Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Stumblewyk" data-source="post: 5434820" data-attributes="member: 67606">I don't disagree with you on the logic of your premise.&nbsp; Do I have players who would probably chip in $5.00 if they knew they didn't have to buy their own subscription...yeah, I do.&nbsp; But over all, I think this kind of model would result in less subscriptions and less money for WotC - In Group A, there are 3 paying DDI subscribers.&nbsp; In Group B, there are 2 (and one of them is considering dropping his subscription).&nbsp; Totaled up, each paying member pays more than any reasonable group pricing model would bring in.And what about my case where I DM 1 game nearly exclusively and take turns at another table.&nbsp; Do I pay as part of two group subscriptions?&nbsp; How is this fair to me?&nbsp; The current model allows me to use my subscription for both games.&nbsp; And two of my players in Group B join me in Group A.&nbsp; Do they have to pay twice?It just gets too hairy.&nbsp; And becomes too easy to cheat if you just say if you pay for one group subscription, you can jump from group to group.&nbsp; I easily see a player paying for part of a subscription in Game A, playing in a 2nd game with an entirely different group and not paying for their subscription, and then DM'ing a 3rd game for a group and not having that group pay a single cent for a subscription since he's got access to all the tools he needs, and his players are content to mooch off his account access.In a perfect world, your model would be great.&nbsp; But lots of people move around in games, lie about how many games they play, and cheat the system every shot they get. =/</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Stumblewyk, post: 5434820, member: 67606"] I don't disagree with you on the logic of your premise. Do I have players who would probably chip in $5.00 if they knew they didn't have to buy their own subscription...yeah, I do. But over all, I think this kind of model would result in less subscriptions and less money for WotC - In Group A, there are 3 paying DDI subscribers. In Group B, there are 2 (and one of them is considering dropping his subscription). Totaled up, each paying member pays more than any reasonable group pricing model would bring in. And what about my case where I DM 1 game nearly exclusively and take turns at another table. Do I pay as part of two group subscriptions? How is this fair to me? The current model allows me to use my subscription for both games. And two of my players in Group B join me in Group A. Do they have to pay twice? It just gets too hairy. And becomes too easy to cheat if you just say if you pay for one group subscription, you can jump from group to group. I easily see a player paying for part of a subscription in Game A, playing in a 2nd game with an entirely different group and not paying for their subscription, and then DM'ing a 3rd game for a group and not having that group pay a single cent for a subscription since he's got access to all the tools he needs, and his players are content to mooch off his account access. In a perfect world, your model would be great. But lots of people move around in games, lie about how many games they play, and cheat the system every shot they get. =/ [/QUOTE]

Verification