>"Instead, I would recommend pricing the game at something like $60 for two years. "
While I personally understand all the costs involved and would perhaps be willing to do this (kinda like the WoW model where the game had an up-front cost plus recurring service fees), I think many would feel scammed by this model.
My question is: what is wrong with the model where single-player is totally offline, but multiplayer requires a matchmaking server that DOES validate the license? This model is already out there and works well enough (though it is 2013 and we could /probably/ figure out how to make open directory server software and/or employ P2P tech to lessen the financial burden AND increase reliability / stability / community relations...).
The bigger issue here is that American companies are trying to move us to a subscription model for /everything/, so we're always in debt and most will never truly own anything of significant value. Lease your housing, your car, your computing, your gaming, your textbooks, your cellphone, your couch, your money, etc.
It's an economic consideration, by allowing offline play they believe they'll be leaving more money on the table than if they make it online only. They'll convert people who would have just got a cracked version into buying it.
Unfortunately for Maxis they obviously didn't hire any programmers who had a clue how to write scalable server code.
And the result is that they have managed to lose a lot of sales in the first few key weeks because of bad reviews.
But economically speaking, sound decision, just poorly executed.
On your last point, this is an unfortunate side effect of digital goods. In Europe we can hope for a growing political movement that this is deeply anti-consumer and will be legislated against, far more likely here than in America, but it will be hard for courts to decide where to draw a line. So ultimately I doubt it will ever happen.
> But economically speaking, sound decision, just poorly executed.
I'm not sure it counts as a 'sound decision' if you take a very risky option that hasn't panned out well for competitors in the same market on the premise that if you beat the odds, you'll get a bit more money.
I think EA underestimated the cost of their "always on" DRM, and didn't adequately assess the risk against the payoff - and now have taken a business hit from it.
For example, literally no one I know that I used to play Sim City with for hundreds of hours as a kid purchased this game - precisely because of EAs decisions regarding always on DRM and their history with Spore design. They've effectively driven away over a dozen people in their 20s, perfectly willing to fork over $70-100 on a game they like. (Or $200 or $300 or $1000 on a really good game they like; I'm looking at you table-top guide books, trading card games, and minifigures.)
I consider that exactly the opposite of 'sound decisions'.
tl;dr: You have to assess the risk that you're going to poorly execute your choice to make a 'sound decision'; I'm not sure EA did.
If you have to pay a monthly fee, why should you have to pay upfront? That doesn't make any sense. If the monthly fee gives access to the game, then the client should be freely downloadable with a monthly access fee to play the game. If you pay up-front, then you should be able to use it without requiring any additional payments.
While I personally understand all the costs involved and would perhaps be willing to do this (kinda like the WoW model where the game had an up-front cost plus recurring service fees), I think many would feel scammed by this model.
My question is: what is wrong with the model where single-player is totally offline, but multiplayer requires a matchmaking server that DOES validate the license? This model is already out there and works well enough (though it is 2013 and we could /probably/ figure out how to make open directory server software and/or employ P2P tech to lessen the financial burden AND increase reliability / stability / community relations...).
The bigger issue here is that American companies are trying to move us to a subscription model for /everything/, so we're always in debt and most will never truly own anything of significant value. Lease your housing, your car, your computing, your gaming, your textbooks, your cellphone, your couch, your money, etc.