time per game sucks, you guys

I don't see that you've proposed a concrete time control per move. Until you do, this is not a serious proposition. Give your proposition, and then we might discuss it in a better way. 

In the meantime, consider playing 45|45 games. That kind of games will have a lot of time on the clock, and a pretty big increment as well. Of course, not many people are prepared to play, but until some 1 500 - 1 600 rating there are players willing to play it regularly. There are some higher rated as well, but it is more difficult to find a game above 1 500 or so. The only downside is that you will have to wait for a few minutes, but if you are already ready to play longer games, it is more or less a drop in the sea anyway from your perspective.

Ok, first of all, I wish to thank you for the constructive post.

I will point out a few problems however.

First of all, in order for chess.com to take this into consideration, FIDE would have to do it as well. If not, chess.com would just lose a lot of its users because they wouldn't offer time controls that are standard for chess today.

But let's not dwell on that for now.

I want to point out the lack of flexibility of your format. Not all moves are the same. In classical chess format today, there are moves where people use 2 seconds - some obvious recapture or an obvious opening move, etc.

On the other hand, there are complex positions where people burn half an hour, sometimes even an hour of their time. But for online purposes, I could safely say that sometimes I take 7 minutes on certain moves where I am either unsure how to proceed or when I think that I have something in a position, but I have to calculate. So 2 minutes per move is not even long enough for me, let alone OTB play.

And if you say, 10 minutes per move for OTB classical chess, in critical moments that is not enough either on the one hand, and on the other, that game would drag a lot - imagine a game where both players would play 60 moves each, it could take up to 20 hours (and much longer games than 60 moves ones have been played). And if you say, ok 10 minutes for them is too long, give them 2 minutes per move still, I remind you that 2 minutes in critical positions is not nearly enough.

The quality of OTB classical chess would plummeted.

The same thing, but for shorter games goes as well. It is not flexible, but there is another problem. You need to know your online audience as well. Most people here who plays blitz play 3|0 or 3|2. 10 seconds per move is 20 minutes per game for 60 moves. People who plays blitz are not used to games this long.

And for 20 seconds per move, again, that is not flexible for those who wishes to play somewhat longer game and it can last for a way longer than they are prepared to play. Most people in rapid pool is playing 10 minutes per side.

On top of it all, on every move there would be an added pressure that you have to watch not to flag. The games would be of much lower quality as a result as well.

So far the closest to this is a delay time control, but Chess.com does not such such features - at least for the moment.

Of course.

I will just sum it up, because some people don't like reading longer posts.
The most important issue is the lack of flexibility - because in practice not every move is the same (total game might be too long, and there will not be enough time in critical moments), and for longer games, constant time trouble mode. I think because of these 2 things this is not a better solution.

I know it's been requested to add a time per move option for live and can understand a the desire, but don't really think it would work very well in practice, especially online with lag possibilities.

There are moves on which I would spend 10 seconds and there are moves on which I would spend 10 minutes. 2min per move is a horrible time control.