MMORPGs: The payment model of the future

124

Posts

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Morkath wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Morkath wrote: »
    ironzerg wrote: »
    Morkath wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    It seems pretty unlikely that game A would be making as much money as game B.

    Profit per month, no. But it is more likely to remain profitable for a longer period of time. Games that last for longer periods of time are also more likely to have a sequel to make even more money on, meanwhile the game that did will initially but then quickly tanked is not likely to get another chance.

    Why? I would venture that a game where everyone is paying has a much better chance of surviving than a game that is reliant on 100,000 to support 10 million.

    For example, say something happens in the environment, and each game loses half it's paying accounts. Now you have 50,000 people support 10 million, while the other game goes down to 50,000 people supporting 50,000 people.

    Obviously just my opinion, and based on the fact that option A remains profitable.

    But in option A, even though you have lost 50k people, your server population has not really diminished, which still gives the remaining 50k people a large pool of people to play from and keep enjoying the game. It also doesn't look like a dead game with them having to close servers down, which keeps the general non-playing/paying audience interested, and may cause them to subscribe and increase the user base again.

    In option B, as soon as they have dropped to 50k people, they have just halved their server populations, which makes it harder for the remaining 50k people to find groups/do content. They will also more than likely close servers which gives the outward appearance that the game is dying, and will prevent new users from playing/subscribing.

    e:
    Not on topic, but also if you had 10 million free users, I would expect some sort of cash shop to be in position for them to be bringing in supplemental income, similar to DDO.

    Except that kind of thing will bite you in the ass.

    In both cases, you've lost 50% of your revenue.

    In Case B, you only need to support 50% of the people though. So reduced revenue isn't as nasty.

    In Case A, you are supporting essentially the same number of people, but at half the profit.

    Correct, obviously losing half your paying user base sucks regardless.
    But Case A has a far greater chance of recovering from it and gaining those subscribers back. While B is pretty much screwed and on a death spiral.

    I don't see how. In fact, Case A seems to be the one in a death spiral. They just lost half their revenue without any drop in expenditure.

    shryke on
  • MorkathMorkath Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    Morkath wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Morkath wrote: »
    ironzerg wrote: »
    Morkath wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    It seems pretty unlikely that game A would be making as much money as game B.

    Profit per month, no. But it is more likely to remain profitable for a longer period of time. Games that last for longer periods of time are also more likely to have a sequel to make even more money on, meanwhile the game that did will initially but then quickly tanked is not likely to get another chance.

    Why? I would venture that a game where everyone is paying has a much better chance of surviving than a game that is reliant on 100,000 to support 10 million.

    For example, say something happens in the environment, and each game loses half it's paying accounts. Now you have 50,000 people support 10 million, while the other game goes down to 50,000 people supporting 50,000 people.

    Obviously just my opinion, and based on the fact that option A remains profitable.

    But in option A, even though you have lost 50k people, your server population has not really diminished, which still gives the remaining 50k people a large pool of people to play from and keep enjoying the game. It also doesn't look like a dead game with them having to close servers down, which keeps the general non-playing/paying audience interested, and may cause them to subscribe and increase the user base again.

    In option B, as soon as they have dropped to 50k people, they have just halved their server populations, which makes it harder for the remaining 50k people to find groups/do content. They will also more than likely close servers which gives the outward appearance that the game is dying, and will prevent new users from playing/subscribing.

    e:
    Not on topic, but also if you had 10 million free users, I would expect some sort of cash shop to be in position for them to be bringing in supplemental income, similar to DDO.

    Except that kind of thing will bite you in the ass.

    In both cases, you've lost 50% of your revenue.

    In Case B, you only need to support 50% of the people though. So reduced revenue isn't as nasty.

    In Case A, you are supporting essentially the same number of people, but at half the profit.

    Correct, obviously losing half your paying user base sucks regardless.
    But Case A has a far greater chance of recovering from it and gaining those subscribers back. While B is pretty much screwed and on a death spiral.

    I don't see how. In fact, Case A seems to be the one in a death spiral. They just lost half their revenue without any drop in expenditure.

    Because as I have said, they still have a very active community, thus are more likely to then have new subscribers come to play on the still thriving game. If 10 million people are playing there must be something good there right?

    A game with a small user base isn't going to attract new paying customers due to the fact it is perceived to be unpopular/failing(Because if the game was good, more than 50k people would be playing right?), and the people playing will have a hard time forming groups, so they will lose more customers as they get frustrated.

    Just look at DDO.

    Morkath on
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    And yet, various MMOs chug along with low subscriber numbers. They're not WoW, but it's not exactly 'death spiral' ( :rotate: ) status either.

    On the other hand, we don't really see a game where such a vast majority of free players are being supported by so few paying in (unless we're talking maple story or something I guess? Not sure what their numbers look like) because that model isn't really sustainable.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
  • ironzergironzerg Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Morkath wrote: »
    Because as I have said, they still have a very active community, thus are more likely to then have new subscribers come to play on the still thriving game. If 10 million people are playing there must be something good there right?

    A game with a small user base isn't going to attract new paying customers due to the fact it is perceived to be unpopular/failing(Because if the game was good, more than 50k people would be playing right?), and the people playing will have a hard time forming groups, so they will lose more customers as they get frustrated.

    Just look at DDO.

    There's a lot of problems with this post.

    First, the way a lot of these F2P games who brag about having a bajillion customers measure account activity is suspect. From what I read, a lot of these guys measure based on if that person has logged on in the last month, or has spent a minimum of an hour each month in game. The reality is, that's not a lot. Hence, saying you have 10 million "accounts" really doesn't correlate directly to how active the community is.

    EVE is a great example of this. My perception is a couple years old, but I think EVE averages 25,000-30,000 concurrent users online at peak times. However, the galaxy appears fairly well populated, with crowds existing where they're expected, while isolated places are still sparse.

    Second, "If 10 million people are playing there must be something good there right?". I would argue the opposite. You have 10 million non-paying people playing the game. Again, if it was so good, wouldn't people be paying for it, instead of just free-loading?

    Third, a small user base doesn't speak about the quality of the game, but to the user base it attracts. A game can still be very niche, yet extremely successful. Again, I would point to EVE as an example. Perhaps one of the biggest reasons we've seen so many spectacular failures in the MMO market is everyone is trying to copy WoW. Fantasy MMO's are a dime a dozen these days, and earn about as much.

    Again, it all goes back to the quality of the game. Ten million people playing a shitty game for free doesn't make a shitty game any less shitty.

    ironzerg on


  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    There's also the factor in both free to play (i.e. either with a purchase up-front, or MT/cash-shop based) and pay to play (subscription) games is that the majority of the players are not elite (I think I read that something like 95% of the WoW playerbase doesn't raid?). Therefore the "freeloaders" in a scenario where 10 million (or choose your large number) players are running around for free in a game aren't using up vast developer, i.e. content resources because most people are perfectly content to just run around and play chatroom with their friends, killing random mobs for shits and giggles.

    A game that relies on income generated by means other than a box purchase or sub can either:

    A) find ways to monetize these players by offering those cosmetic items that don't alter gameplay, because such a player is more likely to drop $5 on a pretty mount/dress/wand/hat/pet/etc. than pay for an expansion or extra content, because they are not elite or organized or skilled or guilded enough to tackle that +5 level dungeon

    B) make most of their money on the hardcore/elite players who are always chasing that +1 helm and that world first boss kill, or the PvP epeen or leaderboard status (consumables, etc.)

    C) both

    Sure, there will be a portion of those 10 million who only logged on for an hour and never came back, but even 1/5th, hell, one tenth of that population is a large population, and they provide a sense of world and context for the people who are eating up the content. And, in a PvP game, they provide sheep to be ganked. But that would probably only work in an Asian MMO these days!

    edit: any numbers on how many people play games they think are shitty just because they're free? Sheesh, I won't even play LOTRO and I paid for it.

    sidhaethe on
  • MorkathMorkath Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2010
    ironzerg wrote: »
    First, the way a lot of these F2P games who brag about having a bajillion customers measure account activity is suspect. From what I read, a lot of these guys measure based on if that person has logged on in the last month, or has spent a minimum of an hour each month in game. The reality is, that's not a lot. Hence, saying you have 10 million "accounts" really doesn't correlate directly to how active the community is.

    Not really relevant, we were discussing a hypothetical situation where there were 10 million players, not 10 million accounts. I don't mean to sound like a dick, but don't come into the conversation, change what it is about, then try to make me out to be an idiot.
    ironzerg wrote: »
    EVE is a great example of this. My perception is a couple years old, but I think EVE averages 25,000-30,000 concurrent users online at peak times. However, the galaxy appears fairly well populated, with crowds existing where they're expected, while isolated places are still sparse.

    They also use a single server method, opposed to most other mmo's which have multiple. Spread that 30k over 3-4 servers, now how populated is each? Unrelated, but EVE is more of a spreadsheet simulator than an actual MMO, they can push all there players into one space easier.
    ironzerg wrote: »
    Second, "If 10 million people are playing there must be something good there right?". I would argue the opposite. You have 10 million non-paying people playing the game. Again, if it was so good, wouldn't people be paying for it, instead of just free-loading?

    So the game is so awful that those 10 million people keep logging in to play, even if they aren't paying for it with a subscription? The game is obviously offering something a LOT of people are enjoying at that level, because there are a lot of other free games out there they could be playing.
    Also I was talking about perception of the game, not the games actual quality level. The two are not the same. When JoeUser looks at gameA and gameB, and sees gameA has 10million+ players, and gameB has 100k, they are going to assume gameA is the better more popular game. Even if it is not.
    I also mentioned in a previous post that there would more than likely be a cash shop option similar to DDO, which would be bringing in some revenue from the free players.
    ironzerg wrote: »
    Third, a small user base doesn't speak about the quality of the game, but to the user base it attracts. A game can still be very niche, yet extremely successful. Again, I would point to EVE as an example. Perhaps one of the biggest reasons we've seen so many spectacular failures in the MMO market is everyone is trying to copy WoW. Fantasy MMO's are a dime a dozen these days, and earn about as much.

    Again talking about the perception, not the actual quality of a game. There is a reason people try to copy WoW, and not EVE, and it's not for the game design.

    Morkath on
  • XehalusXehalus lofi Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I only wonder if Guild Wars 2 has surpassed WoW in art design... that's the main reason I play WoW.

    Xehalus on
  • PhantPhant Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    ironzerg wrote: »
    EVE is a great example of this. My perception is a couple years old, but I think EVE averages 25,000-30,000 concurrent users online at peak times. However, the galaxy appears fairly well populated, with crowds existing where they're expected, while isolated places are still sparse.

    Its been maybe 6-8 months since I had a active sub to EVE, but concurrency is easily near double that during peak US and European prime time. Last time I played the universe wasn't just well populated, it was getting crowded.

    Phant on
    steam_sig.png
  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Xehalus wrote: »
    I only wonder if Guild Wars 2 has surpassed WoW in art design... that's the main reason I play WoW.

    I've heard a lot of criticisms of Guild Wars, but this is honestly the first time I've heard art direction as one of them. Though feel free to check out the site and see if it's up your alley. I would say the graphics style of GW2 is nothing like WoW, and more like GW... well... 2.0.

    Then again, I could never get into WoW precisely because of the graphics, so I guess one never knows.

    sidhaethe on
  • MyDcmbrMyDcmbr Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Xehalus wrote: »
    I only wonder if Guild Wars 2 has surpassed WoW in art design... that's the main reason I play WoW.

    You play WoW for the art design? o_O

    Well then...... that is honestly the first time I have ever heard that, so +1 internets for you.

    MyDcmbr on
    Steam
    So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
  • CripTonicCripTonic Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Phant wrote: »
    ironzerg wrote: »
    EVE is a great example of this. My perception is a couple years old, but I think EVE averages 25,000-30,000 concurrent users online at peak times. However, the galaxy appears fairly well populated, with crowds existing where they're expected, while isolated places are still sparse.

    Its been maybe 6-8 months since I had a active sub to EVE, but concurrency is easily near double that during peak US and European prime time. Last time I played the universe wasn't just well populated, it was getting crowded.

    When I played EVE, over 3 years ago, the few things I distinctly remember were the hell that Jita was (over 2000 people in local) and that fact that even though low-sec/0.0 was generally empty, doing any kind of traveling always felt risky through these areas due to the fact that EVE has a death penalty, which made the population in low-pop areas feel higher than it actually was.

    To pull back on topic a bit, while playing EVE I didn't feel the $15/mo price tag, nor effort it took to raise 300+ million ISK, were worth it because of the real-time skill system. If actually playing EVE accelerated the learning process, or there was anything but money to be made by logging in, I think EVE would catch on to a broader audience.

    In retrospect, I don't really feel most MMOs are worth the $15/mo price tag content wise and would much prefer an ANet style format because you actually get content you pay for. I think this is the resonating theme throughout this thread. The subscription models need to match the games they're designed for more than anything else.

    CripTonic on
    0liDg.png
  • CorehealerCorehealer The Apothecary The softer edge of the universe.Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    MyDcmbr wrote: »
    Xehalus wrote: »
    I only wonder if Guild Wars 2 has surpassed WoW in art design... that's the main reason I play WoW.

    You play WoW for the art design? o_O

    Well then...... that is honestly the first time I have ever heard that, so +1 internets for you.

    Ya seriously.

    Corehealer on
    488W936.png
  • 815165815165 Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I like WoW's art design, too.

    It's spiffy.

    815165 on
  • EliminationElimination Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I don't play WoW specifically because the art design looks dumb to me.

    Elimination on
    PSN: PA_Elimination 3DS: 4399-2012-1711 Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/TheElimination/
  • ironzergironzerg Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I don't play WoW specifically because the art design looks dumb to me.

    WoW's art design was determine in an environment where every single game was going for a hyper-realistic look. I personally found it very refreshing.

    But to each his own, right?

    ironzerg on


  • SonorkSonork CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I like the flat monthly rate. I enjoy a level playing field where everything that can effect the outcome of in game activities is earned throughout the world. As others have said micro transactions just have me thinking too much at what costs what and if i really need it. I just don't want to think about how much I'm spending on in-game stuff. I want to play the game and have fun doing stuff in game to get better stuff. Flat rates have me not even worrying about anything real money wise and agian as most people have said $15 - $20 a month for hundreds of hours of entertainment is worth it to me.

    I enjoy earning stuff in these games through playing the game. If i spent however long getting something I would be annoyed if someone could just buy it for $5 cause they don't want to invest the time. I like knowing that it was worth my time to get said thing and if anyone else has it I know they had to spend the time as well.

    So yeah flat rate is ok with me as long as the devs are constantly developing the game and adding stuff. Honestly WoW has done it pretty much spot on for me.

    Sonork on
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    WoW's art design is neat primarily because the fantasy genre is full of super-serious people who look super serious while doing serious things; ever since warcraft 2 they've been riffing on popular tropes, and the art style is an extension of that.

    I also think that when WoW does decide to have some serious shit go down, the style of the game adds weight to it, since most things are vaguely cartoonish.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
  • SegSeg Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I like the idea of a game where if I can only play 6 hours in a week I am not paying as much to play as a guy who gets to play 40+ hours in a week.

    Seg on
  • eatmosushieatmosushi __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    the idea of paying a company $15x12 a year for a game i already paid $50 strikes me as nauseating.

    eatmosushi on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] Spun uncontrollably skyward... Driven brutally into the ground
  • SegSeg Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    eatmosushi wrote: »
    the idea of paying a company $15x12 a year for a game i already paid $50 strikes me as nauseating.

    Then I geuss the majority of MMOs aren't really for you.

    Seg on
  • SniperGuySniperGuy Also known as Dohaeris Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    eatmosushi wrote: »
    the idea of paying a company $15x12 a year for a game i already paid $50 strikes me as nauseating.

    Well it's like 11 for 12 months or something. You get a discount in bulk!

    SniperGuy on
    Twitch Streaming basically all week
    SniperGuyGaming on PSN / SniperGuy710 on Xbone Live
  • CripTonicCripTonic Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Sonork wrote: »
    So yeah flat rate is ok with me as long as the devs are constantly developing the game and adding stuff. Honestly WoW has done it pretty much spot on for me.

    So you're totally okay with the fact you get absolutely nothing between the last raid instance and expansions except game time? This was my biggest gripe with WoW and why I finally ended up quitting. Between ICC's final wing unlock and Cataclysm (possible) release, you're going to be paying over $100 in sub fees for absolutely nothing but game time, then another $50 for a game box.

    This is what I see as the largest issue with flat payment subscription models. If I play for a single month after new content comes out, I get way more content-per-dollar than people who have been loyal consumers.

    WoW Asia pays ~$0.06/hour of game time. You would need to play 8 hours per day to match the cost, slightly more if you pay in large time frames. If all I'm doing is logging in 3-4 hours per week to kill stuff I've already done, paying by the hour seems way more realistic. Put a $3 "activation fee" for logging in every 30 days and toss a monthly "cap" on it of $15/month, and I'm pretty sure no one would ever actually cancel their WoW subs.

    CripTonic on
    0liDg.png
  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    eatmosushi wrote: »
    the idea of paying a company $15x12 a year for a game i already paid $50 strikes me as nauseating.

    Well it's like 11 for 12 months or something. You get a discount in bulk!

    But with a F2P (or B2P) model, you get a discount of nothing. That's a lifetime subscription for $50.00!

    Please note, with LOTRO as a subscription model, you could buy a lifetime sub for $199-$299. And you still had to pay for the expansions. Some content was added for "free" (which just means you paid for it with your subscription, so tally up your subscription amounts for the number of months you're not getting new content), but Mines of Moria and Lothlorien were extra costs for the content/extra character slots/new classes.

    While it's true that I'm opposed to subscriptions in general, my feeling is that if you're going to charge a sub for a game, expansions should be "free" (see the caveat above) as well. To me, a sub + boxed or digital expansions is the double-dip, and sub + paid expansions + cash/MT shop is a triple-dip.

    sidhaethe on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    CripTonic wrote: »
    Sonork wrote: »
    So yeah flat rate is ok with me as long as the devs are constantly developing the game and adding stuff. Honestly WoW has done it pretty much spot on for me.

    So you're totally okay with the fact you get absolutely nothing between the last raid instance and expansions except game time? This was my biggest gripe with WoW and why I finally ended up quitting. Between ICC's final wing unlock and Cataclysm (possible) release, you're going to be paying over $100 in sub fees for absolutely nothing but game time, then another $50 for a game box.

    This is what I see as the largest issue with flat payment subscription models. If I play for a single month after new content comes out, I get way more content-per-dollar than people who have been loyal consumers.

    Only because you are, to an extent, leaching off of the money the loyal customers are putting in.
    WoW Asia pays ~$0.06/hour of game time. You would need to play 8 hours per day to match the cost, slightly more if you pay in large time frames. If all I'm doing is logging in 3-4 hours per week to kill stuff I've already done, paying by the hour seems way more realistic. Put a $3 "activation fee" for logging in every 30 days and toss a monthly "cap" on it of $15/month, and I'm pretty sure no one would ever actually cancel their WoW subs.

    That just makes me feel like every minute spent online not doing something important is a waste of money.

    Waiting in a queue? That's costing me real money now.

    shryke on
  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    That just makes me feel like every minute spent online not doing something important is a waste of money.

    Waiting in a queue? That's costing me real money now.

    That's how I feel paying a subscription, only I feel like I got tricked into paying it up front and can't get it back.

    Of course, I'm not a fan of paying by the hour either (as with the subscription model, I would feel that the goal is to keep me in-game for as long as possible, with travel time, grind, etc.), but as long as I don't have to and someone else wants to, it's no skin off my nose.

    sidhaethe on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    That just makes me feel like every minute spent online not doing something important is a waste of money.

    Waiting in a queue? That's costing me real money now.

    That's how I feel paying a subscription, only I feel like I got tricked into paying it up front and can't get it back.

    That doesn't make any sense.

    With a subscription, you've already payed for an unlimited amount of time. You can't waste it.

    shryke on
  • MorkathMorkath Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    That just makes me feel like every minute spent online not doing something important is a waste of money.

    Waiting in a queue? That's costing me real money now.

    That's how I feel paying a subscription, only I feel like I got tricked into paying it up front and can't get it back.

    That doesn't make any sense.

    With a subscription, you've already payed for an unlimited amount of time. You can't waste it.

    He's saying he feels he got jipped into paying extra, because he ended up not using his $15 worth.

    Morkath on
  • ironzergironzerg Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    The issue here is trying to decide on a pricing model that maximizes your revenue.

    I agree with a lot of people here that there's room for a pay by the hour model for MMO's.

    However, if you look at games like WoW, with a huge base of more casual players, you might experience a reduced revenue stream if a majority of players were paying by the hour, versus a flat fee. And you have to decide if the group of people you would pick up in by offering a pay by the hour model would offset the revenue lost by having the current customers who are happily paying by the month start paying by the hour.

    And again, it goes back to a point I brought up a couple pages ago about customers and price sensitivity.

    I would feel that if you're trying to target a group of players who view paying $15 a month for a game subscription as an aberration, you're probably getting into murky waters in terms of long-term viability/profitability of such a group. Right now, WoW has demonstrated there's a huge market opportunity with customers willing to pay the flat subscription fee.

    Looking back at the history of the market, back when UO came out, people thought it was doomed because people just weren't going to pay $9 a month to play a game. And the price has slowing increased from 9 to 10 to 12 to 15, and with each price increases, the doom and gloom was repeated, yet the size of the market and games have only increased.

    What I think that points to is an overall increase in the quality of the game, the hours spent playing the game, and the small relative cost. When people do the math, even with a monthly fee, the amount of game time and content they're receiving in these games is phenomenal, as compared to the cost per hour of a traditional box game.

    ironzerg on


  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I think looking to WoW for guidance on pricing models is unwise for the same reason it's unwise to look at WoW for guidance on almost anything else; WoW is an aberration. Almost everyone who was going to play WoW are playing it, and almost everyone who isn't playing it wants to play something else. You yourself talk about millions of players (presumably meaning concurrent subs) - no other game in NA is getting that, nor are they going to steal away WoW's audience, so why do what WoW is doing? It may very well be that the path to maximized profit for such games is NOT to require a sub, because us non-WoW players are such a contrary bunch donchaknow.

    Edit: what I feel subscription proponents are arguing for is subscriptions as a one-size-fits-all model that everyone should be happy with because many people are happy with it. Why the opposition to the mere existence of games with different payment models (games you don't even have to play, for all their inferior quality), I don't know. And if a previously subscription game changes its model away from subs, obviously it's been determined that the new model has a chance of being as or more profitable than the previous one, by people who actually have access to the numbers that we're only speculating on.

    sidhaethe on
  • MugaazMugaaz Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Seg wrote: »
    eatmosushi wrote: »
    the idea of paying a company $15x12 a year for a game i already paid $50 strikes me as nauseating.

    Then I geuss the majority of MMOs aren't really for you.

    Why do people use this argument all the time, ALL THE TIME.

    YET, THEY HAPPILY SHELL OUT $60 FOR GOD OF WAR 3 AND PLAY IT FOR 10 HOURS OR LESS BEFORE IT'S OVER.

    Sorry, for the caps, I just can't think of any way to stress how crazy that is. People happily pay $6+/hr to play something like GoW3 (which is an awesome game, don't get me wrong). Yet asking them to pay something like 50cents/hr to play WoW is "nauseating"

    If you are going to use money as the basis of the argument then the determination has to be one of value. The amount of game time per dollar from an MMO you enjoy is an order of magnitude higher than virtually any other genre of game, there are exceptions, but very few. The moral/philosophical argument against the subscription model has some validity, but it is absolutely and completely trumped by the fact that those gaming dollars stretch further than anything else. What else comes close to that? A $15 subscription to gamefly maybe? People who plays tons of FPS, Fighting, or Sports games online and not on thier Xbox? I can't think of anything else.

    I think it's obvious that the freemium model (Free to play, Pay to win) will slowly takeover, and as an adequately employed person I don't really care. However, it is clearly a model that is generally unfair to a portion of it's userbase and I find that the ability to buy victory robs me of a lot of enjoyment multiplayer games offer. There have been a few systems like this that have worked well, such as League of Legends. As a whole though the implementation of this system has always been one of failure.

    Mugaaz on
  • eatmosushieatmosushi __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    so.... me playing call of dooty for years for xbl fee + $50 purchase is reasonable but

    but...

    playing wow for $50 + $180 per year is just as reasonable?

    a 4 year wow player has spent $720

    just. sayin.

    difference between call of duty and wow: one has hurr purples.


    edit:

    but eatmosushi! wut about raid content!

    do we really need to pay $180 a year to guys to find prettier ways for us not to stand in a certain spot at a certain time over and over? :/ come on man

    end the monthly subscriptions.

    eatmosushi on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] Spun uncontrollably skyward... Driven brutally into the ground
  • MutilateMutilate Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    eatmosushi wrote: »
    so.... me playing call of dooty for years for xbl fee + $50 purchase is reasonable but

    but...

    playing wow for $50 + $180 per year is just as reasonable?

    a 4 year wow player has spent $720

    just. sayin.

    difference between call of duty and wow: one has hurr purples.


    edit:

    but eatmosushi! wut about raid content!

    do we really need to pay $180 a year to guys to find prettier ways for us not to stand in a certain spot at a certain time over and over? :/ come on man

    end the monthly subscriptions.


    How often does the original CoD get content updates that add new game play elements? Really tell me because I don't know. My guess would be not much if any. You can't really compare a console FPS to an MMO it's apples to oranges. I mean yes it's physically possible to compatre the two but ":/ come on man"

    it's a terrible and contrived comparison.

    Really at the end of the day if a person does not want to pay a monthly sub to play a game then so be it. Last time I checked there were thousands of games that only require the cost of the disc. plus hardware, maybe cost of internet if there is any "free" (LOL at free) online content.

    edit: honestly if XBL had been better thought out when the original Halo came out or Bungie had the foresight and resources to maintain their own on-line play I would all but guarantee Halo would be pay to play online and most other FPS games would follow suite. As it stands now it would be very difficult to create a pay to play on-line FPS that really takes off. The "norm" is "free" to play on-line with those types of games. The "norm" for MMO's is pay to play. Old money making habits can be hard to break.

    Mutilate on
  • eatmosushieatmosushi __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    "How often does the original CoD get content updates that add new game play elements?"

    huh what was that i couldnt hear you i was too busy paying $100 to update to burning crusade and then wrath of the litch king.

    eatmosushi on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] Spun uncontrollably skyward... Driven brutally into the ground
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Mugaaz wrote: »
    Seg wrote: »
    I think it's obvious that the freemium model (Free to play, Pay to win) will slowly takeover, and as an adequately employed person I don't really care. However, it is clearly a model that is generally unfair to a portion of it's userbase and I find that the ability to buy victory robs me of a lot of enjoyment multiplayer games offer. There have been a few systems like this that have worked well, such as League of Legends. As a whole though the implementation of this system has always been one of failure.

    Being able to "buy" victories is pretty much a death sentence for your product.

    People inherently like things to be fair. The minute you can buy an advantage over others, people stop taking the whole endeavor as seriously.

    shryke on
  • MutilateMutilate Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    eatmosushi wrote: »
    "How often does the original CoD get content updates that add new game play elements?"

    huh what was that i couldnt hear you i was too busy paying $100 to update to burning crusade and then wrath of the litch king.

    Turn the sound down and answer the question? Are you somehow implying that paying money for a game expansion is silly? Are you implying that you expect new CoD games to be free since you paid for the original? Sorry I am not following what you are trying to do here.

    Mutilate on
  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Mugaaz wrote: »
    Pay to win
    I find that the ability to buy victory robs me of a lot of enjoyment multiplayer games offer

    I don't know if you've read the rest of the thread, but most of the games we're talking about here (LOTRO and DDO especially called out in the OP, and GW and GW2 discussed extensively) are not Pay to Win models, and that Pay to Win models account for most of the F2P failures in the West - unlike velvet rope/permanent trial type games like Wizard 101/Free Realms, or B2P titles like Guild Wars, or hybrid models like LOTRO and DDO or even sub+cash shop games like Star Trek Online and Champions Online.

    Nobody here is arguing in support of pay to win games, and Free to Play != Pay 2 Win.

    I'm currently playing Guild Wars, which I have been playing for hours a night recently, with friends. Most of the content I am playing has been added within the past three months. I have not paid a subscription for those three months, nor did I purchase the content that was added.

    I've also enjoyed spending some time in subscription games like EQII, AoC, CoX, etc., yet when it came time to pay a sub, within two months I found myself logging in more because I felt, "well, I already bought this time, might as well do something" rather than because I was really looking forward to playing. The alternative was to cancel my sub because I didn't really feel like logging in, but if next month I just wanted to pop on, that's $15 for the privilege of just logging in to see what's up. To me, that's a waste of my money.

    I had a lot of fun in those games for the time I was in, but it wasn't as though I felt the quality of fun I was having so outstripped the fun I had in GW, or the experience of being able to jump or run into people while questing was so worth the, yeah, even $0.50/hr (or more/hr, if I play less in a month) that I don't have to pay to have that much fun elsewhere, and not even in a single-player game that lasts me 1 week or 10 hours of content.

    If you're having a blast in your subscription game, and you wouldn't have fun elsewhere, bully for you!

    sidhaethe on
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    So this thread has now established that

    1) Development and maintenance costs for some games don't really require a subscription, and

    2) People like different things.

    I mean, you have been playing CoD for the last four years and having a great time doing it, awesome. The $50 up front cost and the xbla subscription seem to you to be an economical use of entertainment dollars, also awesome.

    Lots of people have made the same decisions with WoW and are presumably also enjoying the returns on their money.

    So... what?

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Mutilate wrote: »
    eatmosushi wrote: »
    "How often does the original CoD get content updates that add new game play elements?"

    huh what was that i couldnt hear you i was too busy paying $100 to update to burning crusade and then wrath of the litch king.

    Turn the sound down and answer the question? Are you somehow implying that paying money for a game expansion is silly? Are you implying that you expect new CoD games to be free since you paid for the original? Sorry I am not following what you are trying to do here.

    I'm not going to speak for soushi, but my argument would be that in both cases you're paying to buy more content, so why are you paying a subscription for one on top of having to buy more content?

    sidhaethe on
  • MutilateMutilate Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Some people seem to take it as a personal affront that companies choose to charge pay to play and that other people would actually be willing to do this. It's a stupid stance to take but one that will not change anytime soon. Again, if a person does not want to pay to play then don't pay and don't play. It really can be that simple.
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    Mutilate wrote: »
    eatmosushi wrote: »
    "How often does the original CoD get content updates that add new game play elements?"

    huh what was that i couldnt hear you i was too busy paying $100 to update to burning crusade and then wrath of the litch king.

    Turn the sound down and answer the question? Are you somehow implying that paying money for a game expansion is silly? Are you implying that you expect new CoD games to be free since you paid for the original? Sorry I am not following what you are trying to do here.

    I'm not going to speak for soushi, but my argument would be that in both cases you're paying to buy more content, so why are you paying a subscription for one on top of having to buy more content?

    You don't have to! You have a choice if you do not want to pay for any of that. At one point in time sub fees were probably necessary to keep an MMO afloat. I don't think anyone is arguing that that need is probably long gone, or at least for your major players. A small start up company may need the boost from sub fees to keep going but that's not what we are talking about. It's just status quo at this point. If WoW had failed out but GW for example had become a huge money making hit with it's model then we would probably see more no monthly sub MMO's. We are talking about business here and they want money. As long as people are willing to pay then they will keep making monthly subs part of their design.

    Mutilate on
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    Mutilate wrote: »
    eatmosushi wrote: »
    "How often does the original CoD get content updates that add new game play elements?"

    huh what was that i couldnt hear you i was too busy paying $100 to update to burning crusade and then wrath of the litch king.

    Turn the sound down and answer the question? Are you somehow implying that paying money for a game expansion is silly? Are you implying that you expect new CoD games to be free since you paid for the original? Sorry I am not following what you are trying to do here.

    I'm not going to speak for soushi, but my argument would be that in both cases you're paying to buy more content, so why are you paying a subscription for one on top of having to buy more content?

    Because you think the game is worth the money?

    I mean, there is not some implacable logical argument that will convince someone that WoW is a better deal than guild wars if they like guild wars better anyway. This to me is obvious.

    People in this thread seem to be approaching MMO subscriptions as though they are some kind of political issue that requires advocacy against. People pay subscriptions because that's what the game costs and they find it to be a worthwhile purchase.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.