Also, I want to respond to this comment you made, "I can go back anytime to play and talk to friends and not have to pay a dime." You don't have to pay a dime now because you already paid $199.00. Imo, that's a lot more than a dime.
If he played 30 hrs/wk for 2,5 years, he got his $199(or dime's) worth and then some.
He is technically playing on their dime now.
IMO for someone like that, which includes myself, the lifetime deal was a steal for LOTRO. At $9.99 a month, the cheapest monthly rate offered at release, it would only have taken you roughly 20 months to break even on that deal. Less if you count it against the $14.99 rate. Those of us who were in the beta for LOTRO knew it was a deal.
That being said, I would never jump on a lifetime sub if I wasn't involved in some stage of testing. Being in the beta of LOTRO gave me an idea of who and what I was dealing with when I considered the lifetime sub.
It works for some, not so well for others. I think it's a good thing but it really depends on a case by case basis.
I edited the comment you quoted here to make reference to a game like Guild Wars. In that game you can play whenever you like, or not, without having to pay the big check up front. Now that sounds like a sweet deal.
Also, I've now seen that some people are happy with their LOTR decision, but others are not. Those that aren't happy are pretty much screwed. I doubt I'd find anyone pleased with paying $149.00 up front for Hellgate. What I take from this is that you're paying a lot of money up front, but you don't really know what you're going to get, or whether or not you're going to be happy with it. Does this sound like a good idea for any other purchase?
Your other option (in a subscription based game) is to pay as you go. If you like the game after 2 months, you can buy more time. If you want to take a 6 month break, you can do that without feeling like you wasted your money. During your break, you pay nothing (nothing now, and nothing up front). If you want to hop back into the game after your break, you can, for 10 or 15 bucks a month.
If they change your game (e.g. remove what makes it fun for you, add an item shop for all the cool new loot, add irritating bugs via new patches), you can opt out at anytime, and keep your money for something you'll enjoy...like another MMO.
Also, I want to respond to this comment you made, "I can go back anytime to play and talk to friends and not have to pay a dime." You don't have to pay a dime now because you already paid $199.00. Imo, that's a lot more than a dime.
If he played 30 hrs/wk for 2,5 years, he got his $199(or dime's) worth and then some.
He is technically playing on their dime now.
IMO for someone like that, which includes myself, the lifetime deal was a steal for LOTRO. At $9.99 a month, the cheapest monthly rate offered at release, it would only have taken you roughly 20 months to break even on that deal. Less if you count it against the $14.99 rate. Those of us who were in the beta for LOTRO knew it was a deal.
That being said, I would never jump on a lifetime sub if I wasn't involved in some stage of testing. Being in the beta of LOTRO gave me an idea of who and what I was dealing with when I considered the lifetime sub.
It works for some, not so well for others. I think it's a good thing but it really depends on a case by case basis.
I edited the comment you quoted here to make reference to a game like Guild Wars. In that game you can play whenever you like, or not, without having to pay the big check up front. Now that sounds like a sweet deal.
Also, I've now seen that some people are happy with their LOTR decision, but others are not. Those that aren't happy are pretty much screwed. I doubt I'd find anyone pleased with paying $149.00 up front for Hellgate. What I take from this is that you're paying a lot of money up front, but you don't really know what you're going to get, or whether or not you're going to be happy with it. Does this sound like a good idea for any other purchase?
Your other option (in a subscription based game) is to pay as you go. If you like the game after 2 months, you can buy more time. If you want to take a 6 month break, you can do that without feeling like you wasted your money. During your break, you pay nothing (nothing now, and nothing up front). If you want to hop back into the game after your break, you can, for 10 or 15 bucks a month.
If they change your game (e.g. remove what makes it fun for you, add an item shop for all the cool new loot, add irritating bugs via new patches), you can opt out at anytime, and keep your money for something you'll enjoy...like another MMO.
I see where you are coming from.
IMO, it's up to each individual gamer. Only individual can decide for themselves if it's worth the risk. It works for some if they think it's worth it, for others it doesn't. In some situations it's a rip-off(hellgate:london), in others it works out pretty well(LOTRO).
As consumers as well as a gamers, it's ultimately up to us to make informed decisions. I was pretty comfortable with Turbine, and the direction they wanted to take LOTRO. I played AC1 for nearly 6 years so I had some background with Turbine. Being a tester, I felt pretty good about the game and the development staff, and the buzz that was generated during OB sealed the deal. It was a good game, it was going to do well, and there were going to be a lot people playing it.
I say queue up the lifetime option and let gamers decide for themselves. More options are a good thing and I see no reason for developers not to offer it just because some people don't like the idea.
Einherjar_LC says: WTB the true successor to UO or Asheron's Call pst!
If you buy a lifetime sub before playing the game for at least 6 months then you get what you deserve, imo.
Definitely true. I have a lifetime sub to LOTRO and I've been regretting it well, pretty much every moment after my 3rd month. I used to force myself to play a few hours every month, I can't even stand that any more.
Still, part of the trouble is, you don't always have the chance to get a lifetime sub, or a chance to get a lifetime sub at a certain price. Mine was $199.99, but if I had waited 6 months, it would have been $299.99 (plus 6 months at $10 each). So it's a gamble.
Forget about it.
You don't see a $15 monthly charge. You can hide your LotRO box or just ignore the forums/website and soon you'll forget that you paid that lifetime sub. But you know what? If you want to, you can come back. Whenever you want. Without paying another dime (maybe for an expansion, but if I remember correctly, they offered SoM free for lifetime subs). I don't see how that's a bad thing.
A game that offers a lifetime sub before it launches? Yeah, I agree with being skeptical about that. If you roll the dice and pay for that, it's your fault. But there's nothing wrong with a lifetime sub for well-established games that you know are going to be around for a while and that you enjoy. If the company offers them, it's their choice (I always thought that it ends up being worse financially for the company, but there are people out there who like the idea of never having to pay monthly again. The pressure of playing every month so you don't feel like you're wasting your money is lifted, unless you're like trancejeremy here and you can't forget that $199). You could spend $199 on hardware and it could break in a few weeks, who knows? Same thing with how long you'll enjoy an MMO.
Also, I want to respond to this comment you made, "I can go back anytime to play and talk to friends and not have to pay a dime." You don't have to pay a dime now because you already paid $199.00. Imo, that's a lot more than a dime.
If he played 30 hrs/wk for 2,5 years, he got his $199(or dime's) worth and then some.
He is technically playing on their dime now.
IMO for someone like that, which includes myself, the lifetime deal was a steal for LOTRO. At $9.99 a month, the cheapest monthly rate offered at release, it would only have taken you roughly 20 months to break even on that deal. Less if you count it against the $14.99 rate. Those of us who were in the beta for LOTRO knew it was a deal.
That being said, I would never jump on a lifetime sub if I wasn't involved in some stage of testing. Being in the beta of LOTRO gave me an idea of who and what I was dealing with when I considered the lifetime sub.
It works for some, not so well for others. I think it's a good thing but it really depends on a case by case basis.
I edited the comment you quoted here to make reference to a game like Guild Wars. In that game you can play whenever you like, or not, without having to pay the big check up front. Now that sounds like a sweet deal.
Also, I've now seen that some people are happy with their LOTR decision, but others are not. Those that aren't happy are pretty much screwed. I doubt I'd find anyone pleased with paying $149.00 up front for Hellgate. What I take from this is that you're paying a lot of money up front, but you don't really know what you're going to get, or whether or not you're going to be happy with it. Does this sound like a good idea for any other purchase?
Your other option (in a subscription based game) is to pay as you go. If you like the game after 2 months, you can buy more time. If you want to take a 6 month break, you can do that without feeling like you wasted your money. During your break, you pay nothing (nothing now, and nothing up front). If you want to hop back into the game after your break, you can, for 10 or 15 bucks a month.
If they change your game (e.g. remove what makes it fun for you, add an item shop for all the cool new loot, add irritating bugs via new patches), you can opt out at anytime, and keep your money for something you'll enjoy...like another MMO.
I see where you are coming from.
IMO, it's up to each individual gamer. Only individual can decide for themselves if it's worth the risk. It works for some if they think it's worth it, for others it doesn't. In some situations it's a rip-off(hellgate:london), in others it works out pretty well(LOTRO).
As consumers as well as a gamers, it's ultimately up to us to make informed decisions. I was pretty comfortable with Turbine, and the direction they wanted to take LOTRO. I played AC1 for nearly 6 years so I had some background with Turbine. Being a tester, I felt pretty good about the game and the development staff, and the buzz that was generated during OB sealed the deal. It was a good game, it was going to do well, and there were going to be a lot people playing it.
I say queue up the lifetime option and let gamers decide for themselves. More options are a good thing and I see no reason for developers not to offer it just because some people don't like the idea.
I see where you're coming from too I think. You did your research and had a good history with Turbine before paying for the lifetime sub on LOTR. I think those would be good tips for other gamers tbh. Before shelling out 2 hundred bucks, check out the history of the company. Do they make good games? Do they treat customers right? I'd also have a good hard look at the game itself. Is it polished? Did it have a good release? Is the population growing?
Having said that, I'd still like to see a few things change about the industry as a whole before I'd ever consider purchasing a lifetime sub. Allow me to illustrate:
MMO marketting dept.: "Let's make a deal, you pay us $200 dollars up front, and we'll give you access to our servers for as long as our new MMO lasts. It may not work, you may not enjoy it, we might revamp it, you might finish all the content in a couple of months, we may not add more content, and we're thinking about adding an RMT shop with game-enhancing gear at some point. What do you say?"
MMO gamer: "Um..."
What I'm saying is that a lot of MMO EULAs are extremely lopsided in favour of the game provider. Caveat emptor is a gamer's first line of defense. Signing the big check up front leaves you with precious little recourse if things go sour. As I look around, I see a lot of sour MMOs, especially ones that have come off the assembly line lately.
If you buy a lifetime sub before playing the game for at least 6 months then you get what you deserve, imo.
Definitely true. I have a lifetime sub to LOTRO and I've been regretting it well, pretty much every moment after my 3rd month. I used to force myself to play a few hours every month, I can't even stand that any more.
Still, part of the trouble is, you don't always have the chance to get a lifetime sub, or a chance to get a lifetime sub at a certain price. Mine was $199.99, but if I had waited 6 months, it would have been $299.99 (plus 6 months at $10 each). So it's a gamble.
Forget about it.
You don't see a $15 monthly charge. You can hide your LotRO box or just ignore the forums/website and soon you'll forget that you paid that lifetime sub. But you know what? If you want to, you can come back. Whenever you want. Without paying another dime (maybe for an expansion, but if I remember correctly, they offered SoM free for lifetime subs). I don't see how that's a bad thing.
A game that offers a lifetime sub before it launches? Yeah, I agree with being skeptical about that. If you roll the dice and pay for that, it's your fault. But there's nothing wrong with a lifetime sub for well-established games that you know are going to be around for a while and that you enjoy. If the company offers them, it's their choice (I always thought that it ends up being worse financially for the company, but there are people out there who like the idea of never having to pay monthly again. The pressure of playing every month so you don't feel like you're wasting your money is lifted, unless you're like trancejeremy here and you can't forget that $199). You could spend $199 on hardware and it could break in a few weeks, who knows? Same thing with how long you'll enjoy an MMO.
I see a big difference between buying hardware and purchasing a lifetime subscription to an MMO. The big difference is warranty.
When I spend a few hundred dollars on new hardware, I make sure I get a good warranty. The rig I'm working with now came with 3 years. I know that I'm getting a quality machine for a 3 year period when I spend my money. The risk is minimal, if it exists at all.
Let's compare this to an MMO. Do I have any assurance of quality? Do I have any idea how long I'm going to be able to enjoy my purchase? Nope. I'm handing over a few hundred dollars, and getting what? Access to servers that provide unspecified content, in an unspecified condition for an unknown amount of time.
It's a different kettle of fish altogether, and the fish smells bad to me.
Never bought one, not even sure what games offer them, but if we were to theorise that every game offered them for a value roughly equal to 18 months of subscription fees:
If I'd bought a lifetime sub for WoW .. it would have probably saved me tons of money.
If I'd bought a lifetime sub for EVE .. it would have probably saved me tons of money.
If I'd bought a lifetime sub for UO .. it would have probably saved me a little money.
If I'd bought a lifetime sub for LOTRO .. it would have probably saved me a little money.
If I'd bought a lifetime sub for SWG .. it would have probably saved me a little money.
If I'd bought a lifetime sub for AoC .. it would have been a significant waste of money.
If I'd bought a lifetime sub for WAR .. it would have been a significant waste of money.
If I'd bought a lifetime sub for TR .. it would have been a complete waste of money.
If I'd bought a lifetime sub for EQ2 .. it would have been a complete waste of money.
If I'd bought a lifetime sub for PotBS .. it would have been a complete waste of money.
If I'd bought a lifetime sub for Aion .. it would have been a complete waste of money.
If I'd bought a lifetime sub for CO .. it would have been a complete waste of money.
If I'd bought a lifetime sub for STO .. it would have been a complete waste of money.
So yeah, from my perspective, it's risky as hell. I'm probably best served by avoiding lifetime subs completely. I might end up out of pocket if I sub to a game for 2+ years instead of going for the lifetime sub, but I can deal with that. Much preferable than forking out lifetime subs for a game I don't last more than 6 months in.
I might be wrong (really not sure which games offer lifetime subs), but LOTRO might be the only game where it would have saved me any money whatsoever.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
If you buy a lifetime sub before playing the game for at least 6 months then you get what you deserve, imo.
Lord of the Rings online was totally worth the cash.
Anyway lifetime subs are great but for the love of god do your homework. My friend got an STO lifetime sub even after we both tried the beta (it sucked) i can see him loosing that big investment quite quickly.
As for Lotro, it's easily paid for itself many times over by now and it's good to know i have at least 1 quality MMO to play if i am low on cash.
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds -Solid non level based game -Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
The differnce with the LotrO lifetime offer compared to CO/STO/HG was that if you pre-orderd you got the founder special to get the LT offer but you didnt have to activate the offer before launch. So you could play the free month from the box and then choose if you wanted to buy the cheap lifetime offer or you could even subscribe monthly as long as you wanted before making the decision.
I got 45 free days with my lotro box so I got alot of time to make the choice if lifetime was worth it to me. In CO/STO you had to make the choice BEFORE the game had even launched.
If WoW = The Beatles and WAR = Led Zeppelin Then LotrO = Pink Floyd
The differnce with the LotrO lifetime offer compared to CO/STO/HG was that if you pre-orderd you got the founder special to get the LT offer but you didnt have to activate the offer before launch. So you could play the free month from the box and then choose if you wanted to buy the cheap lifetime offer or you could even subscribe monthly as long as you wanted before making the decision. I got 45 free days with my lotro box so I got alot of time to make the choice if lifetime was worth it to me. In CO/STO you had to make the choice BEFORE the game had even launched.
Don't fool yourself. There is no difference between a lifetime in Lotro and a lifetime in STO, CO, Hellgate London.
All serve the only purpose - immediate money injection with no long-term vision in mind. If a company is serious about their product in long-term, they can't turn their most loyal customers into free to play players. That's just absurd.
Just because I get a lifetime sub to STO or any other game doesn't mean I suddenly become a yes man. My integrity doesn't have a price tag, and I always reserve the right to bitch and complain if it is warranted. But it goes both ways: if a game company does something I approve with I will give them praise.
If i had a lifetime subscription to some games... i'd still be playing them, save for the cancelled ones i'd be pissed as hell for them.
LOTRO and CO I have lifetime and quite happy with them.
Although I have no problems payin for a monthly fee... a flat lifetime fee is simpler.
Rather then notice 3 billing cycles in wow without me loggin in once... side note: I cancelled WoW 6 times for that very reason only to resub months later.
Aion if offered I wouldve taken a lifetime... since I enjoyed it for the beta and month I payed.
...is that they may not last very long these days. Sometimes I wonder if people know this refers to the life of the game. We've seen a lot of sloppy, rushed out, broken games over the past few years. This seems to make life-time subs a bad idea. I for one carefully analyzed the risks and made the decision to get a CO lifetime sub in a logical way. That is why I have never once felt disappointed. Also, you know how some people will defend their online funpark no matter what, even if their comments clearly defy reality? Well anyone who sinks a few hundred bucks into an MMO, pre-launch, will now have a few hundred reasons to defend their investment, come hell or high water. Either that, or they're gonna have a few hundred reasons to be extremely pissed off if it shuts down prematurely after a bad launch. This sounds like a convenient way to dismiss other peoples opinions, but in my case these considerations are irrelevant, I regularly spend more money on entertainment that is much more fleeting, and I feel no need to defend these large expenditures on various internet forums. I praise CO because it is a good game, not because I care about $200 I spent last year.
Never bought one, not even sure what games offer them, but if we were to theorise that every game offered them for a value roughly equal to 18 months of subscription fees:
If I'd bought a lifetime sub for WoW .. it would have probably saved me tons of money. If I'd bought a lifetime sub for EVE .. it would have probably saved me tons of money. If I'd bought a lifetime sub for UO .. it would have probably saved me a little money. If I'd bought a lifetime sub for LOTRO .. it would have probably saved me a little money. If I'd bought a lifetime sub for SWG .. it would have probably saved me a little money. If I'd bought a lifetime sub for AoC .. it would have been a significant waste of money. If I'd bought a lifetime sub for WAR .. it would have been a significant waste of money. If I'd bought a lifetime sub for TR .. it would have been a complete waste of money. If I'd bought a lifetime sub for EQ2 .. it would have been a complete waste of money. If I'd bought a lifetime sub for PotBS .. it would have been a complete waste of money. If I'd bought a lifetime sub for Aion .. it would have been a complete waste of money. If I'd bought a lifetime sub for CO .. it would have been a complete waste of money. If I'd bought a lifetime sub for STO .. it would have been a complete waste of money.
So yeah, from my perspective, it's risky as hell. I'm probably best served by avoiding lifetime subs completely. I might end up out of pocket if I sub to a game for 2+ years instead of going for the lifetime sub, but I can deal with that. Much preferable than forking out lifetime subs for a game I don't last more than 6 months in. I might be wrong (really not sure which games offer lifetime subs), but LOTRO might be the only game where it would have saved me any money whatsoever.
These examples pretty much illustrate what I'm thinking. Thanks. Would the gamble have paid off in some games (e.g. lots of people mention Lotr)? Apparently. Would people have been burned in many others? Seems like it, yeah.
Paying up front, especially pre-release, is an unnecessary risk imo that mainly seems to benefit the publisher.
Just because I get a lifetime sub to STO or any other game doesn't mean I suddenly become a yes man. My integrity doesn't have a price tag, and I always reserve the right to bitch and complain if it is warranted. But it goes both ways: if a game company does something I approve with I will give them praise.
By paying up front, I don't think you lose your integrity. What you lose is your leverage. If you don't have a lifetime sub, you can complain about problems and take your money elsewhere. If you do have one, you can only complain.
If you pay in advance, and the game crashes and burns like Hellgate, you still don't lose your integrity. What you lose is your cash.
...is that they may not last very long these days. Sometimes I wonder if people know this refers to the life of the game. We've seen a lot of sloppy, rushed out, broken games over the past few years. This seems to make life-time subs a bad idea. I for one carefully analyzed the risks and made the decision to get a CO lifetime sub in a logical way. That is why I have never once felt disappointed. Also, you know how some people will defend their online funpark no matter what, even if their comments clearly defy reality? Well anyone who sinks a few hundred bucks into an MMO, pre-launch, will now have a few hundred reasons to defend their investment, come hell or high water. Either that, or they're gonna have a few hundred reasons to be extremely pissed off if it shuts down prematurely after a bad launch. This sounds like a convenient way to dismiss other peoples opinions, but in my case these considerations are irrelevant, I regularly spend more money on entertainment that is much more fleeting, and I feel no need to defend these large expenditures on various internet forums. I praise CO because it is a good game, not because I care about $200 I spent last year.
You may have missed the flip-side of my comment: "either that, or they're gonna have a few hundred reasons to be extremely pissed off if it shuts down prematurely...."
I expect that some people will be hesitant to criticize a game they just invested a few hundred bucks into. Others, I'm sure, will not be deterred. They'll make their voices heard because that's how they roll (/tiphat to them). Unfortunately, as I said to someone else, even if they continue to give feedback (positive and negative), once you pay everything in advance, you lose the right to take your money elsewhere if you get bad service.
I think depending on the game and your love for it you can save a lot of Money. I know 2 of my friends who bought lifetime subs for LoTR:O love Turbine as they have been in the playing for free for a long time now and they love that aspect of it. I think Turbine coming out every so often offering the lifetime sub is the way to handle it as well as you can play for a few months realize you are in love with it and then pony up the money for the lifetime.
It can be a cash grab at the start of a game, and as anyone can imagine it can sometimes lead to very unhappy people, but I have played a ton of games for over a (the games that charge 15$ a month) 14 months and wish some of them had offered life time subs. I don't know how much money I could have saved.
Unfortunately non of the games that get me really really interested ever offer life time subs =/
If I could've gotten a llife time sub for WoW at the beginning, I'd have saved a lot of money over the years.
Which is why WoW never offered, and never will most likely, offer a lifetime subscription. They know they can make far, far more money from enticing people to pay the monthly subscription year after year than they would by charging them for one lump sum.
If Champions Online lasts seven years, then Cryptic will be losing money every month on those who bought lifetime subscriptions and are still playing the game. Of course, Cryptic is hoping to recoup those costs through micro-transactions, but considering the Vibora Pay fiasco who knows how much their player base will give into that?
I play wow and have for a while, I feel better about a game when they don't give out Lifetime Sub's. To me this is saying that they plan on making their money by keeping you interested enought to resub month after month. Lifetime subs are a cop-out for publishers to make their profit and get out without having to fulfill the needs of the subscribers.
World Of Warcraft Character: Ileftarthas Faction: Alliance Server: Arygos
Couple things I've noticed about the responses (thanks for all of them btw).
1) Lifetime subs can be a gamble, and sometimes you're gonna get burned (e.g. Hellgate),
2) A lot of people really like Lotr, and are happy that they got the lifetime sub. I'm glad it worked out tbh.
My personal preference is to maintain the right to take my money elsewhere if the game, or customer service, goes down hill. I think customers need to keep the publishers on their toes as much as we can.
Comments
If he played 30 hrs/wk for 2,5 years, he got his $199(or dime's) worth and then some.
He is technically playing on their dime now.
IMO for someone like that, which includes myself, the lifetime deal was a steal for LOTRO. At $9.99 a month, the cheapest monthly rate offered at release, it would only have taken you roughly 20 months to break even on that deal. Less if you count it against the $14.99 rate. Those of us who were in the beta for LOTRO knew it was a deal.
That being said, I would never jump on a lifetime sub if I wasn't involved in some stage of testing. Being in the beta of LOTRO gave me an idea of who and what I was dealing with when I considered the lifetime sub.
It works for some, not so well for others. I think it's a good thing but it really depends on a case by case basis.
I edited the comment you quoted here to make reference to a game like Guild Wars. In that game you can play whenever you like, or not, without having to pay the big check up front. Now that sounds like a sweet deal.
Also, I've now seen that some people are happy with their LOTR decision, but others are not. Those that aren't happy are pretty much screwed. I doubt I'd find anyone pleased with paying $149.00 up front for Hellgate. What I take from this is that you're paying a lot of money up front, but you don't really know what you're going to get, or whether or not you're going to be happy with it. Does this sound like a good idea for any other purchase?
Your other option (in a subscription based game) is to pay as you go. If you like the game after 2 months, you can buy more time. If you want to take a 6 month break, you can do that without feeling like you wasted your money. During your break, you pay nothing (nothing now, and nothing up front). If you want to hop back into the game after your break, you can, for 10 or 15 bucks a month.
If they change your game (e.g. remove what makes it fun for you, add an item shop for all the cool new loot, add irritating bugs via new patches), you can opt out at anytime, and keep your money for something you'll enjoy...like another MMO.
If he played 30 hrs/wk for 2,5 years, he got his $199(or dime's) worth and then some.
He is technically playing on their dime now.
IMO for someone like that, which includes myself, the lifetime deal was a steal for LOTRO. At $9.99 a month, the cheapest monthly rate offered at release, it would only have taken you roughly 20 months to break even on that deal. Less if you count it against the $14.99 rate. Those of us who were in the beta for LOTRO knew it was a deal.
That being said, I would never jump on a lifetime sub if I wasn't involved in some stage of testing. Being in the beta of LOTRO gave me an idea of who and what I was dealing with when I considered the lifetime sub.
It works for some, not so well for others. I think it's a good thing but it really depends on a case by case basis.
I edited the comment you quoted here to make reference to a game like Guild Wars. In that game you can play whenever you like, or not, without having to pay the big check up front. Now that sounds like a sweet deal.
Also, I've now seen that some people are happy with their LOTR decision, but others are not. Those that aren't happy are pretty much screwed. I doubt I'd find anyone pleased with paying $149.00 up front for Hellgate. What I take from this is that you're paying a lot of money up front, but you don't really know what you're going to get, or whether or not you're going to be happy with it. Does this sound like a good idea for any other purchase?
Your other option (in a subscription based game) is to pay as you go. If you like the game after 2 months, you can buy more time. If you want to take a 6 month break, you can do that without feeling like you wasted your money. During your break, you pay nothing (nothing now, and nothing up front). If you want to hop back into the game after your break, you can, for 10 or 15 bucks a month.
If they change your game (e.g. remove what makes it fun for you, add an item shop for all the cool new loot, add irritating bugs via new patches), you can opt out at anytime, and keep your money for something you'll enjoy...like another MMO.
I see where you are coming from.
IMO, it's up to each individual gamer. Only individual can decide for themselves if it's worth the risk. It works for some if they think it's worth it, for others it doesn't. In some situations it's a rip-off(hellgate:london), in others it works out pretty well(LOTRO).
As consumers as well as a gamers, it's ultimately up to us to make informed decisions. I was pretty comfortable with Turbine, and the direction they wanted to take LOTRO. I played AC1 for nearly 6 years so I had some background with Turbine. Being a tester, I felt pretty good about the game and the development staff, and the buzz that was generated during OB sealed the deal. It was a good game, it was going to do well, and there were going to be a lot people playing it.
I say queue up the lifetime option and let gamers decide for themselves. More options are a good thing and I see no reason for developers not to offer it just because some people don't like the idea.
Einherjar_LC says: WTB the true successor to UO or Asheron's Call pst!
Definitely true. I have a lifetime sub to LOTRO and I've been regretting it well, pretty much every moment after my 3rd month. I used to force myself to play a few hours every month, I can't even stand that any more.
Still, part of the trouble is, you don't always have the chance to get a lifetime sub, or a chance to get a lifetime sub at a certain price. Mine was $199.99, but if I had waited 6 months, it would have been $299.99 (plus 6 months at $10 each). So it's a gamble.
Forget about it.
You don't see a $15 monthly charge. You can hide your LotRO box or just ignore the forums/website and soon you'll forget that you paid that lifetime sub. But you know what? If you want to, you can come back. Whenever you want. Without paying another dime (maybe for an expansion, but if I remember correctly, they offered SoM free for lifetime subs). I don't see how that's a bad thing.
A game that offers a lifetime sub before it launches? Yeah, I agree with being skeptical about that. If you roll the dice and pay for that, it's your fault. But there's nothing wrong with a lifetime sub for well-established games that you know are going to be around for a while and that you enjoy. If the company offers them, it's their choice (I always thought that it ends up being worse financially for the company, but there are people out there who like the idea of never having to pay monthly again. The pressure of playing every month so you don't feel like you're wasting your money is lifted, unless you're like trancejeremy here and you can't forget that $199). You could spend $199 on hardware and it could break in a few weeks, who knows? Same thing with how long you'll enjoy an MMO.
If he played 30 hrs/wk for 2,5 years, he got his $199(or dime's) worth and then some.
He is technically playing on their dime now.
IMO for someone like that, which includes myself, the lifetime deal was a steal for LOTRO. At $9.99 a month, the cheapest monthly rate offered at release, it would only have taken you roughly 20 months to break even on that deal. Less if you count it against the $14.99 rate. Those of us who were in the beta for LOTRO knew it was a deal.
That being said, I would never jump on a lifetime sub if I wasn't involved in some stage of testing. Being in the beta of LOTRO gave me an idea of who and what I was dealing with when I considered the lifetime sub.
It works for some, not so well for others. I think it's a good thing but it really depends on a case by case basis.
I edited the comment you quoted here to make reference to a game like Guild Wars. In that game you can play whenever you like, or not, without having to pay the big check up front. Now that sounds like a sweet deal.
Also, I've now seen that some people are happy with their LOTR decision, but others are not. Those that aren't happy are pretty much screwed. I doubt I'd find anyone pleased with paying $149.00 up front for Hellgate. What I take from this is that you're paying a lot of money up front, but you don't really know what you're going to get, or whether or not you're going to be happy with it. Does this sound like a good idea for any other purchase?
Your other option (in a subscription based game) is to pay as you go. If you like the game after 2 months, you can buy more time. If you want to take a 6 month break, you can do that without feeling like you wasted your money. During your break, you pay nothing (nothing now, and nothing up front). If you want to hop back into the game after your break, you can, for 10 or 15 bucks a month.
If they change your game (e.g. remove what makes it fun for you, add an item shop for all the cool new loot, add irritating bugs via new patches), you can opt out at anytime, and keep your money for something you'll enjoy...like another MMO.
I see where you are coming from.
IMO, it's up to each individual gamer. Only individual can decide for themselves if it's worth the risk. It works for some if they think it's worth it, for others it doesn't. In some situations it's a rip-off(hellgate:london), in others it works out pretty well(LOTRO).
As consumers as well as a gamers, it's ultimately up to us to make informed decisions. I was pretty comfortable with Turbine, and the direction they wanted to take LOTRO. I played AC1 for nearly 6 years so I had some background with Turbine. Being a tester, I felt pretty good about the game and the development staff, and the buzz that was generated during OB sealed the deal. It was a good game, it was going to do well, and there were going to be a lot people playing it.
I say queue up the lifetime option and let gamers decide for themselves. More options are a good thing and I see no reason for developers not to offer it just because some people don't like the idea.
I see where you're coming from too I think. You did your research and had a good history with Turbine before paying for the lifetime sub on LOTR. I think those would be good tips for other gamers tbh. Before shelling out 2 hundred bucks, check out the history of the company. Do they make good games? Do they treat customers right? I'd also have a good hard look at the game itself. Is it polished? Did it have a good release? Is the population growing?
Having said that, I'd still like to see a few things change about the industry as a whole before I'd ever consider purchasing a lifetime sub. Allow me to illustrate:
MMO marketting dept.: "Let's make a deal, you pay us $200 dollars up front, and we'll give you access to our servers for as long as our new MMO lasts. It may not work, you may not enjoy it, we might revamp it, you might finish all the content in a couple of months, we may not add more content, and we're thinking about adding an RMT shop with game-enhancing gear at some point. What do you say?"
MMO gamer: "Um..."
What I'm saying is that a lot of MMO EULAs are extremely lopsided in favour of the game provider. Caveat emptor is a gamer's first line of defense. Signing the big check up front leaves you with precious little recourse if things go sour. As I look around, I see a lot of sour MMOs, especially ones that have come off the assembly line lately.
Definitely true. I have a lifetime sub to LOTRO and I've been regretting it well, pretty much every moment after my 3rd month. I used to force myself to play a few hours every month, I can't even stand that any more.
Still, part of the trouble is, you don't always have the chance to get a lifetime sub, or a chance to get a lifetime sub at a certain price. Mine was $199.99, but if I had waited 6 months, it would have been $299.99 (plus 6 months at $10 each). So it's a gamble.
Forget about it.
You don't see a $15 monthly charge. You can hide your LotRO box or just ignore the forums/website and soon you'll forget that you paid that lifetime sub. But you know what? If you want to, you can come back. Whenever you want. Without paying another dime (maybe for an expansion, but if I remember correctly, they offered SoM free for lifetime subs). I don't see how that's a bad thing.
A game that offers a lifetime sub before it launches? Yeah, I agree with being skeptical about that. If you roll the dice and pay for that, it's your fault. But there's nothing wrong with a lifetime sub for well-established games that you know are going to be around for a while and that you enjoy. If the company offers them, it's their choice (I always thought that it ends up being worse financially for the company, but there are people out there who like the idea of never having to pay monthly again. The pressure of playing every month so you don't feel like you're wasting your money is lifted, unless you're like trancejeremy here and you can't forget that $199). You could spend $199 on hardware and it could break in a few weeks, who knows? Same thing with how long you'll enjoy an MMO.
I see a big difference between buying hardware and purchasing a lifetime subscription to an MMO. The big difference is warranty.
When I spend a few hundred dollars on new hardware, I make sure I get a good warranty. The rig I'm working with now came with 3 years. I know that I'm getting a quality machine for a 3 year period when I spend my money. The risk is minimal, if it exists at all.
Let's compare this to an MMO. Do I have any assurance of quality? Do I have any idea how long I'm going to be able to enjoy my purchase? Nope. I'm handing over a few hundred dollars, and getting what? Access to servers that provide unspecified content, in an unspecified condition for an unknown amount of time.
It's a different kettle of fish altogether, and the fish smells bad to me.
Lifetime was worth its money for LOTRO (wish i got it)
And for rest was big mistake... so its a big risk
A truth too simple for the simple to recognise as truth.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
Never bought one, not even sure what games offer them, but if we were to theorise that every game offered them for a value roughly equal to 18 months of subscription fees:
So yeah, from my perspective, it's risky as hell. I'm probably best served by avoiding lifetime subs completely. I might end up out of pocket if I sub to a game for 2+ years instead of going for the lifetime sub, but I can deal with that. Much preferable than forking out lifetime subs for a game I don't last more than 6 months in.
I might be wrong (really not sure which games offer lifetime subs), but LOTRO might be the only game where it would have saved me any money whatsoever.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
I only bought a lifetime Subscription for LOTRO because it was 50% off at the time. Otherwise i wouldn't waste money on it.
Lord of the Rings online was totally worth the cash.
Anyway lifetime subs are great but for the love of god do your homework. My friend got an STO lifetime sub even after we both tried the beta (it sucked) i can see him loosing that big investment quite quickly.
As for Lotro, it's easily paid for itself many times over by now and it's good to know i have at least 1 quality MMO to play if i am low on cash.
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds
-Solid non level based game
-Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
The differnce with the LotrO lifetime offer compared to CO/STO/HG was that if you pre-orderd you got the founder special to get the LT offer but you didnt have to activate the offer before launch. So you could play the free month from the box and then choose if you wanted to buy the cheap lifetime offer or you could even subscribe monthly as long as you wanted before making the decision.
I got 45 free days with my lotro box so I got alot of time to make the choice if lifetime was worth it to me. In CO/STO you had to make the choice BEFORE the game had even launched.
If WoW = The Beatles
and WAR = Led Zeppelin
Then LotrO = Pink Floyd
Don't fool yourself. There is no difference between a lifetime in Lotro and a lifetime in STO, CO, Hellgate London.
All serve the only purpose - immediate money injection with no long-term vision in mind. If a company is serious about their product in long-term, they can't turn their most loyal customers into free to play players. That's just absurd.
REALITY CHECK
Just because I get a lifetime sub to STO or any other game doesn't mean I suddenly become a yes man. My integrity doesn't have a price tag, and I always reserve the right to bitch and complain if it is warranted. But it goes both ways: if a game company does something I approve with I will give them praise.
I have to admit
If i had a lifetime subscription to some games... i'd still be playing them, save for the cancelled ones i'd be pissed as hell for them.
LOTRO and CO I have lifetime and quite happy with them.
Although I have no problems payin for a monthly fee... a flat lifetime fee is simpler.
Rather then notice 3 billing cycles in wow without me loggin in once... side note: I cancelled WoW 6 times for that very reason only to resub months later.
Aion if offered I wouldve taken a lifetime... since I enjoyed it for the beta and month I payed.
Just my mini rant
Cryptic is trying a Customer Development approach to MMO creation.
These examples pretty much illustrate what I'm thinking. Thanks. Would the gamble have paid off in some games (e.g. lots of people mention Lotr)? Apparently. Would people have been burned in many others? Seems like it, yeah.
Paying up front, especially pre-release, is an unnecessary risk imo that mainly seems to benefit the publisher.
By paying up front, I don't think you lose your integrity. What you lose is your leverage. If you don't have a lifetime sub, you can complain about problems and take your money elsewhere. If you do have one, you can only complain.
If you pay in advance, and the game crashes and burns like Hellgate, you still don't lose your integrity. What you lose is your cash.
You may have missed the flip-side of my comment: "either that, or they're gonna have a few hundred reasons to be extremely pissed off if it shuts down prematurely...."
I expect that some people will be hesitant to criticize a game they just invested a few hundred bucks into. Others, I'm sure, will not be deterred. They'll make their voices heard because that's how they roll (/tiphat to them). Unfortunately, as I said to someone else, even if they continue to give feedback (positive and negative), once you pay everything in advance, you lose the right to take your money elsewhere if you get bad service.
I think depending on the game and your love for it you can save a lot of Money. I know 2 of my friends who bought lifetime subs for LoTR:O love Turbine as they have been in the playing for free for a long time now and they love that aspect of it. I think Turbine coming out every so often offering the lifetime sub is the way to handle it as well as you can play for a few months realize you are in love with it and then pony up the money for the lifetime.
It can be a cash grab at the start of a game, and as anyone can imagine it can sometimes lead to very unhappy people, but I have played a ton of games for over a (the games that charge 15$ a month) 14 months and wish some of them had offered life time subs. I don't know how much money I could have saved.
Unfortunately non of the games that get me really really interested ever offer life time subs =/
FFIV lifetime sub option please.
Which is why WoW never offered, and never will most likely, offer a lifetime subscription. They know they can make far, far more money from enticing people to pay the monthly subscription year after year than they would by charging them for one lump sum.
If Champions Online lasts seven years, then Cryptic will be losing money every month on those who bought lifetime subscriptions and are still playing the game. Of course, Cryptic is hoping to recoup those costs through micro-transactions, but considering the Vibora Pay fiasco who knows how much their player base will give into that?
I play wow and have for a while, I feel better about a game when they don't give out Lifetime Sub's. To me this is saying that they plan on making their money by keeping you interested enought to resub month after month. Lifetime subs are a cop-out for publishers to make their profit and get out without having to fulfill the needs of the subscribers.
World Of Warcraft
Character: Ileftarthas
Faction: Alliance
Server: Arygos
Couple things I've noticed about the responses (thanks for all of them btw).
1) Lifetime subs can be a gamble, and sometimes you're gonna get burned (e.g. Hellgate),
2) A lot of people really like Lotr, and are happy that they got the lifetime sub. I'm glad it worked out tbh.
My personal preference is to maintain the right to take my money elsewhere if the game, or customer service, goes down hill. I think customers need to keep the publishers on their toes as much as we can.
If you buy a lifetime sub and the game shuts down, they ought to send you the files to make your own private server.