it be PC programmable via the convienent USB port...and you've got a sale.
(Guess what, I didn't read the article. I don't know if it has Xbox support.)
You aren't supposd to grip it. Accourding the the features page, you hold it with your palms (I assume by pressing your hands inward toward each other) and your fingers always have freedom of movement.
Why I agree, most poeple don't...or at least most vocal people.
If you ever present that idea on a messageboard for a game, you'll get instantly rebuked by eveyrone and their dog.
It turns out, most the 'vocal' players of MMORPG live for the level grind, despite their complaints to the contrary. They'll tell you that you HAVE to have levels in order to distinguish all the hard work they put in. They'll tell you it's impossible to have an RPG without levels. They'll tell you that anything else is 'carebear.'
Also, the designers count on the 'crack aspect' of the level grind to keep players....they don't feel like experimenting with anything else.
I'm not a jaded ex-player either. I'm a jaded ex-fanboy/devotee. I followed this game very closely for many years, I was a prominent member of the community, (on the official boards while they lasted and then on the Vault Network.)
Many times during the development, I sent personal email and posted many open letters to the management of Artifact Entertainment telling them how their customer service was lacking and that they should work just as hard on that as they did on content as it was just as important.
Anytime I found an openning, I told them how 'now' would be a good time to get the CS Head some good air-time with the community, on how they could have their CSR's and WM's practice their jobs by interacting with the community.
I recieved several replies from A.E. including one just a few months before they released saying that they weren't interested in customer service at that time and thought they'd be able to put something together at the time of release.
If I'm allowed to comment, since I've never actually played any..:)
It seems the later games devolved into just being a vehicle for Lara. They accomplished their goal of making her a star, but then they didn't know what to do with her. So they dressed her up in new outfits and give her different types of 'extreme sports' to do.
(it's funny, but that's the exact same as the second movie)
If I were making a Lara game, I'd take a look at the new Prince of Persia. I'd also look at a SplinterCell2 type multiplayer, but also try to get a 4 person 'coop' thing going on with 'online' missions that are built for teamwork.
There is a rising disturbance (heh) in that for some future games they are thinking about charging a monthly fee ON-TOP of Xbox Live. So, to play this game, you'll be paying for your ISP, Xbox Live, and then finally the game.
I don't think anyone's actually tried it yet, and it makes sense from an objective point of view (they are all seperate companies that all need to be paid) but it just doesn't look that way to the eyes of the consumer.
There's going to have to be a change.
Perhaps...
Ubiquitous Broadband: Once it becomes normal, like electricity, and is just a small sub-line on your Utilities bill.
The 'Cable TV' route: MS actually buys the game subscription for you. So, an Xbox-live subscription buys you into the programming line-up that MS paid for. Just like a Comcast subscription buys you into the programming line-up that Comcast paid for. There would eventually be competing services, and you'd subscribe to the one that matches the list of games you want to play.
Bypass Xbox Live: There's not an equivalent thing in PC land. As consoles get more functionality, XBox live, or any dedicated gaming service won't be needed anymore, and you connect DIRECTLY to the game service you want, instead of going through MS's intermediary.
You out-thought yourself. Why does 'already playing a lot' make it just fine to be required to pay more?
And, while I supposed MOST of the posts aren't approached from this perspective, they probably should have been. The question isn't "What is the universal proper price of an MMORPG?" but rather "What do you feel comfortable paying for an MMORPG?"
Notice the difference. Notice how the second question has no wrong answers. Notice how currently that's the question that MMORPG companies are asking.
The price is going to keep going up as long as the subscriptions keep going up. Once the subscriptions plateau then some company will try to get them to start moving again by dropping the monthly cost. Once prices start going down, they will continue to drop until they hit the 'costs+reasonable margin' that the "Invisible Hand" dictates in a competetive environment.
I'm just upset that I have to miss out on all these games just to be an effective cog in the machine.
Both times I calculated human costs as a variable cost fixed to number of players. That means I'm already taking that into account. (Another thing is that the cost per player goes DOWN when players go up.)
Also, the sentence you quoted doesn't discount the human costs, it says that the 'total' has gone up MORE than inflation but the non-human has gone down. So, someone (and I'm betting it's not the entry-level CSR's) is getting a much fatter paycheck.
There are many many games. The fee doubles each time you add a game. Play EQ? pay X. Wanna play UO as well? pay 2X. Wanna play CoH? 3X
Finally, you're paying more for games per month than you are for rent. (heh. Guess that's a lot of games.)
Sony had a good idea with their "All Access Pass" except that they didn't include "All", and they charged more than twice.
I would have signed up in a heartbeat if it was "All SOE games for the price of a SW:G account." Of course, you couldn't sign in to two games simultaneously. But that's not how they did it.
I've heard rumors, (but it doesn't match with my experience) that NCSoft is actually doing that with CoH and Lineage2. That would be cool...and I actually thing that's the salvation of the genre. (If the different publishers can work out some sort of deal.)
The company line is that the only reason they charge a monthly fee is because they have to pay for the bandwidth, player information storage, the CSRs, the constantly updated content. If that was true, it would be an easy task to add up the monthly expenses, and divide by the number of active subscriptions. Presto, instant price.
Anotherway would be to figure out the price per person directly. ((Average bandwidth use per user X cost per bandwidth unit)+{ Monthly wage of CSR/ # of online players per CSR) etc). Add in the valuation of storage and CPU and all that fun stuff as figured that one player would use.
Both of these give us a number. Take this number...add on a healthy margin, (more healthy doesn't mean more bigger, it means reasonable) and presto you have your pricepoint.
The thing is...this price point is different for each game. However, they always seem to match up exactly. I'm really wondering why there isn't a 'price fixing' complaint going on. Seems like this oligopy(sp) is agreeing amongst themselves on an artificial price.
There's another way people think though...this is much less 'consumer friendly.' Instead of even CARING what your costs are, you just charge as much as you possibly can. "We charged 12 last year and made a huge profit. Lets kick it up to 15 and see if the morons will pay that as well." This is the current philosphy of MMORPGs.
With this type of pricing, people don't look at profit margins, or expenses, they look externally, like to 'movies.' (The worst MMORPG comparison there is.) They say, "This Apple cost me $10, so it's reasonable to pay $12 for these two Oranges." I'm sorry, but that's insane.
I've always thought if the box price being to pay for the development of the initial game, and the monthly price to be paying for the running of the service. (They don't actually price it that way, but it makes me feel better.)
Thinking of it this way, I can handle that they charge me twice. However, I feel like they are WAY over charging me on the monthly fee.
If you wanted an actual number...Two years ago, given statistics from EQ, making estimations on wages for managers, developers, CSRs. Figuring out data-storage needs (I work for a company that makes personnel databases) etc. I determined that monthly costs were less than $10 per customer. It's not an actual number, but it was the best I can do with the information given.
The numbers have probably changed now, but most of the non-human costs have actually gone down, so I don't understand the 'greater than inflation' rise of the monthly fee.
It can only be explained as 'profit-mongering.' If you think that's fine for a business to do...even expected...then I guess you're happy. If you think a business should try to provide the best value for their customers, and not abuse them...then it's not a good thing.
I cancelled my CoH account because it didn't even come CLOSE to being worth $15/month. It should have been more like 7 or 8, but I might have been able to live with $10.
As many people said before...Q3 is already set to 'sell-out' as soon as it hits shelves. They don't need to drum up extra hype before release.
HOWEVER!!, in the past, ID hasn't just released 'demo's, they've released 'tests'. Qtest, Q3test, etc, they've released them in order to get feed-back to improve the product. You may question why there was no D3test. (I know the gaming forums are asking this.)
I can answer it though. Doom3 is a single-player game. The tests are for testing the multiplayer servers and gameplay.
Infact, that there was no D3test is very telling. It says there is even less multiplayer in the game than the fanboy's would like to admit.
I looked at that Simunitions site. I think that qualifies as a bad idea. (Not so bad, since they'd never sell it to you.)
Aside from the fact that I wouldn't want to be shooting at my friends with a real gun, "oops, I grabbed the wrong clip." did you see the protective equipment you need to buy?
The guys in the pictures look like they are bundled up as much as that poor kid in "A Christmas Story." Plus they have neck-shields. A game that requires neck-shields is just scary to me.
It doesn't sound like your consumer/amatuer friendly system to me.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is the person running it.
You can't have the hospital (company) involved, just the employees.
The hospital has a shift and will pay a certain amount. Then, the nurses fight it out in an 'auction.' Nurse A decides to pay Nurse B $50 for the shift. In the end Nurse A gets the extra money for the shift - $50.(Net +) Nurse B gets $50 and some time off.(Net +) And the hospital gets the same. (Net =) Everyone wins.
If the hospital is involved, it gets a discounted shift (Net +) Nurse A gets paid for a discounted extra shift. (Net +) But Nurse B gets screwed out of her shift and is on 'forced vacation'. (Net -)
Get rid of the hospital in the equation and it's fine. However, since that's not the case, it's going to backfire on the labor...bigtime. And we'd going to go through another period of HEAVY unionization in the country.
Fine...
But what appreciation should we show? What has Valve done that is so excellent?
1. They made Halflife, an excellent single-player game that deservedly won many Game of the Year awards 5-6 years ago. It had an excellent story line, and some good AI for some of the enemies (the marines.) The multiplayer was lack-luster and end of the game was weak.
Then what? NOTHING. They've done NOTHING since then.
1. They bought a mod team and distributed a half-baked copy of a great mod. (The great mod being Team Fortress, and the half-baked copy being TFC.)
2. They waited until another mod that they had nothing to do with became popular, (an internet phenomenon actually) and bought that one as well. (CounterStrike.)
3. They took a shot at a Guiness record for most re-releases of the exact same product by changing the box colors of Halflife about a dozen times. (They are only second to Lucas and StarWars.)
4. In the name of Online content distribution, they created the most intrusive DRM software to every make it to production. (It's called a STEAMing pile of crap.)
Valve has only released ONE GAME. They are still new to the business. (but pro's at 'giving the business.') They've been riding the on the success of amatuer mod teams since the beginning.
(Even though HL turned out to be a worthwhile product in it's own right, the great majority of the early purchasers were simply buying it as a platform for the much anticipated (still) Team Fortress 2. Valve had purchased (co-opted?) the design team or else we would have all been playing TF2 on Quake2 instead.)
Anyway...I don't bash Valve for anything to do with HL2. It looks very pretty and interesting. I'm skipping D3, but I'll probably get HL2. However, there's very little else in their entire history to credit valve with...except extreme luck.
I tried it!!!
The sound isn't working for me, I just get a small 'burst' of noise at the beginning and then silence....but the image is remarkably clear and nice. For a while I couldn't figure out if it was working and I thoguht I was just looking at the 'loading' screen or something.
Then I realized what I was looking at was the camera pointed at his monitor.
Now was this supposed to be a live feed? If it is...that's the best I've ever seen, (over the internet)
Wouldn't it be as simple as requiring your squad to go into 'vunerable' mode while requesting reinforcements.
If whenever you clicked the 'more guys please' button, the people in your squad all sat down and lowered their defense, then it would require a bit more planning than just spamming the 'reinforce' button.
Same with the 'in-squad' upgrades. If you click 'heavy bolt driver' button, then one of your guys just sits down and starts making it. You lose that guy in offence, and he (just he) is weak on defense and has to be protected by the others.
It would mean MOST reinforceing and weapon upgrades would happen outside of the battle. You'd take a weak squad, and pull them back off the lines. Upgrade then, reinforce them, and then cycle them back into the battle.
It would still be better than being forced to run with half squads after a battle, or run new guys up from your base, but it wouldn't allow you to teleport new guys directly into a fight.
I thought that was a touch too convenient while I was playing the demo.
Don't forget "Blue's Big Musical." Of course, they might be thinking first wide-spread theatrical release. :)
I just bought a 1GB usb key with the ability to be 'bootable.'
:) )
So, no only do they have to prevent external storage, but they also have to turn off USB booting, and password the BIOS. I don't know if those are standard practices or not.
And, with this ability to turn of external drives, does that retain the ability to use other USB devices? Wouldn't there be some sort of 'spoofing' that could happen? (don't ask my what...I haven't figured that out yet.
Yeah, both sides take money from 'irreputable' sources, so they both like IP laws.
But, I think his statement was in 'platform' or 'theory' rather than behavior.
Given a stereotypical definition of a liberal or a conservative, they should have certain concepts of 'property rights.' However, given those same ideals, the position flip-flops for intellectual property. Don't think of actual people...think generically on how 'ideas' follow. His point isn't to track voting, his point is that IP does not follow the same rules as real property.
But, to follow your main point... If I work for/have a contract with company A, and company B is paying me (in money or gifts) to do things against company A, I think that would be concidered illegal. Corporate Espionage or something like that.
Well...it's always confused me how politicians, those supposed 'civil servants' who are being paid by the public (i.e. taxes) can accept money and gifts from the private sector (corporations) to do things against the public (DMCA, Copyright Extension, to use your examples) without it being obvious a conflict of interest and illegal.
In my opinion, the main job of 'government' should be to protect the individual from the 'group.' (Be it corporation or foreign government or mob of bullies, etc.)
I'm sure this argument will be echoed by other posters, but I think this "Olympic blackout" policy by the IOC is getting ridiculous.
But I also think that the problem is self-repairing.
As it becomes more and more obvious that the Olympics are becoming NOTHING more than a corporate subsidized media event, the whole thing will revert to non-commercial, non-exclusive, pure competition. (Athletic competition, not commercial.)
Of course, we might have to endure the NBC/Nike Olympic Games! first.
Forbidding the athletes to post their own pictures is insane. I guess since the IOC makes the rules, they can just dis-allow someone from participating for any reason they want...but it's definately insane.
I retract this stupid post.
I got everything wrong. I said what I didn't want to. The things I said correctly didn't make sense. Worst of all, the joke I made wasn't funny.
I give up. Why do they make people work on Mondays? I can't even do my Slashdot posting correctly.
Something that's on the Web can be said to be web-based.
However, I don't think the same works for "Internet." Especially since there's something called "Internet 2."
As far as 'net' goes, if you're talking about "on the Net" you'd capitalize on whether it's your LAN, or on the Internet.
But I do have one question.. Is it now TCP/ip?
I see absolutely no reason to get this for a PC-keyboard replacement. I guess in extreme ergonomic cases, but something you have to set down and pick up, and CAN'T use one handed if you need to, and have you ever actually tried using a thumb controlled mouse...and...
Anyway, how I see this as a godsend is as a console controller. Plug this into your Xbox or PS/2, and you can switch instantly and seemlessly from kicking someone's butt in Mortal Kombat to taunting them in some sort of in-game chat.
Better yet, for games like FFXI, you have all the power of a keyboard, with all the compactness and 'lap friendliness' of a console controller.
And finally, as consoles become more and more 'internet appliances' you can take one of these and crash on the couch as you chat with your friends in Xbox Live. (I've never seen Xbox live..I don't know if there's a chat.)
Make a PS2 or Xbox version where I toggle between keyboard mode and 'controller' mode. Have it be PC programmable via the convienent USB port...and you've got a sale.
(Guess what, I didn't read the article. I don't know if it has Xbox support.)
You aren't supposd to grip it. Accourding the the features page, you hold it with your palms (I assume by pressing your hands inward toward each other) and your fingers always have freedom of movement.
That would tax some unused muscles I'd imagine.
I guess you're not supposed to feed the trolls...oh well
But seriously...come back and post again when you're required to register to READ the slashdot comments.
If I were going to write a story for NYT, then I'd register, but since I just want to read the article they don't need to know what my name is.
Why I agree, most poeple don't...or at least most vocal people.
If you ever present that idea on a messageboard for a game, you'll get instantly rebuked by eveyrone and their dog.
It turns out, most the 'vocal' players of MMORPG live for the level grind, despite their complaints to the contrary. They'll tell you that you HAVE to have levels in order to distinguish all the hard work they put in. They'll tell you it's impossible to have an RPG without levels. They'll tell you that anything else is 'carebear.'
Also, the designers count on the 'crack aspect' of the level grind to keep players....they don't feel like experimenting with anything else.
I'm not a jaded ex-player either. I'm a jaded ex-fanboy/devotee. I followed this game very closely for many years, I was a prominent member of the community, (on the official boards while they lasted and then on the Vault Network.)
Many times during the development, I sent personal email and posted many open letters to the management of Artifact Entertainment telling them how their customer service was lacking and that they should work just as hard on that as they did on content as it was just as important.
Anytime I found an openning, I told them how 'now' would be a good time to get the CS Head some good air-time with the community, on how they could have their CSR's and WM's practice their jobs by interacting with the community.
I recieved several replies from A.E. including one just a few months before they released saying that they weren't interested in customer service at that time and thought they'd be able to put something together at the time of release.
Funny how their plans didn't work out.
I'm in Northern Utah.
From work, I was getting the Google errors. (I tried refreshing to get on a different machine, but no luck.)
I could VNC (2 blocks away) to home and search just fine though.
Funny thing is, I got the same type error on Yahoo.com. MSN.com didn't seem to be affected.
If I'm allowed to comment, since I've never actually played any.. :)
It seems the later games devolved into just being a vehicle for Lara. They accomplished their goal of making her a star, but then they didn't know what to do with her. So they dressed her up in new outfits and give her different types of 'extreme sports' to do.
(it's funny, but that's the exact same as the second movie)
If I were making a Lara game, I'd take a look at the new Prince of Persia. I'd also look at a SplinterCell2 type multiplayer, but also try to get a 4 person 'coop' thing going on with 'online' missions that are built for teamwork.
BTW, thanks. I've been trying to get people to see these points for years, but the only response I get is "It costs $10 for a 2 hour movie."
There is a rising disturbance (heh) in that for some future games they are thinking about charging a monthly fee ON-TOP of Xbox Live. So, to play this game, you'll be paying for your ISP, Xbox Live, and then finally the game.
I don't think anyone's actually tried it yet, and it makes sense from an objective point of view (they are all seperate companies that all need to be paid) but it just doesn't look that way to the eyes of the consumer.
There's going to have to be a change.
Perhaps...
Ubiquitous Broadband: Once it becomes normal, like electricity, and is just a small sub-line on your Utilities bill.
The 'Cable TV' route: MS actually buys the game subscription for you. So, an Xbox-live subscription buys you into the programming line-up that MS paid for. Just like a Comcast subscription buys you into the programming line-up that Comcast paid for. There would eventually be competing services, and you'd subscribe to the one that matches the list of games you want to play.
Bypass Xbox Live: There's not an equivalent thing in PC land. As consoles get more functionality, XBox live, or any dedicated gaming service won't be needed anymore, and you connect DIRECTLY to the game service you want, instead of going through MS's intermediary.
You out-thought yourself. Why does 'already playing a lot' make it just fine to be required to pay more?
And, while I supposed MOST of the posts aren't approached from this perspective, they probably should have been. The question isn't "What is the universal proper price of an MMORPG?" but rather "What do you feel comfortable paying for an MMORPG?"
Notice the difference. Notice how the second question has no wrong answers. Notice how currently that's the question that MMORPG companies are asking.
The price is going to keep going up as long as the subscriptions keep going up. Once the subscriptions plateau then some company will try to get them to start moving again by dropping the monthly cost. Once prices start going down, they will continue to drop until they hit the 'costs+reasonable margin' that the "Invisible Hand" dictates in a competetive environment.
I'm just upset that I have to miss out on all these games just to be an effective cog in the machine.
Please go bad and read again.
Both times I calculated human costs as a variable cost fixed to number of players. That means I'm already taking that into account. (Another thing is that the cost per player goes DOWN when players go up.)
Also, the sentence you quoted doesn't discount the human costs, it says that the 'total' has gone up MORE than inflation but the non-human has gone down. So, someone (and I'm betting it's not the entry-level CSR's) is getting a much fatter paycheck.
And another thing...
There are many many games. The fee doubles each time you add a game. Play EQ? pay X. Wanna play UO as well? pay 2X. Wanna play CoH? 3X
Finally, you're paying more for games per month than you are for rent. (heh. Guess that's a lot of games.)
Sony had a good idea with their "All Access Pass" except that they didn't include "All", and they charged more than twice.
I would have signed up in a heartbeat if it was "All SOE games for the price of a SW:G account." Of course, you couldn't sign in to two games simultaneously. But that's not how they did it.
I've heard rumors, (but it doesn't match with my experience) that NCSoft is actually doing that with CoH and Lineage2. That would be cool...and I actually thing that's the salvation of the genre. (If the different publishers can work out some sort of deal.)
...or maximize the profits?
The company line is that the only reason they charge a monthly fee is because they have to pay for the bandwidth, player information storage, the CSRs, the constantly updated content. If that was true, it would be an easy task to add up the monthly expenses, and divide by the number of active subscriptions. Presto, instant price.
Anotherway would be to figure out the price per person directly. ((Average bandwidth use per user X cost per bandwidth unit)+{ Monthly wage of CSR/ # of online players per CSR) etc). Add in the valuation of storage and CPU and all that fun stuff as figured that one player would use.
Both of these give us a number. Take this number...add on a healthy margin, (more healthy doesn't mean more bigger, it means reasonable) and presto you have your pricepoint.
The thing is...this price point is different for each game. However, they always seem to match up exactly. I'm really wondering why there isn't a 'price fixing' complaint going on. Seems like this oligopy(sp) is agreeing amongst themselves on an artificial price.
There's another way people think though...this is much less 'consumer friendly.' Instead of even CARING what your costs are, you just charge as much as you possibly can. "We charged 12 last year and made a huge profit. Lets kick it up to 15 and see if the morons will pay that as well." This is the current philosphy of MMORPGs.
With this type of pricing, people don't look at profit margins, or expenses, they look externally, like to 'movies.' (The worst MMORPG comparison there is.) They say, "This Apple cost me $10, so it's reasonable to pay $12 for these two Oranges." I'm sorry, but that's insane.
I've always thought if the box price being to pay for the development of the initial game, and the monthly price to be paying for the running of the service. (They don't actually price it that way, but it makes me feel better.)
Thinking of it this way, I can handle that they charge me twice. However, I feel like they are WAY over charging me on the monthly fee.
If you wanted an actual number...Two years ago, given statistics from EQ, making estimations on wages for managers, developers, CSRs. Figuring out data-storage needs (I work for a company that makes personnel databases) etc. I determined that monthly costs were less than $10 per customer. It's not an actual number, but it was the best I can do with the information given.
The numbers have probably changed now, but most of the non-human costs have actually gone down, so I don't understand the 'greater than inflation' rise of the monthly fee.
It can only be explained as 'profit-mongering.' If you think that's fine for a business to do...even expected...then I guess you're happy. If you think a business should try to provide the best value for their customers, and not abuse them...then it's not a good thing.
I cancelled my CoH account because it didn't even come CLOSE to being worth $15/month. It should have been more like 7 or 8, but I might have been able to live with $10.
As many people said before...Q3 is already set to 'sell-out' as soon as it hits shelves. They don't need to drum up extra hype before release.
HOWEVER!!, in the past, ID hasn't just released 'demo's, they've released 'tests'. Qtest, Q3test, etc, they've released them in order to get feed-back to improve the product. You may question why there was no D3test. (I know the gaming forums are asking this.)
I can answer it though. Doom3 is a single-player game. The tests are for testing the multiplayer servers and gameplay.
Infact, that there was no D3test is very telling. It says there is even less multiplayer in the game than the fanboy's would like to admit.
I looked at that Simunitions site. I think that qualifies as a bad idea. (Not so bad, since they'd never sell it to you.)
Aside from the fact that I wouldn't want to be shooting at my friends with a real gun, "oops, I grabbed the wrong clip." did you see the protective equipment you need to buy?
The guys in the pictures look like they are bundled up as much as that poor kid in "A Christmas Story." Plus they have neck-shields. A game that requires neck-shields is just scary to me.
It doesn't sound like your consumer/amatuer friendly system to me.