> First of all I see this as a platform that can host everything and is cloud based so they are only transmitting what you view to you.
Latency. So much lag. There's actually services that offer this right now, and they all tooootally suck. A modern client uses a lot of power on your side, but as a result, it is displaying the server state, and also making predictions based on that. This cuts dramatically down on the amount of latency you personally have to deal with. But if your input device and your output device both have serious latency, you will be in for a WORLD of hurt.
> You would no longer have to buy any additional hardware or worry about DRM/which platform you are on.
I mean, do you think we don't all do this today for some bad reason? Your hypothetical is already something that people try to do, for single and multiplayer games alike.
> As you can see each publisher/developer would receive their equivalent funds and we start voting with our money as an extension of our time.
Right, that it itself the problem. In your hypothetical, the guy making Madden 2018 realizes that he needs to get his Xbitch subscribers to play his game more than the others. So the first thing he does is offer a passive reward, maybe even for being just logged in. Tell your team to go practice. The practice plays itself on loop, but you can interact for slightly greater rewards per time. Now he's getting 8 hours a night while you leave your team practicing. Since the game is now rebuilt around the idea that teams practice while their owners are asleep, this isn't really an advantage to the player in any way (except for the players that aren't doing this yet), but it totally dicks up the accounting system.
So Microsoft walks in and says, none of that. But once the incentive is established, everyone will walk up to that line and do what they can. Now EA offers a bonus in game A for playing a bunch of game B. Or any game simply offers rewards for heavy playtime.
You get more of what you pay for. And this system absolutely encourages it to be gamed.
> this might incentivize developers to build and support games for longer
It might incentivize developers to try to drag out playtimes, even when they aren't fun. Which is more likely?
Also, there's a cap to how much game can be paid for this way. If I need to pay 15/month to play, say, WoW, why would I expect a game of that quality to be delivered to me as part of another 15/month subscription? If I was EA, would I launch my title on this system, or wait 6 months and offer a gimped, or maybe very grindy version?
It's a bad idea. I very much hope it fails for this reason. It pays people to make shitty game, and it chokes out good games. Very probably.