Take-Two Interactive considering subs and microtransactions for top titles

No, I feel like I'd stop buying those games.

Micro-transactions is such a vague term - they are a means, not an end, and can be used for good or for evil. And Take Two has already been using them - with mixed results. So judging their pleasure with microtransactions is difficult; their announcement that they intend to continue is certainly not surprising.

I'm a little more concerned by the talk of subscriptions. I mean, when I pay a subscription for an MMO, I am paying for access to a server that is required for gameplay, the moderation of said server to ensure an enjoyable play experience, and the storage of my character data there. There are ongoing costs associated with allowing me to play the game, and I am covering those by paying a subscription. I'm less clear why I would need to pay a subscription for an offline game, where the data is stored on my own machine and there's not a server I must be constantly connected to when I want to play. Are they going to charge me a monthly fee just to keep having access to their offline games after I buy them?

If that's in place of paying $60 at the store... I'm leery, but I will at least stay my judgement until I see what they're offering. But like most people, I prefer to OWN things. They're going to have to make a pretty compelling case to lure me in.

If it's on TOP of the cost of the game, then screw them. I won't stand for that even for BioShock. I respect their right to try cockamamie business plans, just as they will have to respect my right to take my business somewhere else.

Only time will tell how this falls out, but I leave you with this frightening quote from the presentation Kotaku was reporting on:

"The holy grail is taking a business, already a very large and successful business that's focused on packaged goods that you sell once and then are occasionally resold by others with no benefit to us, and turning that into a subscription business"

Microtransactions, perhaps, but subcriptions for a stand alone game, that is a joke.

Microtransactions for additional game content are fine, they're essentially mini-expansions with a mini price. Subscriptions for non-mmo style games would be assinine.

What exactly justifies a monthly fee for a game like Bioshock? MMOs can (barely) justify the cost as bandwidth fees and ongoing content development in a purely online world. A game like Bioshock is not a purely online world, and is not even persistent. Bandwidth costs for multiplayer are handled by Microsoft and the Xbox live gold subscription.

Unless you get significant new content EVERY month, a subscription model simply won't work. I've yet to see a development team that could deliver monthly content updates that meant anything -- most of them can't even meet the laid back deadlines they have already (I'm looking at you Blizzard).

"It's our view that you won't be able to apply a subscription model to mid-tier titles," [Zelnick] said. "The triple-a titles that people really want to have that are really must have are in the best position for this business model."

I have bad news for Zelnick: there is no game compelling enough that I will support this business model. If I disagree with how a publisher releases a game, I will not buy it. I have not played Bioshock because I find the DRM scheme repugnant.

I am even wary of "microtransactions". The first foray into paid DLCs resulted in repeated installation failures caused by the security wrapper which exhausted the limited activations (which were not mentioned anywhere except the dialogue box saying they were gone). On top of that, Bethesda has never answered my wife's email asking for support for their DLC product. Bethesda is one of the better companies out there, so I am even more skeptical of these other guys.

In short, it's all an attempt to get me to pay more money, so I doubt whatever happens will be done to serve my best interests.