Thanks. I get tired of being the one to make this argument. 
Aemon Send a noteboard - 31/12/2009 03:20:13 AM
Aemon Send a noteboard - 31/12/2009 03:20:13 AM
I look at it like this.
WoW subscription price is 13-15 dollars, depending on how you pay. Let's say 13 for argument's sake.
13 = unlimited gaming time, for a month. What's the average playtime for a regular game? 20 hours maybe? Let's say 20. 20 hours is $60, new. That's 4.6 times as much as a month of WoW. You'd have to play 4.6 months of WoW to equal the price of that one new game. That means to break even, you're only allowed 4.3 hours of playtime PER MONTH on your single player game.
60 per game isn't necessarily realistic though, given used pricing, the occasional sale of a game, etc. Let's say 20, instead. 20 dollars, 20 hours. That's a month and a half of Warcraft. To break even this time, you're allowed 13 hours a month on your regular game. Less than a half hour a day. You can hit 13 by playing a bit over an hour each weekend day.
So you see, it really does compare favorably with standard pricing models. People who are extremely budget conscious and rarely play games can pay less than WoW players, no doubt. Even in the extreme though, we're likely talking a difference of less than $50 a year. I apologize those who are flat broke, but fifty bucks a year is just not a significant figure to most people who profess hatred of monthly pricing schemes.
WoW subscription price is 13-15 dollars, depending on how you pay. Let's say 13 for argument's sake.
13 = unlimited gaming time, for a month. What's the average playtime for a regular game? 20 hours maybe? Let's say 20. 20 hours is $60, new. That's 4.6 times as much as a month of WoW. You'd have to play 4.6 months of WoW to equal the price of that one new game. That means to break even, you're only allowed 4.3 hours of playtime PER MONTH on your single player game.
60 per game isn't necessarily realistic though, given used pricing, the occasional sale of a game, etc. Let's say 20, instead. 20 dollars, 20 hours. That's a month and a half of Warcraft. To break even this time, you're allowed 13 hours a month on your regular game. Less than a half hour a day. You can hit 13 by playing a bit over an hour each weekend day.
So you see, it really does compare favorably with standard pricing models. People who are extremely budget conscious and rarely play games can pay less than WoW players, no doubt. Even in the extreme though, we're likely talking a difference of less than $50 a year. I apologize those who are flat broke, but fifty bucks a year is just not a significant figure to most people who profess hatred of monthly pricing schemes.
LOTRO
- 26/12/2009 06:23:03 PM
734 Views
I have a character on Silverlode....I never play though...I should really start playing again. *NM*
- 26/12/2009 06:47:54 PM
296 Views
I am morally and ethicallly opposed to playing a game in which you spend 50 bucks for the game...
- 26/12/2009 10:08:28 PM
581 Views
Nonsense
- 27/12/2009 10:18:32 PM
612 Views
That argument only holds water if you spend a lot of money on games.
- 29/12/2009 08:40:15 AM
505 Views
It holds water if you buy 3 games a year.
- 29/12/2009 05:13:42 PM
573 Views
3 new games. Which I don't do (although in fairness this year was an exception).
- 30/12/2009 11:18:42 AM
551 Views
Every one of my college friends who owns a console spends more than 150/yr on games.
- 31/12/2009 03:03:07 AM
507 Views
Thanks. I get tired of being the one to make this argument.
- 31/12/2009 03:20:13 AM
642 Views
- 31/12/2009 03:20:13 AM
642 Views