So, do you all think after paying full price for the box, that you're entitled to at least be able to play all the content avialable at release for the cost of that box? Of course the company would find the average amount of time a gamer plays, so that they could allot a fair amount of time free with the purchase of the box; say 60 days free? Is this reasonable? Do you all think every game is equally valuable, comparing one game to another based on the features they offer (ie. auction house, housing, crafting)? If you answered no, do you think that a company should adjust their subscription fee to reflect this?
Most MMOs that force you to pay a subscription give you the first month "free." That being said, I believe that you do get to play the content for the box cost, assuming you plow through the content given within one month.
I think it's perfectly fair to pay a box charge and a monthly fee. I view it this way--the box price covers past development of the game, much like any static, non-changing console or PC game. The fee, which I'm sure you understand, helps pay future development. That being said, do I think it's fair they all charge the same rate? It's hard to say because most games vary so much and because people's opinions vary so much. For example, for one subscriber, an AH may be worth $15.99, but to another subscriber, an AH may not be worth it. It depends on what features each individual chooses to utilize in a game. Let's not even think about comparing sci-fi to the fantasy genre and so forth--let's compare a couple of fantasy to fantasy games.
WoW, obviously, is the most popular fantasy based game, and we all know Blizzard charges $15.99 a month for it. Their graphics--while pretty--are not the best graphics ever (yes, this may be a strategy, and yes the original game is older, but bear with me). They have PvP, PvE, festivals for holidays, etc. I'm sure you all know what WoW has and doesn't have. ;-)
WAR, on the other hand, focused on different things. The primary source of leveling (at least when I played) was PvP. Mythic boasted of PvPvE. Crafting wasn't nearly as prominent in WAR as in WoW. Festivals weren't as celebrated. $15.99 went towards developing the PvPvE mechanism more than towards the frills WoW has.
LotRO is also different. Graphics are very smooth and beautiful. It's a PvE-centric game. It has some extras like the ability to play music, which the other two games don't.
(Also, please don't kill me about my game descriptions, I haven't played WAR and LotRO too recently.)
My point is, each game has different perks which inevitably take time to develop, and each person will appreciate those perks differently. To some people, being able to play the Indiana Jones theme on a lute is worth some extra money, to others, having PvPvE is better--etc. It's like comparing a bunch of jars of pickles--if they're the same brand and size, they're generally the same price. But some will be wholes, some will be halves, some will be spears. You're getting the same amount, just in a different way. Some people will prefer spears, and some will prefer wholes, but it's still a jar of pickles :-)
So, do you all think after paying full price for the box, that you're entitled to at least be able to play all the content avialable at release for the cost of that box? Of course the company would find the average amount of time a gamer plays, so that they could allot a fair amount of time free with the purchase of the box; say 60 days free? Is this reasonable? Do you all think every game is equally valuable, comparing one game to another based on the features they offer (ie. auction house, housing, crafting)? If you answered no, do you think that a company should adjust their subscription fee to reflect this?
Most MMOs that force you to pay a subscription give you the first month "free." That being said, I believe that you do get to play the content for the box cost, assuming you plow through the content given within one month.
I think it's perfectly fair to pay a box charge and a monthly fee. I view it this way--the box price covers past development of the game, much like any static, non-changing console or PC game. The fee, which I'm sure you understand, helps pay future development. That being said, do I think it's fair they all charge the same rate? It's hard to say because most games vary so much and because people's opinions vary so much. For example, for one subscriber, an AH may be worth $15.99, but to another subscriber, an AH may not be worth it. It depends on what features each individual chooses to utilize in a game. Let's not even think about comparing sci-fi to the fantasy genre and so forth--let's compare a couple of fantasy to fantasy games.
WoW, obviously, is the most popular fantasy based game, and we all know Blizzard charges $15.99 a month for it. Their graphics--while pretty--are not the best graphics ever (yes, this may be a strategy, and yes the original game is older, but bear with me). They have PvP, PvE, festivals for holidays, etc. I'm sure you all know what WoW has and doesn't have. ;-)
WAR, on the other hand, focused on different things. The primary source of leveling (at least when I played) was PvP. Mythic boasted of PvPvE. Crafting wasn't nearly as prominent in WAR as in WoW. Festivals weren't as celebrated. $15.99 went towards developing the PvPvE mechanism more than towards the frills WoW has.
LotRO is also different. Graphics are very smooth and beautiful. It's a PvE-centric game. It has some extras like the ability to play music, which the other two games don't.
(Also, please don't kill me about my game descriptions, I haven't played WAR and LotRO too recently.)
My point is, each game has different perks which inevitably take time to develop, and each person will appreciate those perks differently. To some people, being able to play the Indiana Jones theme on a lute is worth some extra money, to others, having PvPvE is better--etc. It's like comparing a bunch of jars of pickles--if they're the same brand and size, they're generally the same price. But some will be wholes, some will be halves, some will be spears. You're getting the same amount, just in a different way. Some people will prefer spears, and some will prefer wholes, but it's still a jar of pickles :-)
mm!i thot about this!and the main reason some game arent worth their price in a lot of them is the lack of player!
if i pay a monthly fee i expect to see people if i dont might as well go back to final fantasy 7.
quality plays too ,but the whole game mmo plays to falsify total count of player in their game to make potential buyer thing the game is full doesnt help either games dies even quicker because on top of everything else that game is branded a lie
and most player like some kind of fairness in their mmo.its like if they lie about this what else they re lying about
and some arent that nice but are popular.
game that use global server always tend up to be more popular
the server arent langage blocked for some reason .on the same server you might meet korean,chinese,india,american etc
yes player have the game in their own langage but the server they access everybody from all around the world access to the same server.and that makes an unapealing game become very popular.
some mmo try to localise say an asia success .lol often if they had just opened those server to english player instead they would have been more successfull.since most game localised then to have poor result.
mm!i thot about this!and the main reason some game arent worth their price in a lot of them is the lack of player! if i pay a monthly fee i expect to see people if i dont might as well go back to final fantasy 7. quality plays too ,but the whole game mmo plays to falsify total count of player in their game to make potential buyer thing the game is full doesnt help either games dies even quicker because on top of everything else that game is branded a lie and most player like some kind of fairness in their mmo.its like if they lie about this what else they re lying about and some arent that nice but are popular. game that use global server always tend up to be more popular the server arent langage blocked for some reason .on the same server you might meet korean,chinese,india,american etc yes player have the game in their own langage but the server they access everybody from all around the world access to the same server.and that makes an unapealing game become very popular. some mmo try to localise say an asia success .lol often if they had just opened those server to english player instead they would have been more successfull.since most game localised then to have poor result.
I'm actually really glad you brought up population, because that is ONE thing that does make/break a game for me. This is one reason I had a bit of a "Meh" reaction to GW. As a game, I enjoyed it. As an MMO, I had issues with it. WAR's population dropped radically, and I ended up jumping ship as well. It's just not as fun when it is just my husband and I trying to muddle through PuG BGs etc.
Language is another interesting thing. FFXI has that awesome translator that allows people of all regions to talk together. I've even gotten into arguments with people using that thing alone, lol.
Population--and how in functions in a game, such as GW--is probably the one thing that gets me thinking about price a little more.
"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it."
-Publilius Syrus (100 BC)
For the big games, the price is paid so it's justified. For the smaller ones, the price often isn't paid (ie they lack a lot of customers) so the price isn't justified.
I think the only situation where the quote doesn't hold true is in monopoly situations. I'm not sure how molopolistic I consider the MMORPG market. On one hand you have a ridiculously large array of options. On the other, WOW's success has let it bolster its product with much more content than the other companies are capable of, which is why it's maintained such a stranglehold on market share.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Subscription fees are warranted and needed for this genre, since there are significant costs incurred during development and after development.
Guild Wars have proven otherwise, and if Guild Wars 2 turns out to be what i think and hope it will be, its going to be hard for other companies not to follow ArenaNets model
Guild Wars hasn't proven otherwise. Guild Wars doesn't have GM's like P2P MMO's do, and they don't develop new content or do a whole range of things that are published in patches. They get through their development costs by charging box price and through micro transactions. So the question is, is $15/mo per person too much to afford customer support and continuous development?
What does monthly fees have to do with persistent worlds ? Absoloutely nothing. Guild Wars 2 will have a persistent world just like WoW and have no monthly fee. Obviosuly it shows you never been involved in the compter IT field and are not aware of how costs for servers and other dituations work.
True but it's not out yet and we haven 't seen their version of a persistent world nor have we seen whether they hav gm support or if they will add content over time besides the box costs.
I think it's very important to note that this is what they want to do.
But we haven't seen its implementation yet.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
MMO's are not equal in quality, thus to be competitive, MMO companies should vary their box price and subscription prices to reflect the quality of the game. This makes the most sense to me.
If every MMO box (release, not expansions) on the shelf is 34.99 and you put yours on the shelf at 24.99, people aren't going to buy it. The same with subscription price. It simply is how the consumer mind works. The contention is that if the game costs less, it is sub-par and thus they will not spend money on it. To be competitive - to even get looked at by the consumer - they must price their box and subscription in the same range as everyone else.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I think it's plenty fair to pay they have to pay for servers and those that keep them running and everyone else cennected with the game. yes they started $9.99 BUT just like most things price rises with economy and how much is needed as profit. it has stayed at$14.99 as standard for some time now so seems these companies have found that price that brings profit. almost any mmo that will have some degree succes will have payment system even F2P thru microtransactions.
Taking into account inflation of the USD? Also the minimum wage values and many other factors that play into this? I do not know why people draw comparisons from things they do not understand.
I KNOW let's now look at the trends of the cost of land in China!
Well, given inflation wouldn't 4.08 be 5.91 in 2009?
Still other things go up such as wages, rent, utilities and other costs so what goes into running a movie business in 1994 to come up with a 4.08 movie ticket might be much more now hence the disparity.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
MMO's are not equal in quality, thus to be competitive, MMO companies should vary their box price and subscription prices to reflect the quality of the game. This makes the most sense to me.
If every MMO box (release, not expansions) on the shelf is 34.99 and you put yours on the shelf at 24.99, people aren't going to buy it. The same with subscription price. It simply is how the consumer mind works. The contention is that if the game costs less, it is sub-par and thus they will not spend money on it. To be competitive - to even get looked at by the consumer - they must price their box and subscription in the same range as everyone else.
Exactly. I had alluded to something similar but you said it better.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Subscription fees are warranted and needed for this genre, since there are significant costs incurred during development and after development.
Guild Wars have proven otherwise, and if Guild Wars 2 turns out to be what i think and hope it will be, its going to be hard for other companies not to follow ArenaNets model
Guild Wars hasn't proven otherwise. Guild Wars doesn't have GM's like P2P MMO's do, and they don't develop new content or do a whole range of things that are published in patches. They get through their development costs by charging box price and through micro transactions. So the question is, is $15/mo per person too much to afford customer support and continuous development?
No new content? Factions, Nightfall, Eye of the north, sure payed expansion but last time i checked eq, wow, lotro etc also ask $$ for their expansions so no change there.
Micro transactions is about the same as in sub based mmo's, just fluff and definatly not needed to enjoy everything in the game
So that leave 1 thing that GW dusnt have, a GM, and imo GW dusnt need it.
MMO's are not equal in quality, thus to be competitive, MMO companies should vary their box price and subscription prices to reflect the quality of the game. This makes the most sense to me.
If every MMO box (release, not expansions) on the shelf is 34.99 and you put yours on the shelf at 24.99, people aren't going to buy it. The same with subscription price. It simply is how the consumer mind works. The contention is that if the game costs less, it is sub-par and thus they will not spend money on it. To be competitive - to even get looked at by the consumer - they must price their box and subscription in the same range as everyone else.
Exactly. I had alluded to something similar but you said it better.
I don't agree with this, at least in all cases. Maybe there are some people who look at the price instead of product, but any smart consumer shops for the product.
If Blizzard released a game tomorrow for 5 dollars, and a 1 dollar a month subscription fee, i would pay it cause i trust their products.
Product is even more subjective and important then price entertainment. If your entertained by a price, then more power to you. It should be the product that dictates whether your interested or not.
PS: Dollar Stores would be out of business if people really believed price dictated quality regardless of the product. eg; Gift Cards.
Nothing excites jaded Grandmasters more than a theoretical novelty
Company name is pretty important too. You assume certain names mean certain products. That being said, I'm curious as to how many of you are looking into Square-Enix's "new" F2P MMO. Do you expect it to be of a similar caliber of FFXI (or the upcoming FFXIV)? Does price factor into your perception?
I'll be honest, I me some SE. And I am looking into the F2P game. But I'm not expecting it to be on par with any of the FF games, RPG or MMORPG.
MMO's are not equal in quality, thus to be competitive, MMO companies should vary their box price and subscription prices to reflect the quality of the game. This makes the most sense to me.
If every MMO box (release, not expansions) on the shelf is 34.99 and you put yours on the shelf at 24.99, people aren't going to buy it. The same with subscription price. It simply is how the consumer mind works. The contention is that if the game costs less, it is sub-par and thus they will not spend money on it. To be competitive - to even get looked at by the consumer - they must price their box and subscription in the same range as everyone else.
Exactly. I had alluded to something similar but you said it better.
I don't agree with this, at least in all cases. Maybe there are some people who look at the price instead of product, but any smart consumer shops for the product.
If Blizzard released a game tomorrow for 5 dollars, and a 1 dollar a month subscription fee, i would pay it cause i trust their products.
There are two problems with that statement.
1) You use the exception (the anomaly in the industry) as your example
2) Your behaviour is not the norm
Product is even more subjective and important then price entertainment. If your entertained by a price, then more power to you. It should be the product that dictates whether your interested or not.
I don't doubt that it *should* be product quality that dictates the price, but marketing does not deal in should... only in what people actually do. A person seeing a box on a shelf in a brick and mortar does not see the quality of the product. They only see the presentation and price.
PS: Dollar Stores would be out of business if people really believed price dictated quality regardless of the product. eg; Gift Cards.
A person walking into a dollar store is shopping for a different reason. They are not going there for a quality product but for a bargain price.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
To further the cinema analogy: I can pay €10 to see one movie every month, or I can pay €19.99 for an Unlimited card and see as many as I want. As long as I go to see them at Cineworld.
I can pay €50 for a single player game that I may or may not replay, that will take me a week at most (unless we're talking FF or a Bioware game) to blitz through, or I can pay €13.99 for as much gaming as I have time for, provided I do it within one MMO.
As has been stated, the box price does entitle you to all available content - as long as you can make it through it all during the "free" month.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I pay my €19.99 for unlimited movies (and only go to movies I want to see), and my €13.99 for unlimited gaming - but I only give the €13.99 to an MMO I enjoy.
No developer (please, not "managers", they don't get to make the big decisions) is going to honestly say their game is worth less on a month to month basis than anything currently on the market. The perception that price is linked to quality doesn't only exist in the consumer's mind.
As to the notion that people would shell out $5 a month to play a game that is lacking in quality? Nonsense. We may not mind paying $15 for games we enjoy, but no-one is going to throw $5 away month after month on something that doesn't entertain them. That's just counterintuitive. If price really mattered all that much, everyone would be playing FTP games, refusing to patronize their item shops, and the whole industry would be forced into having a rethink.
The problem of games launching in an unfinished state is not one that can be easily linked to subs fees, box fees maybe, but not subs fees, retention rates for a truly bugged game would be minimal. The market is how it is, most people will leave off buying a newly-launched game for a few weeks/months to allow polish to be added and bugs to be fixed. I'm not saying this is a good state of affairs, but it seems to be accepted practice.
Bottom line: if a game isn't fun for me, I don't pay a sub. I cancel my account.
I can understand you feeling that some games are not worth a monthly sub, but no-one's forcing you to play them, or to pay a sub to them. Free market, free choice.
The MMO genre is unlike other things you people are comparing it to. The average person will and can only play 1 MMO at a time, so if one MMO is inferior to the other, the logical thing to do is to lower the subscription price. Just because a game is inferior doesn't mean it's not fun. But when there are 5 fun games on the market, a comparison will be done. Let's say the game with the most number of features is the game worth the most, since features is something tangible and actually costs development time and money. So a game with less amount of features should cost less.
If a game is fun, but is $10/mo, I'll play it over the game with more features that's $15/mo. Not to mention, if a game is $5/mo, I could then play 3 games for the same price I could play one game at $15/mo. So in a market where $15/mo rules, only the top game really wins out, while if the entire market dropped their sub fee to something like $5/mo, then the whole market would benefit. The same amount of money is spent, but instead of going into one game, it's being spread out amongst the top x number of games.
MMO's are not equal in quality, thus to be competitive, MMO companies should vary their box price and subscription prices to reflect the quality of the game. This makes the most sense to me.
If every MMO box (release, not expansions) on the shelf is 34.99 and you put yours on the shelf at 24.99, people aren't going to buy it. The same with subscription price. It simply is how the consumer mind works. The contention is that if the game costs less, it is sub-par and thus they will not spend money on it. To be competitive - to even get looked at by the consumer - they must price their box and subscription in the same range as everyone else.
Exactly. I had alluded to something similar but you said it better.
I don't agree with this, at least in all cases. Maybe there are some people who look at the price instead of product, but any smart consumer shops for the product.
If Blizzard released a game tomorrow for 5 dollars, and a 1 dollar a month subscription fee, i would pay it cause i trust their products.
There are two problems with that statement.
1) You use the exception (the anomaly in the industry) as your example
2) Your behaviour is not the norm
Product is even more subjective and important then price entertainment. If your entertained by a price, then more power to you. It should be the product that dictates whether your interested or not.
I don't doubt that it *should* be product quality that dictates the price, but marketing does not deal in should... only in what people actually do. A person seeing a box on a shelf in a brick and mortar does not see the quality of the product. They only see the presentation and price.
PS: Dollar Stores would be out of business if people really believed price dictated quality regardless of the product. eg; Gift Cards.
A person walking into a dollar store is shopping for a different reason. They are not going there for a quality product but for a bargain price.
Again, I agree with Loktofeit.
When I worked for B.U. School for the Arts I had an interestnig discussion with one of the Cello Teachers. He had a Solo Career but also had his teaching duties. however, unlike some other teachers, he had less students but also the best students.
In our discussion he told me that there was a time in his life that he had a lot of students. Unfortunately, they would come and go. Something that I had experienced in my own teaching. His own teacher had given him this advice:
Raise your prices. The students who were not serious would drop. He would most likely lose a good portion of his studio. however the students who were serious would stay as they knew the quality of the tutelage. Other students who were also serious would see his fee and would accept that if he could charge that much then he must be good. He actually was good so this wasn't a problem. He would retain the good students, only accept new students if he wanted, they would be more serious students and he wouldn't have to have such a large teaching load as the increased price for his services would cover his expenses.
My own teacher told a similiar story. She was gettng quite a lot of gigs but many of them were just filler gigs. She raised her prices (and she was amazing so quality was not an issue) and the gigs she was offered were far better than most of the other gigs she had played, the extra money meant she didn't have to take as many gigs and she was able to concentrate on other things in her life.
Cost does not always mean quality but it is an indicator that there is a promise of quality. If there is no quality then people will no soon enough.
He is also correct in that Dollar Stores are "about" something else.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
When I worked for B.U. School for the Arts I had an interestnig discussion with one of the Cello Teachers. He had a Solo Career but also had his teaching duties. however, unlike some other teachers, he had less students but also the best students.
In our discussion he told me that there was a time in his life that he had a lot of students. Unfortunately, they would come and go. Something that I had experienced in my own teaching. His own teacher had given him this advice:
Raise your prices. The students who were not serious would drop. He would most likely lose a good portion of his studio. however the students who were serious would stay as they knew the quality of the tutelage. Other students who were also serious would see his fee and would accept that if he could charge that much then he must be good. He actually was good so this wasn't a problem. He would retain the good students, only accept new students if he wanted, they would be more serious students and he wouldn't have to have such a large teaching load as the increased price for his services would cover his expenses.
My own teacher told a similiar story. She was gettng quite a lot of gigs but many of them were just filler gigs. She raised her prices (and she was amazing so quality was not an issue) and the gigs she was offered were far better than most of the other gigs she had played, the extra money meant she didn't have to take as many gigs and she was able to concentrate on other things in her life.
Cost does not always mean quality but it is an indicator that there is a promise of quality. If there is no quality then people will no soon enough.
He is also correct in that Dollar Stores are "about" something else.
I didn't articulate my point very well.
In entertainment, the quality of how well something entertains you is subjective.
When I was thinking of "shop for the product" in my mind i was referring to entertainment you.
After you find the product you want, why not shop for the best price? I saw Bob Dylan for free, was he any less entertaining then if I had paid to see him at a more expensive venue?
I was comped a ticket to some magic show at the Sahara Hotel in Vegas, it also was one of the cheapest shows you could buy a ticket for. The price had no effect on whether I was entertained or not during that show, or my initial impressions of it.
Entertainment is subjective, and if you need a price to prime you mentally to be entertained, more power to you.
As for bargain shopping. After you find a product that meets your needs/wants, why not pay the lowest price possible? eg; at the Dollar Store.
I can understand where shopping at bargain prices might be beneath some people, or harmful to ones pride. "That isn't logical".
Nothing excites jaded Grandmasters more than a theoretical novelty
The MMO genre is unlike other things you people are comparing it to. The average person will and can only play 1 MMO at a time, so if one MMO is inferior to the other, the logical thing to do is to lower the subscription price. Just because a game is inferior doesn't mean it's not fun. But when there are 5 fun games on the market, a comparison will be done. Let's say the game with the most number of features is the game worth the most, since features is something tangible and actually costs development time and money. So a game with less amount of features should cost less. If a game is fun, but is $10/mo, I'll play it over the game with more features that's $15/mo. Not to mention, if a game is $5/mo, I could then play 3 games for the same price I could play one game at $15/mo. So in a market where $15/mo rules, only the top game really wins out, while if the entire market dropped their sub fee to something like $5/mo, then the whole market would benefit. The same amount of money is spent, but instead of going into one game, it's being spread out amongst the top x number of games.
That may be true for some but for others my self for example I play 1 as my game not so much for cost but becasue I play the social MMO for a deep consumign imersion hinged on multi player interaction, now the cost isnt really a consideration for me I would be perfectly happy paying 15-20 for DAoC Origons (never gona happen ) but wouldn't play WAR even if it was free (not as "my MMO"), its not a matter of loyalty but fact of the matter is in terms of RPGs the standalones are light years above and beyond what any MMO can offer to date in terms of game play and mechanics so for me its the community; the social aspect of the game; once i have a community in a game I like well enough then im happy not gona go looking at any other games dont care the price or feature list the fun comes in the multi player interaction and untill that community that I am attached to moves on then I will stay. Having said that I do fancy my self a game head, I make it a point to at least demo every game I come across that includes the MMOs good bad or ugly; AAA or indy I love the media and the industry and like to delv into it but when it comes to my MMO i.e. the one for entertainment not research, the one my family as a whole plays I/we only ever have 1 at a time and the deciding factor is not based on price point at all.
On the argument that one can play a MMO of choice for less than the avreage cost of a stand alone game, movie, etc I say BS. 1st movie is not the same industy; per hour of entertainment movies are never as effcent then again they are not based on interactivity so why are you comparing apples and oranges thats like comparing the book and music industries yes they are both forms of media entertainment no they are not directly comparable. Comparing stand alone games to MMOs is a bit more logicle so lets look at that, I can buy a great standalone game that I have never played before and get between 3 weeks and 3 moths as in from the 1st to the 30th of entertainment (not talking logged hours here) and I can do that from between 19.99 and 49.99 roughly; more to the point that 2-3 months of fun can be spread out over any range of time from a few weeks of lifless 24 hour gaming to a year of sparse her and there gaming. Lets look at MMOs 39+ if its 19.99 its prolly dead by now in terms of social and thusly to me not worth more than a review there are some good ones where the client is free I will give you that but let look at that monthly sub rather you play 1hr or 100hrs a month you still pay the full sub I dont know about you but I cant log 200hrs a month every month there are months that I get maybe 40hrs in if Im lucky then again there are weeks where I 30+hrs in a week end easy prolly more so if your measuring cost point per hour of entertainment then the standalone has the greatist potental even if the game only cost 5 or 10 a month and that will be true for any working stiff especialy if he like to play with his family like I do standalone game via LAN are MUCH cheeper per hour of entertainment than 2 MMO subs. Im not saying MMO isnt worth it, it is I'm just saying its not the cheepest form of entertainment per hour that falls to the stand alone game. If for no other reason than this, TES4 Oblivion is just as fun as it was the day after launch if you have never played it before and you can pick it up for next to nothing, since its not dependent on a living community for its fun factor you can try a stand alone years after its launched and its still 100% fun some times more due to the mod communities that some have; MMOs not so much if you come in to late if you missed the bus so to speak the game though it may still be "alive" wont have the joy that it did when it was still kicking hard, look at EQ2 great game, really love it wish I could get into it but I feel like I missed so much that I am so far behind and the comminity is so far beyond having came in so late that though I play from time to time I just cant seem to sink in there thats the curse of a persistant world and i know this isn't true for every gamer there is no "true for every gamer" no matter your point.
Comments
Most MMOs that force you to pay a subscription give you the first month "free." That being said, I believe that you do get to play the content for the box cost, assuming you plow through the content given within one month.
I think it's perfectly fair to pay a box charge and a monthly fee. I view it this way--the box price covers past development of the game, much like any static, non-changing console or PC game. The fee, which I'm sure you understand, helps pay future development. That being said, do I think it's fair they all charge the same rate? It's hard to say because most games vary so much and because people's opinions vary so much. For example, for one subscriber, an AH may be worth $15.99, but to another subscriber, an AH may not be worth it. It depends on what features each individual chooses to utilize in a game. Let's not even think about comparing sci-fi to the fantasy genre and so forth--let's compare a couple of fantasy to fantasy games.
WoW, obviously, is the most popular fantasy based game, and we all know Blizzard charges $15.99 a month for it. Their graphics--while pretty--are not the best graphics ever (yes, this may be a strategy, and yes the original game is older, but bear with me). They have PvP, PvE, festivals for holidays, etc. I'm sure you all know what WoW has and doesn't have. ;-)
WAR, on the other hand, focused on different things. The primary source of leveling (at least when I played) was PvP. Mythic boasted of PvPvE. Crafting wasn't nearly as prominent in WAR as in WoW. Festivals weren't as celebrated. $15.99 went towards developing the PvPvE mechanism more than towards the frills WoW has.
LotRO is also different. Graphics are very smooth and beautiful. It's a PvE-centric game. It has some extras like the ability to play music, which the other two games don't.
(Also, please don't kill me about my game descriptions, I haven't played WAR and LotRO too recently.)
My point is, each game has different perks which inevitably take time to develop, and each person will appreciate those perks differently. To some people, being able to play the Indiana Jones theme on a lute is worth some extra money, to others, having PvPvE is better--etc. It's like comparing a bunch of jars of pickles--if they're the same brand and size, they're generally the same price. But some will be wholes, some will be halves, some will be spears. You're getting the same amount, just in a different way. Some people will prefer spears, and some will prefer wholes, but it's still a jar of pickles :-)
good for you if you can pay that because where i live its 10.75$
good for you if you can pay that because where i live its 10.75$
Average cinema price in the UK is £10. Equivalent to $16.60.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
Most MMOs that force you to pay a subscription give you the first month "free." That being said, I believe that you do get to play the content for the box cost, assuming you plow through the content given within one month.
I think it's perfectly fair to pay a box charge and a monthly fee. I view it this way--the box price covers past development of the game, much like any static, non-changing console or PC game. The fee, which I'm sure you understand, helps pay future development. That being said, do I think it's fair they all charge the same rate? It's hard to say because most games vary so much and because people's opinions vary so much. For example, for one subscriber, an AH may be worth $15.99, but to another subscriber, an AH may not be worth it. It depends on what features each individual chooses to utilize in a game. Let's not even think about comparing sci-fi to the fantasy genre and so forth--let's compare a couple of fantasy to fantasy games.
WoW, obviously, is the most popular fantasy based game, and we all know Blizzard charges $15.99 a month for it. Their graphics--while pretty--are not the best graphics ever (yes, this may be a strategy, and yes the original game is older, but bear with me). They have PvP, PvE, festivals for holidays, etc. I'm sure you all know what WoW has and doesn't have. ;-)
WAR, on the other hand, focused on different things. The primary source of leveling (at least when I played) was PvP. Mythic boasted of PvPvE. Crafting wasn't nearly as prominent in WAR as in WoW. Festivals weren't as celebrated. $15.99 went towards developing the PvPvE mechanism more than towards the frills WoW has.
LotRO is also different. Graphics are very smooth and beautiful. It's a PvE-centric game. It has some extras like the ability to play music, which the other two games don't.
(Also, please don't kill me about my game descriptions, I haven't played WAR and LotRO too recently.)
My point is, each game has different perks which inevitably take time to develop, and each person will appreciate those perks differently. To some people, being able to play the Indiana Jones theme on a lute is worth some extra money, to others, having PvPvE is better--etc. It's like comparing a bunch of jars of pickles--if they're the same brand and size, they're generally the same price. But some will be wholes, some will be halves, some will be spears. You're getting the same amount, just in a different way. Some people will prefer spears, and some will prefer wholes, but it's still a jar of pickles :-)
mm!i thot about this!and the main reason some game arent worth their price in a lot of them is the lack of player!
if i pay a monthly fee i expect to see people if i dont might as well go back to final fantasy 7.
quality plays too ,but the whole game mmo plays to falsify total count of player in their game to make potential buyer thing the game is full doesnt help either games dies even quicker because on top of everything else that game is branded a lie
and most player like some kind of fairness in their mmo.its like if they lie about this what else they re lying about
and some arent that nice but are popular.
game that use global server always tend up to be more popular
the server arent langage blocked for some reason .on the same server you might meet korean,chinese,india,american etc
yes player have the game in their own langage but the server they access everybody from all around the world access to the same server.and that makes an unapealing game become very popular.
some mmo try to localise say an asia success .lol often if they had just opened those server to english player instead they would have been more successfull.since most game localised then to have poor result.
Taking into account inflation of the USD? Also the minimum wage values and many other factors that play into this?
Subscription prices are also influenced by inflation and many other factors, wouldn't you agree?
The OP seems not to understand this. I hope my post helped him a little.
And I'm sorry you didn't get it.
I'm actually really glad you brought up population, because that is ONE thing that does make/break a game for me. This is one reason I had a bit of a "Meh" reaction to GW. As a game, I enjoyed it. As an MMO, I had issues with it. WAR's population dropped radically, and I ended up jumping ship as well. It's just not as fun when it is just my husband and I trying to muddle through PuG BGs etc.
Language is another interesting thing. FFXI has that awesome translator that allows people of all regions to talk together. I've even gotten into arguments with people using that thing alone, lol.
Population--and how in functions in a game, such as GW--is probably the one thing that gets me thinking about price a little more.
"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it."
-Publilius Syrus (100 BC)
For the big games, the price is paid so it's justified. For the smaller ones, the price often isn't paid (ie they lack a lot of customers) so the price isn't justified.
I think the only situation where the quote doesn't hold true is in monopoly situations. I'm not sure how molopolistic I consider the MMORPG market. On one hand you have a ridiculously large array of options. On the other, WOW's success has let it bolster its product with much more content than the other companies are capable of, which is why it's maintained such a stranglehold on market share.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Guild Wars have proven otherwise, and if Guild Wars 2 turns out to be what i think and hope it will be, its going to be hard for other companies not to follow ArenaNets model
Guild Wars hasn't proven otherwise. Guild Wars doesn't have GM's like P2P MMO's do, and they don't develop new content or do a whole range of things that are published in patches. They get through their development costs by charging box price and through micro transactions. So the question is, is $15/mo per person too much to afford customer support and continuous development?
Bandwidth is expensive. Get over it.
"World of Warcraft is the perfect implementation of this genre." - Hilmar Petursson. CEO of CCP.
True but it's not out yet and we haven 't seen their version of a persistent world nor have we seen whether they hav gm support or if they will add content over time besides the box costs.
I think it's very important to note that this is what they want to do.
But we haven't seen its implementation yet.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Bandwidth is almost dirt cheap to a "business".
I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.
If every MMO box (release, not expansions) on the shelf is 34.99 and you put yours on the shelf at 24.99, people aren't going to buy it. The same with subscription price. It simply is how the consumer mind works. The contention is that if the game costs less, it is sub-par and thus they will not spend money on it. To be competitive - to even get looked at by the consumer - they must price their box and subscription in the same range as everyone else.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I think it's plenty fair to pay they have to pay for servers and those that keep them running and everyone else cennected with the game. yes they started $9.99 BUT just like most things price rises with economy and how much is needed as profit. it has stayed at$14.99 as standard for some time now so seems these companies have found that price that brings profit. almost any mmo that will have some degree succes will have payment system even F2P thru microtransactions.
Taking into account inflation of the USD? Also the minimum wage values and many other factors that play into this? I do not know why people draw comparisons from things they do not understand.
I KNOW let's now look at the trends of the cost of land in China!
Well, given inflation wouldn't 4.08 be 5.91 in 2009?
Still other things go up such as wages, rent, utilities and other costs so what goes into running a movie business in 1994 to come up with a 4.08 movie ticket might be much more now hence the disparity.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
If every MMO box (release, not expansions) on the shelf is 34.99 and you put yours on the shelf at 24.99, people aren't going to buy it. The same with subscription price. It simply is how the consumer mind works. The contention is that if the game costs less, it is sub-par and thus they will not spend money on it. To be competitive - to even get looked at by the consumer - they must price their box and subscription in the same range as everyone else.
Exactly. I had alluded to something similar but you said it better.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Guild Wars have proven otherwise, and if Guild Wars 2 turns out to be what i think and hope it will be, its going to be hard for other companies not to follow ArenaNets model
Guild Wars hasn't proven otherwise. Guild Wars doesn't have GM's like P2P MMO's do, and they don't develop new content or do a whole range of things that are published in patches. They get through their development costs by charging box price and through micro transactions. So the question is, is $15/mo per person too much to afford customer support and continuous development?
No new content? Factions, Nightfall, Eye of the north, sure payed expansion but last time i checked eq, wow, lotro etc also ask $$ for their expansions so no change there.
Micro transactions is about the same as in sub based mmo's, just fluff and definatly not needed to enjoy everything in the game
So that leave 1 thing that GW dusnt have, a GM, and imo GW dusnt need it.
If every MMO box (release, not expansions) on the shelf is 34.99 and you put yours on the shelf at 24.99, people aren't going to buy it. The same with subscription price. It simply is how the consumer mind works. The contention is that if the game costs less, it is sub-par and thus they will not spend money on it. To be competitive - to even get looked at by the consumer - they must price their box and subscription in the same range as everyone else.
Exactly. I had alluded to something similar but you said it better.
I don't agree with this, at least in all cases. Maybe there are some people who look at the price instead of product, but any smart consumer shops for the product.
If Blizzard released a game tomorrow for 5 dollars, and a 1 dollar a month subscription fee, i would pay it cause i trust their products.
Product is even more subjective and important then price entertainment. If your entertained by a price, then more power to you. It should be the product that dictates whether your interested or not.
PS: Dollar Stores would be out of business if people really believed price dictated quality regardless of the product. eg; Gift Cards.
Nothing excites jaded Grandmasters more than a theoretical novelty
Company name is pretty important too. You assume certain names mean certain products. That being said, I'm curious as to how many of you are looking into Square-Enix's "new" F2P MMO. Do you expect it to be of a similar caliber of FFXI (or the upcoming FFXIV)? Does price factor into your perception?
I'll be honest, I
me some SE. And I am looking into the F2P game. But I'm not expecting it to be on par with any of the FF games, RPG or MMORPG.
If every MMO box (release, not expansions) on the shelf is 34.99 and you put yours on the shelf at 24.99, people aren't going to buy it. The same with subscription price. It simply is how the consumer mind works. The contention is that if the game costs less, it is sub-par and thus they will not spend money on it. To be competitive - to even get looked at by the consumer - they must price their box and subscription in the same range as everyone else.
Exactly. I had alluded to something similar but you said it better.
I don't agree with this, at least in all cases. Maybe there are some people who look at the price instead of product, but any smart consumer shops for the product.
If Blizzard released a game tomorrow for 5 dollars, and a 1 dollar a month subscription fee, i would pay it cause i trust their products.
There are two problems with that statement.
1) You use the exception (the anomaly in the industry) as your example
2) Your behaviour is not the norm
Product is even more subjective and important then price entertainment. If your entertained by a price, then more power to you. It should be the product that dictates whether your interested or not.
I don't doubt that it *should* be product quality that dictates the price, but marketing does not deal in should... only in what people actually do. A person seeing a box on a shelf in a brick and mortar does not see the quality of the product. They only see the presentation and price.
PS: Dollar Stores would be out of business if people really believed price dictated quality regardless of the product. eg; Gift Cards.
A person walking into a dollar store is shopping for a different reason. They are not going there for a quality product but for a bargain price.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
It is plain and simple.
There is no competition between developers, and the barrier to entry is high.
Look at how the games break down;
- There is WOW ( most appealing to everyone ).
- There are about 10 games or so that on par or better with quality than WOW, but only in specific aspects.
- Then there is everything else that fails on one or more parts.
To further the cinema analogy: I can pay €10 to see one movie every month, or I can pay €19.99 for an Unlimited card and see as many as I want. As long as I go to see them at Cineworld.
I can pay €50 for a single player game that I may or may not replay, that will take me a week at most (unless we're talking FF or a Bioware game) to blitz through, or I can pay €13.99 for as much gaming as I have time for, provided I do it within one MMO.
As has been stated, the box price does entitle you to all available content - as long as you can make it through it all during the "free" month.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I pay my €19.99 for unlimited movies (and only go to movies I want to see), and my €13.99 for unlimited gaming - but I only give the €13.99 to an MMO I enjoy.
No developer (please, not "managers", they don't get to make the big decisions) is going to honestly say their game is worth less on a month to month basis than anything currently on the market. The perception that price is linked to quality doesn't only exist in the consumer's mind.
As to the notion that people would shell out $5 a month to play a game that is lacking in quality? Nonsense. We may not mind paying $15 for games we enjoy, but no-one is going to throw $5 away month after month on something that doesn't entertain them. That's just counterintuitive. If price really mattered all that much, everyone would be playing FTP games, refusing to patronize their item shops, and the whole industry would be forced into having a rethink.
The problem of games launching in an unfinished state is not one that can be easily linked to subs fees, box fees maybe, but not subs fees, retention rates for a truly bugged game would be minimal. The market is how it is, most people will leave off buying a newly-launched game for a few weeks/months to allow polish to be added and bugs to be fixed. I'm not saying this is a good state of affairs, but it seems to be accepted practice.
Bottom line: if a game isn't fun for me, I don't pay a sub. I cancel my account.
I can understand you feeling that some games are not worth a monthly sub, but no-one's forcing you to play them, or to pay a sub to them. Free market, free choice.
The MMO genre is unlike other things you people are comparing it to. The average person will and can only play 1 MMO at a time, so if one MMO is inferior to the other, the logical thing to do is to lower the subscription price. Just because a game is inferior doesn't mean it's not fun. But when there are 5 fun games on the market, a comparison will be done. Let's say the game with the most number of features is the game worth the most, since features is something tangible and actually costs development time and money. So a game with less amount of features should cost less.
If a game is fun, but is $10/mo, I'll play it over the game with more features that's $15/mo. Not to mention, if a game is $5/mo, I could then play 3 games for the same price I could play one game at $15/mo. So in a market where $15/mo rules, only the top game really wins out, while if the entire market dropped their sub fee to something like $5/mo, then the whole market would benefit. The same amount of money is spent, but instead of going into one game, it's being spread out amongst the top x number of games.
If every MMO box (release, not expansions) on the shelf is 34.99 and you put yours on the shelf at 24.99, people aren't going to buy it. The same with subscription price. It simply is how the consumer mind works. The contention is that if the game costs less, it is sub-par and thus they will not spend money on it. To be competitive - to even get looked at by the consumer - they must price their box and subscription in the same range as everyone else.
Exactly. I had alluded to something similar but you said it better.
I don't agree with this, at least in all cases. Maybe there are some people who look at the price instead of product, but any smart consumer shops for the product.
If Blizzard released a game tomorrow for 5 dollars, and a 1 dollar a month subscription fee, i would pay it cause i trust their products.
There are two problems with that statement.
1) You use the exception (the anomaly in the industry) as your example
2) Your behaviour is not the norm
Product is even more subjective and important then price entertainment. If your entertained by a price, then more power to you. It should be the product that dictates whether your interested or not.
I don't doubt that it *should* be product quality that dictates the price, but marketing does not deal in should... only in what people actually do. A person seeing a box on a shelf in a brick and mortar does not see the quality of the product. They only see the presentation and price.
PS: Dollar Stores would be out of business if people really believed price dictated quality regardless of the product. eg; Gift Cards.
A person walking into a dollar store is shopping for a different reason. They are not going there for a quality product but for a bargain price.
Again, I agree with Loktofeit.
When I worked for B.U. School for the Arts I had an interestnig discussion with one of the Cello Teachers. He had a Solo Career but also had his teaching duties. however, unlike some other teachers, he had less students but also the best students.
In our discussion he told me that there was a time in his life that he had a lot of students. Unfortunately, they would come and go. Something that I had experienced in my own teaching. His own teacher had given him this advice:
Raise your prices. The students who were not serious would drop. He would most likely lose a good portion of his studio. however the students who were serious would stay as they knew the quality of the tutelage. Other students who were also serious would see his fee and would accept that if he could charge that much then he must be good. He actually was good so this wasn't a problem. He would retain the good students, only accept new students if he wanted, they would be more serious students and he wouldn't have to have such a large teaching load as the increased price for his services would cover his expenses.
My own teacher told a similiar story. She was gettng quite a lot of gigs but many of them were just filler gigs. She raised her prices (and she was amazing so quality was not an issue) and the gigs she was offered were far better than most of the other gigs she had played, the extra money meant she didn't have to take as many gigs and she was able to concentrate on other things in her life.
Cost does not always mean quality but it is an indicator that there is a promise of quality. If there is no quality then people will no soon enough.
He is also correct in that Dollar Stores are "about" something else.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Again, I agree with Loktofeit.
When I worked for B.U. School for the Arts I had an interestnig discussion with one of the Cello Teachers. He had a Solo Career but also had his teaching duties. however, unlike some other teachers, he had less students but also the best students.
In our discussion he told me that there was a time in his life that he had a lot of students. Unfortunately, they would come and go. Something that I had experienced in my own teaching. His own teacher had given him this advice:
Raise your prices. The students who were not serious would drop. He would most likely lose a good portion of his studio. however the students who were serious would stay as they knew the quality of the tutelage. Other students who were also serious would see his fee and would accept that if he could charge that much then he must be good. He actually was good so this wasn't a problem. He would retain the good students, only accept new students if he wanted, they would be more serious students and he wouldn't have to have such a large teaching load as the increased price for his services would cover his expenses.
My own teacher told a similiar story. She was gettng quite a lot of gigs but many of them were just filler gigs. She raised her prices (and she was amazing so quality was not an issue) and the gigs she was offered were far better than most of the other gigs she had played, the extra money meant she didn't have to take as many gigs and she was able to concentrate on other things in her life.
Cost does not always mean quality but it is an indicator that there is a promise of quality. If there is no quality then people will no soon enough.
He is also correct in that Dollar Stores are "about" something else.
I didn't articulate my point very well.
In entertainment, the quality of how well something entertains you is subjective.
When I was thinking of "shop for the product" in my mind i was referring to entertainment you.
After you find the product you want, why not shop for the best price? I saw Bob Dylan for free, was he any less entertaining then if I had paid to see him at a more expensive venue?
I was comped a ticket to some magic show at the Sahara Hotel in Vegas, it also was one of the cheapest shows you could buy a ticket for. The price had no effect on whether I was entertained or not during that show, or my initial impressions of it.
Entertainment is subjective, and if you need a price to prime you mentally to be entertained, more power to you.
As for bargain shopping. After you find a product that meets your needs/wants, why not pay the lowest price possible? eg; at the Dollar Store.
I can understand where shopping at bargain prices might be beneath some people, or harmful to ones pride. "That isn't logical".
Nothing excites jaded Grandmasters more than a theoretical novelty
That may be true for some but for others my self for example I play 1 as my game not so much for cost but becasue I play the social MMO for a deep consumign imersion hinged on multi player interaction, now the cost isnt really a consideration for me I would be perfectly happy paying 15-20 for DAoC Origons (never gona happen
) but wouldn't play WAR even if it was free (not as "my MMO"), its not a matter of loyalty but fact of the matter is in terms of RPGs the standalones are light years above and beyond what any MMO can offer to date in terms of game play and mechanics so for me its the community; the social aspect of the game; once i have a community in a game I like well enough then im happy not gona go looking at any other games dont care the price or feature list the fun comes in the multi player interaction and untill that community that I am attached to moves on then I will stay. Having said that I do fancy my self a game head, I make it a point to at least demo every game I come across that includes the MMOs good bad or ugly; AAA or indy I love the media and the industry and like to delv into it but when it comes to my MMO i.e. the one for entertainment not research, the one my family as a whole plays I/we only ever have 1 at a time and the deciding factor is not based on price point at all.
On the argument that one can play a MMO of choice for less than the avreage cost of a stand alone game, movie, etc I say BS. 1st movie is not the same industy; per hour of entertainment movies are never as effcent then again they are not based on interactivity so why are you comparing apples and oranges thats like comparing the book and music industries yes they are both forms of media entertainment no they are not directly comparable. Comparing stand alone games to MMOs is a bit more logicle so lets look at that, I can buy a great standalone game that I have never played before and get between 3 weeks and 3 moths as in from the 1st to the 30th of entertainment (not talking logged hours here) and I can do that from between 19.99 and 49.99 roughly; more to the point that 2-3 months of fun can be spread out over any range of time from a few weeks of lifless 24 hour gaming to a year of sparse her and there gaming. Lets look at MMOs 39+ if its 19.99 its prolly dead by now in terms of social and thusly to me not worth more than a review there are some good ones where the client is free I will give you that but let look at that monthly sub rather you play 1hr or 100hrs a month you still pay the full sub I dont know about you but I cant log 200hrs a month every month there are months that I get maybe 40hrs in if Im lucky then again there are weeks where I 30+hrs in a week end easy prolly more so if your measuring cost point per hour of entertainment then the standalone has the greatist potental even if the game only cost 5 or 10 a month and that will be true for any working stiff especialy if he like to play with his family like I do standalone game via LAN are MUCH cheeper per hour of entertainment than 2 MMO subs. Im not saying MMO isnt worth it, it is I'm just saying its not the cheepest form of entertainment per hour that falls to the stand alone game. If for no other reason than this, TES4 Oblivion is just as fun as it was the day after launch if you have never played it before and you can pick it up for next to nothing, since its not dependent on a living community for its fun factor you can try a stand alone years after its launched and its still 100% fun some times more due to the mod communities that some have; MMOs not so much if you come in to late if you missed the bus so to speak the game though it may still be "alive" wont have the joy that it did when it was still kicking hard, look at EQ2 great game, really love it wish I could get into it but I feel like I missed so much that I am so far behind and the comminity is so far beyond having came in so late that though I play from time to time I just cant seem to sink in there thats the curse of a persistant world and i know this isn't true for every gamer there is no "true for every gamer" no matter your point.