Bitt does say he understands the need for it.

Actually, I think what Tony meant is that you quoted be but responded to his post.

Regardless, yeah -- I do understand, and the mutable content is cool, but it's hard to pay $50 for a game and then have to pay more on top of that. Obviously, the recurring fee covers the continuous costs, and the folks reaping those benefits should pay for that. It seems to me that it might work better if the game were distributed for free, LucasArts figured what the average number of months someone would play is and then prorate the cost of the game across that many months and forget about the free months thing. I think you'd have more people play if they could just pay $20 up front instead of $50.

But I'm not privy to LA's finances or sales numbers, so what do I know?