Trion on Rift lifetime subs: "Nope; never"

Kuppa

http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/10/26/trion-on-rift-lifetime-subs-nope-never/

 "Lifetime memberships are a great deal for consumers that plan to spend the next few years playing the game, and a financial disaster for subscription-only companies that have to continue paying for new feature development, salaries, server costs, marketing, etc."

 

I personally found what he said in bad taste. First because I don't believe subs are needed and secondly because he could have tried sounding like less of a @#$% while making his point....

Ice-Queen

He's right really. Lifetime subs are a bad idea for a company that have to pay salaries and have regular content for mmo's. I prefer subscription over free to play games with cash shops any day.

Arakazi

I disagree with all you points. Subs are needed or the game gets a cash shop. I hate cash shops. In what way did he sound like a ****? He was asked a question he gave a straight answer and gave the reasons.

skydiver12

He's full of bs. Just saying somethign contradicting to get attention. It's from the we are not in azeroth anymore - but a copy company, that's how trion trolls, eh rolls.

1. Lifetimes give money in advance which secure a lot more than he want's to admit.
2. Lifetimes are not cheap or free, most cost around 1.5 to 2 years worth of subs. Which means you need to actually have those players play for that amount before you even get into the "negative".
3. I have yet to see any numbers that indicate lifetimes are ANY factor at all, (how "many" really buy those out of 500.000 people - exactly no one mentions them for a reason).
4. If lifetimes are really that "bad" for the developer and sub just get you by, how come he can even use the majority of the money for OTHER project not realted to said mmo, namely fps games *deviance* cough*?

halflife25

Originally posted by Kuppa

http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/10/26/trion-on-rift-lifetime-subs-nope-never/

 "Lifetime memberships are a great deal for consumers that plan to spend the next few years playing the game, and a financial disaster for subscription-only companies that have to continue paying for new feature development, salaries, server costs, marketing, etc."

 

I personally found what he said in bad taste. First because I don't believe subs are needed and secondly because he could have tried sounding like less of a @#$% while making his point....

He is right. I don't think why it is offending you? people are so used to sugar coated PR bullshit from gaming companies i guess.

gordiflu

Originally posted by skydiver12

He's full of bs. Just saying somethign contradicting to get attention. It's from the we are not in azeroth anymore - but a copy company, that's how trion trolls, eh rolls.

1. Lifetimes give money in advance which secure a lot more than he want's to admit.
2. Lifetimes are not cheap or free, most cost around 1.5 to 2 years worth of subs. Which means you need to actually have those players play for that amount before you even get into the "negative".
3. I have yet to see any numbers that indicate lifetimes are ANY factor at all, (how "many" really buy those out of 500.000 people - exactly no one mentions them for a reason).
4. If lifetimes are really that "bad" for the developer and sub just get you by, how come he can even use the majority of the money for OTHER project not realted to said mmo, namely fps games *deviance* cough*?

 

 

 

Well, if I check what happened to Lotro or CO, I also think that lifetimes are bad in the long run. For both the dev and the player. You paid a lifetime? That's it, you can't vote with your wallet any more. You could never ever log in once and the company wouldn't care.

FrodoFragins

Originally posted by Kuppa

http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/10/26/trion-on-rift-lifetime-subs-nope-never/

 "Lifetime memberships are a great deal for consumers that plan to spend the next few years playing the game, and a financial disaster for subscription-only companies that have to continue paying for new feature development, salaries, server costs, marketing, etc."

 

I personally found what he said in bad taste. First because I don't believe subs are needed and secondly because he could have tried sounding like less of a @#$% while making his point....

I don't see how it is in bad taste.  But he is correct that lifetime subs can become a nightmare for developers that rely on subscriptions.

 

Ideally, MMOs would rely solely on game and expansion sales only.  GW2 comes close but they seem to rely on selling gems to a certain portion of the population and they haven't released any major content updates.

 

I think lifetime subs helped crap games like STO but crippled LOTRO.  Most people that get lifetime memberships would likely end up subbing more months than the lifetime subs break even point, otherwise why get a lifetime sub.  At that point, the developer is losing money.

Thorkune

I feel that companies that have no intention of ever going F2P are hesitant to offer lifetime subs. I guess I agree that subscription income benefits the player via new/better content.

stevebmbsqd

Originally posted by Kuppa

http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/10/26/trion-on-rift-lifetime-subs-nope-never/

 "Lifetime memberships are a great deal for consumers that plan to spend the next few years playing the game, and a financial disaster for subscription-only companies that have to continue paying for new feature development, salaries, server costs, marketing, etc."

 

I personally found what he said in bad taste. First because I don't believe subs are needed and secondly because he could have tried sounding like less of a @#$% while making his point....

How is some form of income not needed? Do you think these devs work for free? Sure server maintenance costs might be negligible, but for continued development of the game, marketing to bring in new players, and reasonable customer service you need revenue. You also need revenue to pay for development of the next generation of games. If it isn't a sub then it has to have a cash shop. This isn't a single player game that gives you a few hours of content. Trion is one of those companies that has been very good about putting out polished content on a tight schedule. The only reason they are able to do this is that they have a large staff and in order to maintain that staff, they need a steady flow of revenue. Some of you people are so self entitled...... 

Entris38

Originally posted by Kuppa

http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/10/26/trion-on-rift-lifetime-subs-nope-never/

 "Lifetime memberships are a great deal for consumers that plan to spend the next few years playing the game, and a financial disaster for subscription-only companies that have to continue paying for new feature development, salaries, server costs, marketing, etc."

 

I personally found what he said in bad taste. First because I don't believe subs are needed and secondly because he could have tried sounding like less of a @#$% while making his point....

I don't think he came off as a @#$% at all. He directly answered the questions and he is correct in my opinion, ask lotro. That subscription money is necessary for continued development of the game, or they would be stuck going F2P cash shop.....What would you do when everyone goes lifetime and that money runs out? Do you expect companies to further development for free? Amazing how people think 15 dollars a month for 100's of hours of entertainment  is somehow unreasonable.

tordurbar

I agree with him 100%. I saw this happen with the paper rpg companies. Every one of them that had a lifetime sub folded within 5 years (anyone else old enough to remember SPI?).  Look at the mmo games that offered lifetime subs (STO and others) - all hanging on as free to play. Yes, I would pay for a lifetime sub but I do not want to endanger the long term success of the mmo that I do it for. Lifetimes subs are death.

Phlacc

Originally posted by Kuppa

http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/10/26/trion-on-rift-lifetime-subs-nope-never/

 "Lifetime memberships are a great deal for consumers that plan to spend the next few years playing the game, and a financial disaster for subscription-only companies that have to continue paying for new feature development, salaries, server costs, marketing, etc."

 

I personally found what he said in bad taste. First because I don't believe subs are needed and secondly because he could have tried sounding like less of a @#$% while making his point....

You obviously never owned or ran a business. Wait until you have to, then see what you say. I bet your opinion would change.

cybertrucker

The OP apparently has no idea about what it takes to run a business. Businesses must remain profitable to remain in business. An Imagine if you will if McDonalds allowed for customers to 2000.00 to receive a meal card that would last for life. Sure at the point of sale they make a large profit, but over time their costs would supersede that initial profit in loss.

however even if the OP does understand that a business model like that is not sustainable. So many people today believe they are entitled to something for nothing. Not only in games but in RL. To me those types of people are the lowest dregs of  our society. 

Purutzil

A bit of a 'snarky' response I suppose but its true. Lifetime subscription is great if your expecting an MMo to only last a few years, but after that it ends up hurting the game rather then benefiting it. Its good for that initial boost of funding but not for providing steady income. 

 

Think of it this way, what MMO out there that had this option has stood the test of time an actually remained and hasn't gone F2P? 

Drakxii

Originally posted by skydiver12

He's full of bs. Just saying somethign contradicting to get attention. It's from the we are not in azeroth anymore - but a copy company, that's how trion trolls, eh rolls.

1. Lifetimes give money in advance which secure a lot more than he want's to admit.  Plan for the long term not the short term.

2. Lifetimes are not cheap or free, most cost around 1.5 to 2 years worth of subs. Which means you need to actually have those players play for that amount before you even get into the "negative".  And if they can keep you for more then 2 years they make more money.

3. I have yet to see any numbers that indicate lifetimes are ANY factor at all, (how "many" really buy those out of 500.000 people - exactly no one mentions them for a reason).  Not sure what your saying here, but can you name a game that offered lifetime subs that isn't freeium or F2P atm?

4. If lifetimes are really that "bad" for the developer and sub just get you by, how come he can even use the majority of the money for OTHER project not realted to said mmo, namely fps games *deviance* cough*?   Wait wait a company not just sitting on what they have but making new games with new IPs?  Blasphemy!

 

I will always see lifetime subs as a lack of faith in their own game.  If they can keep me more then 2 years why offer it?  If they believe they can get me to buy crap to make thier game suck less why not go F2P?  Either option would make more money.

f0dell54

Originally posted by Torvaldr
A subscription costs, including mircro-transactions for xpacs, an average of approximately $250 per year per game.  Why would Trion sell a lifetime subscription?  They make more money this way.

 

Exactly. It's been said before compnaies only offer lifetime subs to make that quick initial money during beta or early launch. Then because of that move they slow will lose money over time.

 

Well played Trion, well played.

GeezerGamer

Originally posted by Kuppa

http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/10/26/trion-on-rift-lifetime-subs-nope-never/

 "Lifetime memberships are a great deal for consumers that plan to spend the next few years playing the game, and a financial disaster for subscription-only companies that have to continue paying for new feature development, salaries, server costs, marketing, etc."

 

I personally found what he said in bad taste. First because I don't believe subs are needed and secondly because he could have tried sounding like less of a @#$% while making his point....

As opposed to what? Turbine's golden gift to MMOs is showing it's starting to fail now.  LTSers for STO got burned, I imagine TSW may go F2P in the near future. What example of LTS has worked out long term? People have been brainwashed against Sub models. I've yet to see a viable replacement that works for the long term. B2P? Lotteries and cash shops that undermine the entire concept of in game character progresison and destroy in game economies? Cash Shops ruin MMOs. Keep your real money out of the game. and LTS will just contribute to lazy developers. I am all for monthly subs as long as the intergity of why I am willing to pay them remains intact (Yeah, I'm looking at you FunCom)

Kuppa

Lots of people angry with my opinion, again its my opinion not a fact. I don't believe subs are good business model and telling your players you "need" the sub money for new feature development, salaries, server costs, marketing. Ther are TONS of games, mainly console, that need to provide salaries, server costss, marketing ect. and don't charge subs.

I have always believed that subs aren't something that came out of the need to pay for XYZ, instead saying you have to pay for XYZ came from companies wanting to charge a sub. 

Sovrath

Originally posted by Kuppa

http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/10/26/trion-on-rift-lifetime-subs-nope-never/

 "Lifetime memberships are a great deal for consumers that plan to spend the next few years playing the game, and a financial disaster for subscription-only companies that have to continue paying for new feature development, salaries, server costs, marketing, etc."

 

I personally found what he said in bad taste. First because I don't believe subs are needed and secondly because he could have tried sounding like less of a @#$% while making his point....

I don't think he sounded like a @#$% at all.

We need more develpers to be plain and transparent about what it takes to develop and maintain these games.

Bravo to him I say.

GeezerGamer

Originally posted by Kuppa

Lots of people angry with my opinion, again its my opinion not a fact. I don't believe subs are good business model and telling your players you "need" the sub money for new feature development, salaries, server costs, marketing. Ther are TONS of games, mainly console, that need to provide salaries, server costss, marketing ect. and don't charge subs.

I have always believed that subs aren't something that came out of the need to pay for XYZ, instead saying you have to pay for XYZ came from companies wanting to charge a sub. 

Except it's not about the model. It's about the quality of the game. Here we have rift that is successful enough to be releasing what appears at 1st glance to be one kickass expansion. Time will tell. Regardless. if the game is desireable and worth the fee, then it doesn't matter what that fee is really, as long as it's a value and is desireable. GW2 is not an "Awesome Game" No. It's an "Awesome Game fot the money". There is no way it would have nearly the popularity it has now if it were sub based. It would no longer be the value it is now.

AZHokie54

Originally posted by Kuppa

Lots of people angry with my opinion, again its my opinion not a fact. I don't believe subs are good business model and telling your players you "need" the sub money for new feature development, salaries, server costs, marketing. Ther are TONS of games, mainly console, that need to provide salaries, server costss, marketing ect. and don't charge subs.

I have always believed that subs aren't something that came out of the need to pay for XYZ, instead saying you have to pay for XYZ came from companies wanting to charge a sub. 

Clueless.

xAPOCx

Originally posted by AZHokie54

Originally posted by Kuppa

Lots of people angry with my opinion, again its my opinion not a fact. I don't believe subs are good business model and telling your players you "need" the sub money for new feature development, salaries, server costs, marketing. Ther are TONS of games, mainly console, that need to provide salaries, server costss, marketing ect. and don't charge subs.

I have always believed that subs aren't something that came out of the need to pay for XYZ, instead saying you have to pay for XYZ came from companies wanting to charge a sub. 

Clueless.

+1

Kuppa

Originally posted by GeezerGamer

Originally posted by Kuppa

Lots of people angry with my opinion, again its my opinion not a fact. I don't believe subs are good business model and telling your players you "need" the sub money for new feature development, salaries, server costs, marketing. Ther are TONS of games, mainly console, that need to provide salaries, server costss, marketing ect. and don't charge subs.

I have always believed that subs aren't something that came out of the need to pay for XYZ, instead saying you have to pay for XYZ came from companies wanting to charge a sub. 

Except it's not about the model. It's about the quality of the game. Here we have rift that is successful enough to be releasing what appears at 1st glance to be one kickass expansion. Time will tell. Regardless. if the game is desireable and worth the fee, then it doesn't matter what that fee is really, as long as it's a value and is desireable. GW2 is not an "Awesome Game" No. It's an "Awesome Game fot the money". There is no way it would have nearly the popularity it has now if it were sub based. It would no longer be the value it is now.

For the game to be "worth the fee" the fee matters, not sure what you are trying to say with "the fee doesn't matter".

Kuppa

Originally posted by AZHokie54

Originally posted by Kuppa

Lots of people angry with my opinion, again its my opinion not a fact. I don't believe subs are good business model and telling your players you "need" the sub money for new feature development, salaries, server costs, marketing. Ther are TONS of games, mainly console, that need to provide salaries, server costss, marketing ect. and don't charge subs.

I have always believed that subs aren't something that came out of the need to pay for XYZ, instead saying you have to pay for XYZ came from companies wanting to charge a sub. 

Clueless.

I know folks like to believe that their sub money is used for all that stuff that he says its beign used and that its needed at all, I don't fall for it call me "clueless"...

xAPOCx

Originally posted by Kuppa

Originally posted by GeezerGamer

Originally posted by Kuppa

Lots of people angry with my opinion, again its my opinion not a fact. I don't believe subs are good business model and telling your players you "need" the sub money for new feature development, salaries, server costs, marketing. Ther are TONS of games, mainly console, that need to provide salaries, server costss, marketing ect. and don't charge subs.

I have always believed that subs aren't something that came out of the need to pay for XYZ, instead saying you have to pay for XYZ came from companies wanting to charge a sub. 

Except it's not about the model. It's about the quality of the game. Here we have rift that is successful enough to be releasing what appears at 1st glance to be one kickass expansion. Time will tell. Regardless. if the game is desireable and worth the fee, then it doesn't matter what that fee is really, as long as it's a value and is desireable. GW2 is not an "Awesome Game" No. It's an "Awesome Game fot the money". There is no way it would have nearly the popularity it has now if it were sub based. It would no longer be the value it is now.

For the game to be "worth the fee" the fee matters, not sure what you are trying to say with "the fee doesn't matter".

So what maters to you is the pay model? Its ok to have cash shops but not a mothly fee?

Kuppa

Originally posted by xAPOCx

Originally posted by Kuppa

Originally posted by GeezerGamer

Originally posted by Kuppa

Lots of people angry with my opinion, again its my opinion not a fact. I don't believe subs are good business model and telling your players you "need" the sub money for new feature development, salaries, server costs, marketing. Ther are TONS of games, mainly console, that need to provide salaries, server costss, marketing ect. and don't charge subs.

I have always believed that subs aren't something that came out of the need to pay for XYZ, instead saying you have to pay for XYZ came from companies wanting to charge a sub. 

Except it's not about the model. It's about the quality of the game. Here we have rift that is successful enough to be releasing what appears at 1st glance to be one kickass expansion. Time will tell. Regardless. if the game is desireable and worth the fee, then it doesn't matter what that fee is really, as long as it's a value and is desireable. GW2 is not an "Awesome Game" No. It's an "Awesome Game fot the money". There is no way it would have nearly the popularity it has now if it were sub based. It would no longer be the value it is now.

For the game to be "worth the fee" the fee matters, not sure what you are trying to say with "the fee doesn't matter".

So what maters to you is the pay model? Its ok to have cash shops but not a mothly fee?

Its not exclusive, I look at the game AND the cost of playing it.