Originally posted by Daffid011

There is a reason most internet service providers changed from hourly based fees to flate rate fees. 

 

Also changing mmos to an hourly based fee rate is not a guarentee that any design of play options would change as a result. 

Charging a lump sum saves a lot of adminstration cost.  Imagine you have to pay your dish by a count of the number of rice, the weight of veget, the weight of meat, and the drops of water that goes in.  Imagine paying a flat $5 for a dish.

I would like this. There have been some months where I put in very little time and others where I play non-stop. I would feel better if I payed just when I play instead of just the chance I might log on.

This would work great for me and my fluctuating college schedule....

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Seriously, this is a win / win situation for everyone. The players get there game cheap AND balanced, while the devs get an easy tool for scaling their backend infrastructure while still turning a profit.

This system would never work.  I would quit a game that tried doing this.  Raids would never function.  "Dude, this wipe is about to cost everyone another 2 dollars, let's quit."

You pay more a month on cable or satelitte TV or internet access or power.  You use all of those things at different times, but most people pay monthly for them.  Just deal with it.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

I don't think I could enjoy the game with an hourly rate. It would be to distracting.

I've had a cell phone with unlimited minutes, and a cell phone with minutes.

Even if the price ends up being about the same, the effect if vastly different.

When I have unlimited minutes, I concentrate on what someone is saying, and what I want to say. When I have minutes, I"m thinking, do I really need to talk about this now, on the phone, for this long? I'm spending minutes! 

Same with an MMORPG.

With unlimited time, I will chat with you in a game, and concentrate on what you are saying, etc. But with an hourly time limite, even a cheap one, I"ll be thinking, do I want to spend my minutes chatting with you? Hurry up! Hurry up! HURRY UP! You're costing me MINUTES! 

And what about when I get a soda or go to the bathroom? Should I run to the refrigerator so I don't waste minutes? Should I wait to zip up until I get back to the keyboard so I dont' waste minutes? Or should I log off, and log on every time I want a soda?

 

The most basic of casual players would benefit from an hourly fee.  The players who don't group, who don't pvp, who don't raid, and who don't level characters to the max level.  Anyone else, even players who only run very basic groups, would not benefit.  The idea that someone in the  group, if not all of the group members, are watching the time to see how much they are spending, is horrible.  It would mean developing games around the least wasted time so that even the most basic group content could be completed.

Like I said above, you more than likely pay more a month to power a house you are not in 24/7.  You must run your fridge and most people leave some form of A/C on to keep their house somewhat temperate.  15 bucks is a fixed rate and chump change.

Originally posted by retrospectic

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Seriously, this is a win / win situation for everyone. The players get there game cheap AND balanced, while the devs get an easy tool for scaling their backend infrastructure while still turning a profit.A

 

This system would never work. 

Absolute statements aren't very good arguments. Never is a long a time, and you're not taking into account things like game design, population size or target audience.

I would quit a game that tried doing this.  

Yes, if an already established game were to switch from a subscription to any other form of payment plan then a lot of people would quit. If a pay-as-you-play model were established from the beginning then you wouldn't play. There have already been people on this thread that have announced that they would play if the game was good.

Raids would never function.  "Dude, this wipe is about to cost everyone another 2 dollars, let's quit."

 And what's the longest raid you've ever been involved with? The top end is about ten hours which is one dollar. If you're raiding like that every day, clogging the bandwidth and taking up slots that someone else could be using, then you would pay $30 a month (one raid a day). I spend more than that on cable TV. Although I've always looked at grinding and raiding as a rather shady way to keep players subscribing anyway. 

You pay more a month on cable or satelitte TV or internet access or power.  You use all of those things at different times, but most people pay monthly for them.  Just deal with it.

Cable and satellite are fixed monthly rates unless you watch a lot of pay-per-view movies. Internet is also fixed rate. I get my internet from my cable company and the combined total comes to $100 month. Quite a few people on this site have multiple MMO accounts which means that they're digging up $30+ dollars a month for their game time. In other words, I doubt that anyone here would be busting their balls for 320 hours ($32) a month. Even at 40 hours a week, you'd only be spending $16.

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Originally posted by retrospectic

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Seriously, this is a win / win situation for everyone. The players get there game cheap AND balanced, while the devs get an easy tool for scaling their backend infrastructure while still turning a profit.A

 

This system would never work. 

Absolute statements aren't very good arguments. Never is a long a time, and you're not taking into account things like game design, population size or target audience.

You did not go into specifics about a game that would be centered on using this system, nor did you talk about population size.  You talked about a super casual to casual gaming market which would have a negative impact on the community that spent the most time on the game.  If you charge players who play more and have a greater impact on your community you will see the game limited to casual to super casual players.

I would quit a game that tried doing this.  

Yes, if an already established game were to switch from a subscription to any other form of payment plan then a lot of people would quit. If a pay-as-you-play model were established from the beginning then you wouldn't play. There have already been people on this thread that have announced that they would play if the game was good.

These are three statements I support.  I would quit any game that switched to this system or offered it as an option.  I would also never start playing a game that offered it.  Yes, some people agreed with you, that's why this is a debate and not a bandwagon.

Raids would never function.  "Dude, this wipe is about to cost everyone another 2 dollars, let's quit."

 And what's the longest raid you've ever been involved with? The top end is about ten hours which is one dollar. If you're raiding like that every day, clogging the bandwidth and taking up slots that someone else could be using, then you would pay $30 a month (one raid a day). I spend more than that on cable TV. Although I've always looked at grinding and raiding as a rather shady way to keep players subscribing anyway. 

I have never been to a raid that took ten hours.  I also do not raid every day.  I would never play more money just so I could raid every day.  I pay a fixed monthly fee in order to access every aspect of the game.  Your argument here seems to cater far too much to casual gamers.  Casual gamers, when they sign up for a game, must realize that they are not going to play the game ten hours a day.  That means they accept a monthly fee for what they can access. Like you said, you pay more than thirty dollars for cable TV.  Fifteen isn't so bad, even if you don't use it ten hours a day.

I also do not understand what you mean by your first statement in this paragraph.  You started the original post saying that hardcore people play 20 hours a week.  That does not match this statement.  In fact, that would be more like 70 hours a week.  

You pay more a month on cable or satelitte TV or internet access or power.  You use all of those things at different times, but most people pay monthly for them.  Just deal with it.

Cable and satellite are fixed monthly rates unless you watch a lot of pay-per-view movies. Internet is also fixed rate. I get my internet from my cable company and the combined total comes to $100 month. Quite a few people on this site have multiple MMO accounts which means that they're digging up $30+ dollars a month for their game time. In other words, I doubt that anyone here would be busting their balls for 320 hours ($32) a month. Even at 40 hours a week, you'd only be spending $16.

This is a very confusing point.  You seem now to be creating a system where everyone has to pay more.  That's busted.  Super casual players who have other things that take up their time should pay the same as "hardcore" players.  Just like, as you said, people pay for other services they don't always use hours upon hours a week.

Honestly, just pay the fifteen a month or play a one time fee game.  You'll eventually get your money's worth with those games.

 

Also, you must realize that games make money based on a fixed monthly fee system.  The system proposed here is probably less profitable.  Right now, most MMORPGs are working against the Blizzard juggarnaut.  That means that every penny earned is important.  I think a system like this would ultimately bankrupt games even earlier than they seem to be dying now.

Originally posted by Orthedos

Originally posted by Daffid011

There is a reason most internet service providers changed from hourly based fees to flate rate fees. 

 

Also changing mmos to an hourly based fee rate is not a guarentee that any design of play options would change as a result. 

 

Charging a lump sum saves a lot of adminstration cost.  Imagine you have to pay your dish by a count of the number of rice, the weight of veget, the weight of meat, and the drops of water that goes in.  Imagine paying a flat $5 for a dish.

I'm not sure how much of an hourly charge would need manual attention over a flat rate fee, but I doubt it would save "a lot" of administrative cost.  I am guessing it would be just as automated as a flat rate fee would be and there isn't someone with a stop watch logging your time played.  Your analogy doesn't make sense in comparison to this.

@topic

An hourly fee puts your customer into the situation where they are forced to make a conscious effort to stay your customer every time they log in.  Every time they click to login button the thought will enter their mind "I am going to pay for this".  For every single hour that they play they will have that question in the back of their mind.  Furthermore you never want to put your customer in a situation where a bad day makes them think "did I get my moneys worth of playtime today?" or "Was it really worth paying $X.XX to do what I did".  

Effectively that company is asking the customer to stay married to their product every single time they log in. 

Originally posted by Daffid011

 @topic

An hourly fee puts your customer into the situation where they are forced to make a conscious effort to stay your customer every time they log in.  Every time they click to login button the thought will enter their mind "I am going to pay for this".  For every single hour that they play they will have that question in the back of their mind.  Furthermore you never want to put your customer in a situation where a bad day makes them think "did I get my moneys worth of playtime today?" or "Was it really worth paying $X.XX to do what I did".  

Effectively that company is asking the customer to stay married to their product every single time they log in. 

The subscription model is the same way though. The main reason why more people play traditional box games, mostly bought used or long after launch, is precisly because they feel that they should only have to pay for a game once. Between subscription or hourly fee, we're really only talking a matter of degree. You can divide $15 a month over how much time you actually spend logged in to see how far your entertainment dollar is going. For some people that will be more and for others it will be less.

let's go back to cable TV for a second. I don't watch TV. I maybe watch two or three hours of television over the course of a week. We're paying $50 month for digital cable. Why? Because my wife has shows that she absolutely has to watch every week. Even so, she's only really watches those shows on the weekend when she has the time. For me, cable is a horrible value. My wife on the other hand, is getting about $3.13 per hour out of our subscription. See how that works?

I'm not going to bother comparing video games to electricy, cell phones or internet subscriptions since those things are practically a neccessity anymore.

As for charging the hardcore more....

No, it isn't fair.

But it is just.

If you don't understand the difference then you really aren't qualified to debate this topic.

 As for me, I think that the OP's basic idea has some merit.

I think I'd have a cap on the top end-- sort of like when I was in college and you paid by the credit hour, but full-time was a set tuition, defined as 12-18 credit hours. Perhaps it could be flex-payment: $15 a month for unlimited usage, or a pre-paid hourly rate of up to $14/month. 

I think most people would go for $15 a month for unlimited usage, but some people, like myself, who play 10 or fewer hours a week, would have more of an incentive to pay for a subscription game if we didn't feel like we're paying for something we're not really using. I can tell you right now that $10 for LoTRO has me looking long and hard at that for my gaming fun when I get back from vacation in a week. I have $15 a month. I just don't think I play $15 a month. $10, maybe. 

(Edit: I am not currently subscribed to anything. There are several games I could enjoy playing, but right now, none of those companies are getting any of my money because I feel too busy to get $15 out of their games.) 

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

As for charging the hardcore more....

No, it isn't fair.

But it is just.

If you don't understand the difference then you really aren't qualified to debate this topic.

 

First off, trying to disqualify someone from a discussion for disagreeing with you is a tad egotistical.  I don't agree with you about charging people more for more time spent by changing a system that has been around for 10+ years.  Therefore, I am not qualified to argue with you?  That's a bit crazy, really.

It is not fair to change a system so that people who play more are punished.  It is not just, either.  You've used the analogy of cable TV so many times you would think you'd realize its the same system.  It works, and companies have used it for a long time.

If this has become an anti-hardcore pro-casual thread you've lost a lot of credibility.

Edit: Also, take into consideration how many of these "hardcore" players would see that the game cost them more and not sign up.  What would happen to the game's community if most of the players only logged in a couple hours a week?  Interesting things to ponder, I think.

Originally posted by retrospectic

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

As for charging the hardcore more....

No, it isn't fair.

But it is just.

If you don't understand the difference then you really aren't qualified to debate this topic.

 

 

First off, trying to disqualify someone from a discussion for disagreeing with you is a tad egotistical.  I don't agree with you about charging people more for more time spent by changing a system that has been around for 10+ years.  Therefore, I am not qualified to argue with you?  That's a bit crazy, really.

I'm not disqualifying anyone for not agreeing. I'm disqualifying those people that scream "it isn't fair" because they falsely think that fair is the same as just. To clarify:

Fair - Everyone gets exactly the same thing regardless of context or circumstance

Just - Everyone gets what they deserve based on some criteria. You get what you pay for.

Paying more for playing more while paying less for playing less is completely just. It isn't fair because not everyone has the same amount of time or money to spend. The hourly subscription balances the playing field between those with more time than money and those with more money than time.

It is not fair to change a system so that people who play more are punished.  It is not just, either.

How so? If I go to McDonalds should I get my value meal supersized for the same price as a regular? If you want more, you pay more. Sorry, but I don't see how that isn't just. Games are a luxury, not a right.

You've used the analogy of cable TV so many times you would think you'd realize its the same system.  It works, and companies have used it for a long time.

Yeah, cable is about the only entertainment thing that works this way... or is it...

Renting games is probably a closer situation. In that case I'm spending about $2 a day to play a game. We know that most people are not going to be playing the game for 24 straight hours, unless it's the weekend or something. Are you telling me that you think rentals are unfair or unjust?

If this has become an anti-hardcore pro-casual thread you've lost a lot of credibility.

Don't know about that one. In MMORPGs, the only real indication that a person is hardcore is the arbitrary amount of time they invest. With other genres, platformers, shooters, RTS, sports and wot not, Hardcore is defined by the attitude of the player. For instance, a hardcore FPS player may crank the game up to it's highest difficulty and attempt to play through the whole game in one go. Platform gamers have been speedrunning for years now. To sum up: the line between hardcore and casual is drawn by time in MMORPGs as opposed to actual acheivement in the way other types of games define the term.

Edit: Also, take into consideration how many of these "hardcore" players would see that the game cost them more and not sign up.

Hardcore gamers are the minority. It doesn't make any damn sense to cater to the smallest segment of your audience to the exclusion of the majority. It's this caving to the hardcore that has lead to the utter lack or orginality and inbred design that currently plagues AAA games.

What would happen to the game's community if most of the players only logged in a couple hours a week? 

You mean aside from the lack of drama inducing nerd rage? I'd assume that it would be the same as what happened in Guild Wars. Or what has gone on in FPS games for years. People would only play with their real life friends. This kind of thing has been seeping into MMOs ever since pre-Trammel UO.

Keep in mind that most of us just want a fun way to pass the time. We aren't trying to get away from real-life or generate "gamer cred" in order to feel better about ourselves. We also don't need a game in order to meet new people. That's what MySpace, Facebook and LJ are for.

Interesting things to ponder, I think.

Indeed.

 

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Originally posted by retrospectic

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

As for charging the hardcore more....

No, it isn't fair.

But it is just.

If you don't understand the difference then you really aren't qualified to debate this topic.

 

 

First off, trying to disqualify someone from a discussion for disagreeing with you is a tad egotistical.  I don't agree with you about charging people more for more time spent by changing a system that has been around for 10+ years.  Therefore, I am not qualified to argue with you?  That's a bit crazy, really.

I'm not disqualifying anyone for not agreeing. I'm disqualifying those people that scream "it isn't fair" because they falsely think that fair is the same as just. To clarify:

Fair - Everyone gets exactly the same thing regardless of context or circumstance

Just - Everyone gets what they deserve based on some criteria. You get what you pay for.

Paying more for playing more while paying less for playing less is completely just. It isn't fair because not everyone has the same amount of time or money to spend. The hourly subscription balances the playing field between those with more time than money and those with more money than time.

There is a striking difference between "that just makes sense" and "that works in reality."  A sliding scale for an MMORPG "just makes sense" in a way.  Sure, if you play less and pay the same you feel it doesn't make sense.  Sure, there are scales that make sense mathematically.  Sure, that may sound just.  You play less you pay less.  

That being said, I really doubt it would be feasible in the current MMORPG market.  The idea that you would have people paying less to play your game seems to also mean you'd have less money overall.  Like you say later, the hardcore market is the minority.  That means you'd be making less money overall.  Less money to develop, less money to staff.  To me, that seems to go against the whole idea of what MMORPGs are as a product for the consumer.

It is not fair to change a system so that people who play more are punished.  It is not just, either.

How so? If I go to McDonalds should I get my value meal supersized for the same price as a regular? If you want more, you pay more. Sorry, but I don't see how that isn't just. Games are a luxury, not a right.

I was not implying that games are a right, by any means.  You can't compare a one-time visit to McDonalds to a monthly gaming fee. 

What you are saying is more like this:

You go to McDonalds and you order a Big Mac.  You say to the person behind the counter, "I am not going to eat this whole burger, only really hungry people eat the whole thing!  Therefore I am going to pay you about half of what it costs.  I will eat about half!"

The idea is that you are paying for more than just the time you play.  You are paying for the people who work on the game, the content, the patches, the constant support.  You don't play the game a lot?  Well, there are those who do and those who work for those who do.  If you don't like it, play a game with a one-time fee or a game with an item shop that is otherwise free.

You've used the analogy of cable TV so many times you would think you'd realize its the same system.  It works, and companies have used it for a long time.

Yeah, cable is about the only entertainment thing that works this way... or is it...

Renting games is probably a closer situation. In that case I'm spending about $2 a day to play a game. We know that most people are not going to be playing the game for 24 straight hours, unless it's the weekend or something. Are you telling me that you think rentals are unfair or unjust?

No, because that is a completely different system.  The game company makes its money selling copies of the game to the rental store.  Many people rent the game so the rental store makes money.  You benefit because you only pay a fraction of the price.

MMORPGs are not rentals.  The payment scheme that MMOs use is one of the best ways they can make money.  Trying to make that system fluctuate to benefit people who don't play much would just take money from the company and result in a less polished and supported game.  Count me out.

If this has become an anti-hardcore pro-casual thread you've lost a lot of credibility.

Don't know about that one. In MMORPGs, the only real indication that a person is hardcore is the arbitrary amount of time they invest. With other genres, platformers, shooters, RTS, sports and wot not, Hardcore is defined by the attitude of the player. For instance, a hardcore FPS player may crank the game up to it's highest difficulty and attempt to play through the whole game in one go. Platform gamers have been speedrunning for years now. To sum up: the line between hardcore and casual is drawn by time in MMORPGs as opposed to actual acheivement in the way other types of games define the term.

I don't agree that "hardcore" gamer is = time invested in an MMORPG.  Many players do amazing things in end-game without investing all of their time.  This seems to point out your bias.

Edit: Also, take into consideration how many of these "hardcore" players would see that the game cost them more and not sign up.

Hardcore gamers are the minority. It doesn't make any damn sense to cater to the smallest segment of your audience to the exclusion of the majority. It's this caving to the hardcore that has lead to the utter lack or orginality and inbred design that currently plagues AAA games.

I don't believe this to be true.   I think hardcore gamers can work toward better games.  The speed at which players eat up content can fuel game companies to make contact not as easily powered through.  That's not the subject.  The problem is that you aren't just punishing the hardcore for their timespent.  You are punishing the game developer for putting their game online in a massive format.

What would happen to the game's community if most of the players only logged in a couple hours a week? 

You mean aside from the lack of drama inducing nerd rage? I'd assume that it would be the same as what happened in Guild Wars. Or what has gone on in FPS games for years. People would only play with their real life friends. This kind of thing has been seeping into MMOs ever since pre-Trammel UO.

Keep in mind that most of us just want a fun way to pass the time. We aren't trying to get away from real-life or generate "gamer cred" in order to feel better about ourselves. We also don't need a game in order to meet new people. That's what MySpace, Facebook and LJ are for.

Smaller communities of friends?  Sounds like LAN parties.  Sounds like you know exactly what kind of games the super casual people benefit most from. 

Bottom-line.  You will pay 15 bucks or you won't subscribe.  That's how it is going to be.

Interesting things to ponder, I think.

Indeed.

 

Originally posted by Daffid011

Originally posted by Orthedos

Originally posted by Daffid011

There is a reason most internet service providers changed from hourly based fees to flate rate fees. 

 

Also changing mmos to an hourly based fee rate is not a guarentee that any design of play options would change as a result. 

 

Charging a lump sum saves a lot of adminstration cost.  Imagine you have to pay your dish by a count of the number of rice, the weight of veget, the weight of meat, and the drops of water that goes in.  Imagine paying a flat $5 for a dish.

I'm not sure how much of an hourly charge would need manual attention over a flat rate fee, but I doubt it would save "a lot" of administrative cost.  I am guessing it would be just as automated as a flat rate fee would be and there isn't someone with a stop watch logging your time played.  Your analogy doesn't make sense in comparison to this.

 

@topic

An hourly fee puts your customer into the situation where they are forced to make a conscious effort to stay your customer every time they log in.  Every time they click to login button the thought will enter their mind "I am going to pay for this".  For every single hour that they play they will have that question in the back of their mind.  Furthermore you never want to put your customer in a situation where a bad day makes them think "did I get my moneys worth of playtime today?" or "Was it really worth paying $X.XX to do what I did".  

Effectively that company is asking the customer to stay married to their product every single time they log in. 

I agree, loggin the online hours might not be expensive.  But the cost or printing time hour cards, distributing them and so on does cost a lot.  Imagine the number of cards you need to print, and number of countries, shops you need to liaise to put them up for sales.  Business agreement, fraud prevention ...

I dare not suggest any cost models.  I have not been in that business.  I have a friend selling software and cards in Oregon, I can talk to him later about that.  When I go home.

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Originally posted by Daffid011

 @topic

An hourly fee puts your customer into the situation where they are forced to make a conscious effort to stay your customer every time they log in.  Every time they click to login button the thought will enter their mind "I am going to pay for this".  For every single hour that they play they will have that question in the back of their mind.  Furthermore you never want to put your customer in a situation where a bad day makes them think "did I get my moneys worth of playtime today?" or "Was it really worth paying $X.XX to do what I did".  

Effectively that company is asking the customer to stay married to their product every single time they log in. 

 

The subscription model is the same way though. The main reason why more people play traditional box games, mostly bought used or long after launch, is precisly because they feel that they should only have to pay for a game once. Between subscription or hourly fee, we're really only talking a matter of degree. You can divide $15 a month over how much time you actually spend logged in to see how far your entertainment dollar is going. For some people that will be more and for others it will be less.

let's go back to cable TV for a second. I don't watch TV. I maybe watch two or three hours of television over the course of a week. We're paying $50 month for digital cable. Why? Because my wife has shows that she absolutely has to watch every week. Even so, she's only really watches those shows on the weekend when she has the time. For me, cable is a horrible value. My wife on the other hand, is getting about $3.13 per hour out of our subscription. See how that works?

I'm not going to bother comparing video games to electricy, cell phones or internet subscriptions since those things are practically a neccessity anymore.

As for charging the hardcore more....

No, it isn't fair.

But it is just.

If you don't understand the difference then you really aren't qualified to debate this topic.

 

I don't disagree with the math you put down about subscription vs hourly and yes it will be different for each individual.

Where I think you drift off course is your comparison of reality versus that of perception.  The reality might be that it is cheaper or more expensive for players to pay by an hourly rate.  It really doesn't matter for what I am talking about.  The perception is that every time someone logs in it will have a dollar figure associated with it.  Clicking that login button will cost money and will require a choice to continue subscribing.  To some it will be a dissincentive to play or just make walking away easier than a subscription.   

It will affect how some people chose to play, or in this case not play. 

The last portion of your post I hope was aimed at someone else?

I wonder how the discussion even got this far.

If you have a montly subscription plan that says $15 and underneath there is another check box that says Pay Pr Hour then everybody can be happy. End of discussion.  The only reason i see why people would discuss it back and fourth if there was only 1 option called Pay Pr Hour. I doubt any gaming company would limit themselves to 1 choice. Wizard101 Offers a ton of payment options ranging from a month to month sub to just perma opening content with a 1 time fee only. That's smart thinking

The only sensible argument against it i read and i forgot who it was that said it. It would make players paying pr hour more obnoxious to play with. That's not a far fetched reality and probably the smartest thing said in this thread.

It just seems to me that this method of payment would cater to a population that only play in small clusters and for very specifc amounts of time.  I'm not sure that the OP and I will ever agree on any sort of payment system that could be different from what is already in place.

I feel like this post, under all the nitpicking, really hasn't been presented in a feasible manner.  Although I understand the point trying to be made, I do not see the merit for the companies who would use the system we've been discussing.  In fact, a lot of the posts I read seem to boil down to an anti-hardcore pro-casual debate.  I seem to see a lot of generalizations made about a set of players.  Like most generalizations, they are bred from an ignorance of the culture, and a hate for something that is based on flawed ideals.

Listen, I want to make it clear that I understand what a super casual player feels.  If you have a hectic schedule, the game may seem less and less worth the monthly fee.  Right now, though, you have to either subscribe and pay, or not subscribe at all.  There aren't many games that offer any other system.  If they do, they are more than likely using an item mall system that is another topic completely.

That being said, you would have to come up with a system that have a ceiling that competes with the current market.  That means you couldn't charge players more than current games, ever.  If someone decides to leave their character logged in 24/7 there needs to be an eventual maximum fee, and that fee has to be 15 dollars.  The world of MMORPGs is a persistant world, and anything that punishes being a part of that persistant environment is going to fail, or change the game itself. 

It is an idea that has promise, but right now the way it has been mentioned is far too biased in one direction.  I just can't see any company using a system like the one we're discussing.