9 thoughts on “The Player-driven Economist: Why Pay-to-Play was a Better Way (and Other Rants)

  1. Catherine Hopps says:

    I can’t stand having to pay for additional items within games. Maybe I’m showing my age but I prefer to just pay once and that is it.

  2. Micky says:

    Interesting point about players not knowing the value of in game currency. I never thought of it that way. I don’t like where things are going with pay per item stuff either but I guess we don’t have a lot of say in it unfortunately.

  3. Martin says:

    Unfortunately, out of game economies will always to precedent over in-game ones. the developers of the big name games know what makes money, and that’s what will continue to drive the gaming experience.

  4. lloyd says:

    I have no problem paying fees for a good game. If you give me high quality gaming coupled with decent customer service, you can have my $15 a month. I spend more on coffee in a week.

  5. Jen says:

    Bummer about the introduction of paying for stuff within games. I agree that pay to play seems like it would have been a classier, more inspiring way of playing games. But I bet there are still games that have more of a level playing field — they’re probably just lesser known.

  6. jon terns says:

    I think that the in-game economies will never be as strong as the real world versions to many of us, but the idea behind it being just as important to the mind itself is a valid one. I agree with you and think that more people should see it that way as well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.