Online renting: Would you rather have game time based or real time based?

[Allthingsspectacular]

Game time based counts the amount of time you play but gives you a relatively lenient expiration date. The advantage is that there's no pressure in playing the game before it expires.

Real time based gives you a relatively limiting time to play in terms of real time like a few days and time spent even not playing counts against you.

Personally I can't stand real time based. It's a psychological thing where I feel like I can't take my time in game.

 

[TephlonPrice]

Game time based.

Take this from someone who played Combat Arms. I HATE RL-based renting, especially if RL money's factored into the equation.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

I'm somewhere in the middle since i get 4 games a month to play but no time limit to send them back. I can be as quick or slow as i like. If i'm quick i get all 4 games done in a month and if i'm slow i might only get through 2 or 3. Most of what i have rented is finished in 2 days so i guess it doesn't really matter either way to me

 

[Allthingsspectacular]

8 dollars for 1 hour of play totally isn't worth it though.

 

[FalloutJack]

Answer: Renting is bad. Buy your game and either live with your decision or sell.

 

[sanquin]

Answer: Renting is bad. Buy your game and either live with your decision or sell.

Nope...that's the old business model that companies are still holding on to, that just doesn't work any more with how internet and digital games work these days.

8 dollars for 1 hour of play totally isn't worth it though.

What would be a good price then? But anyway, the point of such pricing is this: You either buy the full game for 60 dollars and can get, say...6 hours of single player and multiplayer normally. Or you pay 5 dollars for being allowed to play for 1 hour, also both single and multiplayer. If you're a gamer that only wants to go through the single player, it'll cost you a total of 30 dollars if you go with the rental that way.

--------------

Game time rentals usually give you a very limited amount of hours to play your game. In the end it's a lot more expensive than real time rentals. Real time rentals on the other hand, give you a decent amount of real time days to play, and unlimited time in those days.

Take Ragnarok Online, a pretty old game that used to have such a model. You could pick between 30 hours of in game play for like 5 dollars, or a month for 10 dollars. For anyone that played that game more than 2 hours a day on average you'd have a cheaper subscription to buy the monthly one. And it was VERY easy to sink a good 4+ hours a day on average into that game. (it was an mmorpg)

 

[FalloutJack]

Oy...

I am not a business. I'm a customer. I don't want to rent. I want to buy. There is no middle ground here. I decide when they get money from me. If it's not to buy, then they do not get my money. That's what I'm pointing out. I am not interested in renting.

 

[sanquin]

Oy...

I am not a business. I'm a customer. I don't want to rent. I want to buy. There is no middle ground here. I decide when they get money from me. If it's not to buy, then they do not get my money. That's what I'm pointing out. I am not interested in renting.

Well, that's fine. There are plenty of people (like me) who would rather rent a game for an hour or two for 1/5 the retail price, than buy it retail though.

 

[Joccaren]

Eh, I don't rent. I buy.

In demo trials for free and such, however, it all depends.

2 hours game time vs 1 week real time is what I generally come up against.

In this case, whilst there is still the psychological issue regarding running out of time with real time, I doubtlessly get more time out of it. 2 hours is something I go through in an average afternoon, whilst I could get at least 14 in in a week.

So, it depends on how much time is available on each. Very short amount of game time vs semi-generous real time - I'll take real time. Other way around, I'll take game time. All depends on which will net me more time with the product overall.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Count me in with the "refuse to rent" crowd. Demos intended to sell the game should be free. If the game is worth playing, it's worth owning. I think things have already slipped too far to the wrong side of the product vs service axis without us encouraging that bullshit.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

With lovefilm I can play 100's of games in a year for less than the price of four. That, plus free movie and tv streaming and rental. Sure I can only have 2 at a time, but who needs more than that? The only games I buy any more are PC ones or games I KNOW I will keep coming back to, because Lovefilm don't do PC.

Or I guess if I really want to support the developer.

 

[DoPo]

Depends on the game, I guess. If I were to rent a game, I'd prefer to pay RL time-based, since I tend to just leave the game running and go off to do something, sometimes for hours. Just last night, I went for a few beers with friends, while Heroes 6 was running for the whole time.

However, I can see advantages to both things, you could rent a game for a match, or a mission or whatever discreet slice of content you have. I'll be totally down to that. Say, (fictional example, don't pick it apart based solely on that) I want to play some Assassin's Creed for an evening and see how the story is so far - it's probably more sensible to pay for only that evening. If I want to, I can rent the game again and finish it over the course of a couple of months with evening rents. While if I want to play a session of Heroes with a couple of guys, we could rent the game for a single scenario. We could spend 3 hours or 25 and it'd cost the same - makes more sense, really.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well anyone who dabbles in it should offer both, because there is a place and time where you need one over the other.

I would mainly use it for demos (rent an hour and see how it goes), and sometimes we get together with mates and just binge on one game over the weekend and then never play it again (offer that 2 day rental and you got it made).

 

[veloper]

I wonder how player behaviour would change if the last big subscription MMOs went from monthly subscription to this time-based model.

For some reason I doubt it will look pretty, assuming the players won't all just pack up and leave.

 

[lord.jeff]

I'd prefer in game time, I work most days as well as other commitments and it's really hard to get much more then an hour a day in of gaming in daily unless I cut out sleep that night. A two day rent would be equal to three hours of play, this is also the reason I don't play MMOs.

 

[DoPo]

I wonder how player behaviour would change if the last big subscription MMOs went from monthly subscription to this time-based model.

For some reason I doubt it will look pretty, assuming the players won't all just pack up and leave.

Well, it could work. It would take a bit to make the pricing and the game right but it can definitely work. People should not feel ripped off for playing. So it could work pretty much the same as now - instead of paying, say, 20$ for the next month RL time, one might pay 10$ for the next 120 hours of game-time (or whatever price is appropriate). If you don't like the game, you're down 10 bucks, if not, you can pay buy more time. And 20$ would still give you 240 hours of game time - same with the $20 per month, assuming one plays roughly 8 hours a day, every day (or adjust for more proper equality).

 

[gideonkain]

Wow, I've never rented a game off the internet before, sounds like a real scam - I used to rent games at the video store before my Xbox RROD'd, now I just game on the PC.

For me, I consider $1 per hour to be the price point that makes me feel like I've spent my money wisely.

Skyrim, Guild Wars 2, Borderlands 2 all have given me many, many dozens of hours of game play, but buying a game like Dishonored which I know is going to be a 20 hour or less affair for 60 bucks is going to leave me with a sour taste in my mouth, I'll wait till it's fun/hours is equivalent to it's price.