What you describe is pretty much every software developers wet dream. It's the next logical step from the "you aren't paying for the software, you are buying a license to use the software" SCAM that they've already rammed down the market's throat.

Well, maybe DLC is a more marketable way of doing what I was saying, and makes more sense. I understand that people's reaction at first is "What? They want me to pay again for the game?" Of course not! Is not done in that way. If a company charges you a lot of money for unpolished games, or dor DLC packs with absolutely no content, people will stop buying sooner than later. DLC is just a way to continue improving a game with new contents as long as people want to pay for it. A way to get more money? Sure. But not for nothing. Money for value.

No.Not a license to use the software. A license for getting updates for the software. You can use it as much as you want, but after your license experies you don't get updated anymore.

And yes, it is a lot better for software developers, but also for customers, once you change your point of view.

You mean the viewing point of bobby kotick?

I don't understand the benefits of this approach. It forces the developers into a strict timeline on bug/balance/whatever fixes (and lets be honest, predicting what will have been changed/fixed out to a 1 year point is difficult and inaccurate at best). Marketing a subscription model for a game like this most certainly is NOT easier, nor will it attract more customers. On the customers end, you are looking at paying the same amount for the game, with the guarantee that you will only get what they fix/change/add in the next year unless you pay more money. I feel like I'm missing something, because I don't see a benefit to the company or the customer here (with the exception of devious companies stringing more money out of people with shoddy business practices).

In a perfect world, maybe.

In this world.. unlikely. 

The problem here is you can't trust the people recieving the money to own up to the value they are supposed to be supplying for getting paid.  You have NO MEANS to make them provide you with YOUR interpretation of an 'update.'  How do you as a consumer QUANTIFY the value of an update?  This is where the problem is.  How do you know when you aren't getting what you paid for?  The changing button color would be an excellent example here.  You would think that a pretty poor update but it is still WORK done by the developer.  Until someone comes up with a valid way to quantify it this subscription/dlc argument is moot. 

and yes I think bioware is cheating people out of money with their dlc.  and i detest the ingame npc advertising crap as well. 

So focus on QUANTIFYING the money paid vs update/dlc substance if you want to score some real points.

i understand it's an evolving product, but it didn't launch on this premise so a lot of people would feel cheated if it shifted to one.

and the game does not need new content. it's too ambitious already. the basic systems need a fundamental re-evaluation and re-integration.

I don't think it would sell better as a subscription game. And I personally don't buy subscription games.

I don't agree with the subscription model at all for Elemental - I expect the game to be fixed and refined over the course of the following months to meet their original design goals.

DLC is not a bad thing WHEN DONE RIGHT. Yes, companies get greedy and treat people like shit, trying to sell a few maps for $15 dollars, or a couple of new items for $2. But it can be done right and can be a plus for both the developers and the customers.

I wouldn't be opposed to Elemental based DLC in late 2011 if it was fairly priced and offered something meaningful.

I know that your heart is in the right place, but software CEOs are mostly greedy Randroids who are always on the lookout for new and improved ways to screw over their customers.

While I agree with you, DLC is the way it is now because there are people willing to pay 15 dollars for a fewe maps and things like overpriced horse armor. You can only blame publishers so much for the behavior of other gamers.

This seems to be a growing trend (cancer) in the commercial software industry today. Companies would release a product that is 60% done and then provide "support" through a subsequent (and expensive) contract. What you are suggesting is bringing this type of business model to the gaming industry - which I hope does not happen.

In before the lock in 5 years when someone bumps this thread after Stardock implements this.

OK in a sense OP has it right..

however we will not be paying for each little tidbit.. But any one who does not expect eventual expansion that may have a cost is delusional. I am not talking about bug fixes here, but full blown expansions as potential micro transaction.. think something along the lines of your favorite table top Pen & Paper RPG systems and its modules / reference books.. Again I do not expect this to be bug fixes or minor tweaks that Stardock is going to do .. Heck we have been told to expect 2 free content updates (thread here)

Now while some of this is may change I expect t  we will see most of it as stated...

and all of the above does not include user created content..

but I bet dollars to doughnuts that we will see some paid for content down the road.. and I for one will pay for it... I mean the bloody game was built with that potential in from the ground up....

worst idea ever. unless your cryptic. seriously having to pay $10 a month for a single player game. lets see I would of paid about 250 for civliziation and the total war series.

Yeah, I understand. A fair bit of business software is sold this way (ArcGIS, IIRC Oracle, etc). It's an easier sell when you're buying a guaranteed support contract for something that's mission critical. (MSDN is a subscription too, but the first tier of MSDN is a fantastic value if you're a Windows developer.)

It seems like a hard sell for games though. Might be easier for an indie studio because they can try new things more easily, but can you imagine the uproar if Blizzard came out and said "it'll be $10/year for Diablo 3 patches"?

The upside to it is that if a bunch of us buy 6 months of developer time, we know the game will be worked on for 6 months. But I'm not sure how many gamers will be willing to do that when there's always new games coming out they could just shift money to instead.

The truth hurts.

hell no

If Elemental had been a subscription game, I never would have purchased it.

Best way for me not to buy a game.

If only there was a way to take away someone's Karma, even if it meant putting them in negative numbers.

Seriously though, no.

I have no problems with supporting a game through expansions and/or DLC.  DLC needs to be restricted to content, not "fixes" that should have been made available as a patch.  For something like Elemental, I could see DLC in the form of campaigns or new factions (with new models, sounds, etc.). 

DLC allows companies the ability to produce additional content that may appeal to some people but may not have the broad interest where it would support a full expansion.  I see it as an ala-carte option.  If Stardock wanted to produce a campaign that had us fighting giant mutant bunnies, some people might be interested in it.  Others may not.  If the developer is willing to commit the resources and there are enough mutant bunny lovers out there to support it, then let them build it and offer it as DLC.  No one is forcing us to buy it. 

The model is backwards. I'm a consumer, I pay for the product, not the potential product they may be making at an unspecified point in the future; that would be the role of an investor who fully understands the risks and can afford to lose the money. If they want to publish DLC, expansions or whatever fine, I'll look at what they're offering and decide if it's worth what they're asking.

OP - You gotta be kiddin'.

Steam already tried 'subscription' based game sales called "DLC" packs. They have failed miserably with me as I refuse to fork out money for additional content even if its pocket change worth. Example: purchased Empire Total War. They release new units and you have to pay extra. Look at modding community, they produce near identical units but gets decimated shortly after by steam by butchering modding capabilities of the game. End result: little to no modding done for the game except for a few major projects and haven't played empire total war in months after release where as I would keep returning to rome total war over and over thanks to the modding community that kept drawing me back. Subscription for something not an MMO is a terrible idea.