I'm glad I live in a country (Norway) where just about no one would have problems paying that, even for multible subs. I wish more games had this model, F2P is always horrible.
The problem with today's gamers, is that they want everything for free. MMOs are among the cheapest forms for entertainment, measured in cost per hour, at least, and you have to be really poor if you can't afford it.
Thanks for you input. Next time read the OP and not just the title. I have been guilty of it too.
I did, but I replied to the discussion, not a single post.
I'm glad I live in a country (Norway) where just about no one would have problems paying that, even for multible subs. I wish more games had this model, F2P is always horrible.
The problem with today's gamers, is that they want everything for free. MMOs are among the cheapest forms for entertainment, measured in cost per hour, at least, and you have to be really poor if you can't afford it.
Thanks for you input. Next time read the OP and not just the title. I have been guilty of it too.
I did, but I replied to the discussion, not a single post.
For me personaly it aint the price itself, its the 1month or nothing option i hate. Where is the 1-2-3-4 week option. If i pay one month and play 1 week i feel i wasted money, and it has gone so far that i usaly dont bother to sub at all.
Once upon a time, we played our favorite game until we were burned out. Then we unsubbed and went to game #2 for a while until either the urge to play game #1 came back or we got caught up in game #2 or game #3.
Today, it is more common than not for players to play more than one game at a time. Sometimes it is a sub and a F2P game, sometimes multiple subs, sometimes multiple F2P games. In any case, we have changed the way we play.
We want lots of options yet we're still on a budget. Something might have to give but it probably won't be the developers.
Show me a highly popular MMO that when released didn't have customer service and hack/bot security issues. This "quality of life" benefits usually come later in the life of a popular mmo or early if the mmo isn't that popular. Making a broad statement like that doesn't really make sense.
I agree that a good idea would be to lower montly subs. An even better idea IMMO is to remove sub prices all together and just pay for an entry price like it has been done since the beginning of gaming before all the new business models came to existence.
I can see your logic. There are a few games out there I would consider playing for $5 a month, but at $15 a month, I need to be a bit choosy. My kids like to play with me, and with multiple subs, I need to be picky.
The game companies may lose a bit initially, but the benefit is potentially fuller servers and a more satisfied player base. It also brings in more possible microtransactions, which are common place now. These could potentially ofset the loss in sub payments, if any.
Exactly.
/signed. I'd pay 8.99 a month for a couple of mmo's on my list, provided they dropped their p2w models.
quite alot of mmos would be pretty sweet if they just stopped being p2w lol
A real MMORPG would need to raise the sub prices to be successful. Currently it isn't worth it to keep servers running on games with low populations because the sub prices are the same as what we had 13yrs ago. In order for a company to even think about having a long running MMO they need to look at $50/mo sub price but that will only work if you have real content and gameplay not a casual MMO that is only a few weeks of content and gameplay. I am talking what EQ,AC, DAOC and Vanilla WOW gave us at launch. There are plenty of people who will play the game.
They just need to stop thinking about trying to get 10million subs and make a game around 10K subs. It cna work if they put their time and energy into the game and game design instead of marketing and false promises.
Once upon a time, we played our favorite game until we were burned out. Then we unsubbed and went to game #2 for a while until either the urge to play game #1 came back or we got caught up in game #2 or game #3.
Today, it is more common than not for players to play more than one game at a time. Sometimes it is a sub and a F2P game, sometimes multiple subs, sometimes multiple F2P games. In any case, we have changed the way we play.
We want lots of options yet we're still on a budget. Something might have to give but it probably won't be the developers.
Is it the players that have changed or is it the games?
It took the average player over a year to level cap in EQ. it took the average player 3-6 months to level cap in WoW.
It takes the average person less than a month to cap in Rift or SWTOR
less time invested into character = less draw to stay
The reason why sub prices usually dont drop is that gamers will pay them......THere are stil lalot of gamers that literally will drop a hundred bucks on a new game even if they dopnt know a single thing about it....Its just the way some of the gamers are and as a result the prices probably will not drop...Personally I'd be more tempted to play a 5 dollar a month game (in fact I do donate about 5 a month for a browser game I play) rather than 15 for the mediocre MMOs of today.
Once upon a time, we played our favorite game until we were burned out. Then we unsubbed and went to game #2 for a while until either the urge to play game #1 came back or we got caught up in game #2 or game #3.
Today, it is more common than not for players to play more than one game at a time. Sometimes it is a sub and a F2P game, sometimes multiple subs, sometimes multiple F2P games. In any case, we have changed the way we play.
We want lots of options yet we're still on a budget. Something might have to give but it probably won't be the developers.
Is it the players that have changed or is it the games?
It took the average player over a year to level cap in EQ. it took the average player 3-6 months to level cap in WoW.
It takes the average person less than a month to cap in Rift or SWTOR
less time invested into character = less draw to stay
Pretty much this ^^
While I'd naturally agree to this. There is one overlooked factor. When WoW released in 04, it started with 60 levels that took months to get to. And the model was such that the closer you got to cap, the longer each level took. But that was in 2004. In 2012, WoW has 4 expaniosns and 90 levels. They couldn't just leave the grind the way it was. While I don't like how they did what they did, the still had to do something or the gap for potential new players would be too great to bridge normally. If they had left the original gind in place and just continued it up to 90 the way it was, It could take a new player 1-2 years to cap. And do it solo the whole way up. Not to mention the job it would to on the motivation for current players to level alts. When a game is young, it's fine to leave a longer grind in place, but when a game matures and the players move more and more away from lower level content, it's just that much harder to play for those that are still doing it.
Once upon a time, we played our favorite game until we were burned out. Then we unsubbed and went to game #2 for a while until either the urge to play game #1 came back or we got caught up in game #2 or game #3.
Today, it is more common than not for players to play more than one game at a time. Sometimes it is a sub and a F2P game, sometimes multiple subs, sometimes multiple F2P games. In any case, we have changed the way we play.
We want lots of options yet we're still on a budget. Something might have to give but it probably won't be the developers.
Is it the players that have changed or is it the games?
It took the average player over a year to level cap in EQ. it took the average player 3-6 months to level cap in WoW.
It takes the average person less than a month to cap in Rift or SWTOR
less time invested into character = less draw to stay
Pretty much this ^^
While I'd naturally agree to this. There is one overlooked factor. When WoW released in 04, it started with 60 levels that took months to get to. And the model was such that the closer you got to cap, the longer each level took. But that was in 2004. In 2012, WoW has 4 expaniosns and 90 levels. They couldn't just leave the grind the way it was. While I don't like how they did what they did, the still had to do something or the gap for potential new players would be too great to bridge normally. If they had left the original gind in place and just continued it up to 90 the way it was, It could take a new player 1-2 years to cap. And do it solo the whole way up. Not to mention the job it would to on the motivation for current players to level alts. When a game is young, it's fine to leave a longer grind in place, but when a game matures and the players move more and more away from lower level content, it's just that much harder to play for those that are still doing it.
Well you either you encourage alts and create alts friendly game or you go for more one character type of game.
You cannot have both and things like heirlooms does not work. You cannot give months of levelling for new players and days long for alts with things like heirlooms.
That's also one of reason why mmorpg's go for instance heavy end-game focused gameplay.
Instead of having to choose between excluding themself solutions for above problems they can just marginalize and speed up "levelling" and throw out problems that come with it.
That's why games went from long months or more for level cap to few weeks or even just few days.
I think its not the price of the sub but the actual sub that is the problem. A lot of the MMO players we see today are also console players(that includes me) and a lot of them dont want to "rent" games, they expect that when they pay for it they dont have to pay for it anymore unless they know what they are getting in terms of content(DLC).
Also another problem is that the sub model doesnt let you chose when to play, you always feel like you got to squeeze the most out of the sub and people go hardcore on it and get bored fast.
I think a better bussines model than subs or F2P would be the system that chinese users use. Paying the time you play. Aka buying minutes of playtime.
I can get cola for 25 cents a can or so at walmart and yet I still pay ~ $1.25 a can for soda I have to buy online, because I am willing to pay alot more for a better product. Same is true with MMOs.
I will not play a game with a cash shop ever again. A dev job should be to make the game better not make me pay so it sucks less.
I think its not the price of the sub but the actual sub that is the problem. A lot of the MMO players we see today are also console players(that includes me) and a lot of them dont want to "rent" games, they expect that when they pay for it they dont have to pay for it anymore unless they know what they are getting in terms of content(DLC).
Also another problem is that the sub model doesnt let you chose when to play, you always feel like you got to squeeze the most out of the sub and people go hardcore on it and get bored fast.
I think a better bussines model than subs or F2P would be the system that chinese users use. Paying the time you play. Aka buying minutes of playtime.
That's the very system that the sub model was designed to replace...
People were tired of getting metered for everything they did online. Not sure if you're old enough to remember, but AOL used to send out floppies and cd's with "x hours of internet time free!".
MMO's of the time were just as bad, charging by the hour. Everquest broke the mold by simplifying it saying, pay $9.99 a month and you don't have to worry about meters.
I also don't buy the whole "console players dn't want to rent games" argument, because most are on xbox live, meaning they are probably paying for multiplayer access.
Seriously, if $15 a month is too much for someone to pay for a decent game, then they need a cheaper hobby, like hiking, or choosing to make a sandwich at home twice a month rather than eat fast food. I spend way more on season passes at the skii resort than I ever could on MMO's.
Also, the thread title makes me laugh, since it would imply having higher sub fees rather than lower. the demand for MMO's is huge right now. It's the supply that is low, at least in terms of quality games. Now's the time for a company to release a truly revolutionary MMO and charge $20 a month for it. If it's good, people will buy it.
Once upon a time, we played our favorite game until we were burned out. Then we unsubbed and went to game #2 for a while until either the urge to play game #1 came back or we got caught up in game #2 or game #3.
Today, it is more common than not for players to play more than one game at a time. Sometimes it is a sub and a F2P game, sometimes multiple subs, sometimes multiple F2P games. In any case, we have changed the way we play.
We want lots of options yet we're still on a budget. Something might have to give but it probably won't be the developers.
Is it the players that have changed or is it the games?
It took the average player over a year to level cap in EQ. it took the average player 3-6 months to level cap in WoW.
It takes the average person less than a month to cap in Rift or SWTOR
less time invested into character = less draw to stay
Pretty much this ^^
While I'd naturally agree to this. There is one overlooked factor. When WoW released in 04, it started with 60 levels that took months to get to. And the model was such that the closer you got to cap, the longer each level took. But that was in 2004. In 2012, WoW has 4 expaniosns and 90 levels. They couldn't just leave the grind the way it was. While I don't like how they did what they did, the still had to do something or the gap for potential new players would be too great to bridge normally. If they had left the original gind in place and just continued it up to 90 the way it was, It could take a new player 1-2 years to cap. And do it solo the whole way up. Not to mention the job it would to on the motivation for current players to level alts. When a game is young, it's fine to leave a longer grind in place, but when a game matures and the players move more and more away from lower level content, it's just that much harder to play for those that are still doing it.
Well you either you encourage alts and create alts friendly game or you go for more one character type of game.
You cannot have both and things like heirlooms does not work. You cannot give months of levelling for new players and days long for alts with things like heirlooms.
That's also one of reason why mmorpg's go for instance heavy end-game focused gameplay.
Instead of having to choose between excluding themself solutions for above problems they can just marginalize and speed up "levelling" and throw out problems that come with it.
That's why games went from long months or more for level cap to few weeks or even just few days.
I was more or less trying to say, they should have kept level 1 to cap the same. Meaning in Vanilla, it would take so many hrs of play to get to 60. Add an expansion with 10 levels and it's probably not a big deal. Add 4 expansions with 30 levels and it's a big deal. Yes they needed to shorten the time to cap, but really, they only needed to tweak it. Not what they've done now. I leveld 3 toons to 70 in TBC before 2.3. It took a while, but it wasn't that bad. Would I do that now if 1 90 just used the same curve as Vanilla only with another 30 levels? I doubt it. Regardless, they really went way too far in killing the leveling process.
There are many MMORPGs, but hardly any of them have decent marketing / advertisement.
Remember, the average MMO player doesn't visit forums like these. In fact, even though we have 1.9 million total members, you have to remember that it's just a tiny sliver of MMO gamers that participate on these forums regularly.
Since new MMOs find it difficult to reach out to new players (and MMOs usually pull you in because of guild ties), MMOs can continue to charge $15 and not worry about competition coming to blindside that number. I wouldn't be surprised if MMORPGs have one of the highest rates of (short-term) brand loyalty across all businesses, even if many posters here are saying that players like to game hop.
Plus, $15 is really cheap. I can't really find the time for more than one sub game, so I will never be bothered.
Certain companies/industries seem to ignore the supply/demand curves. The prices of CD's were basically static even during the napster period. mp3's seem to have static costs as well based on the content producers prices.
MMO companies seem locked on to the same monthly costs, regardless of the quality of their product or number of subscribers. There is little to no experimentation. When they struggle, they choose to go the F2P route rather than lower the sub prices and see what happens.
It's because Cash Shops can - and do - generate far more revenue than a flat sub fee ever could.
This is known fact that has been demonstrated and acknowledged by people in the industry already.
With a flat $15 sub fee, that's all the developer/publisher is getting out of you on a month-to-month basis - and that's assuming they're able to keep you from one month to the next to begin with.
Cash Shops are designed, and very deliberately and carefully stocked and configured to get people to spend as much money as possible, as often as possible, with no limit on how much people can spend in them. The result is, people will and do spend *far* more than they'd spend on even a box+sub in a single week sometimes, nevermind a month.
In the first couple weeks that GW2 was out, people were talking about how much they'd spent in the cash shop. I think the thread was on this site, in fact. One person spent over $200 in their first two weeks. That's almost 14 months worth of subs right there. That's 3-4 brand-new AAA games. There are people who will spend far more than that.
The best part is, many of those same people will scoff at paying $15 for a monthly sub and claim "it's not worth it". I'm usually pretty good at looking at things from the other person's perspective. Try as I might, that "logic" just does not add up to me.
One of the main problems with subscriptions isn't that they "don't work". Subscriptions do work. They have worked for well over a decade for MMOs, and for even longer in other markets. People continue to pay subscriptions to all manner of things to this very day. Anything that requires a month-to-month fee is a subscription-based service. You stop paying the fee, you stop getting the service. Cable TV, internet service, cellphone service... and so on. All of those are subscription based services that people pay far more to have, and don't think twice about it.
The problem isn't the revenue model. It's that the games aren't good enough, or designed with enough longevity to make the $15 worth it because people can blast through them and have completed most all the content before their first 30 days is up.
But that's not a failing of subscriptions. That's a failing of the developer to make a good enough game that keeps people wanting to play. That has always been the case. Those who have the knack for putting out product people want to have will survive, even thrive. Those who fail to do so, will fall by the way side. That's the way it goes in any area of business.
It boggles my mind how people don't see it for what it really is and keep wanting to point to subscriptions as being "the problem".
In no other area do people blame the failure of a product on its revenue model. Only in the MMORPG genre - and only since F2P gained a foothold, incidentally - do people look at a MMORPG that is poorly designed and failing to keep people playing, and say "oh, it's failing because it's sub-based". Would it suddenly be a well-designed and enjoyable game if it were F2P? Of course not! The only thing that changes is people drastically lowering their standards.
Prior to F2P gaining popularity in the West, people would see a game go offline and conclude "Oh, it just wasn't a very good game and they failed to keep enough players to keep it going". The'd discuss all the game's flaws, what it did wrong, what the developers did wrong, how they failed to support it well enough, how they had terrible customer service and all this.
Now all of a sudden, you have a game in danger for all the same reasons (because people are still discussing them), and yet, somehow, when the game goes F2P or goes offline completely, people ignore all those flaws and go "Oh, well it was a subscription MMO. So, yeah, that's why it failed".
No, it isn't. A game fails because it's not a good enough game to enough people. Period.
I can't help but feel the whole "blame subscriptions/P2P" thing is just another angle some are playing to try and build a negative attitude toward subs so people will become more and more accepting of F2P/Cash Shops. Because it makes no sense in any other context.
I think its not the price of the sub but the actual sub that is the problem. A lot of the MMO players we see today are also console players(that includes me) and a lot of them dont want to "rent" games, they expect that when they pay for it they dont have to pay for it anymore unless they know what they are getting in terms of content(DLC).
Also another problem is that the sub model doesnt let you chose when to play, you always feel like you got to squeeze the most out of the sub and people go hardcore on it and get bored fast.
I think a better bussines model than subs or F2P would be the system that chinese users use. Paying the time you play. Aka buying minutes of playtime.
That's the very system that the sub model was designed to replace...
People were tired of getting metered for everything they did online. Not sure if you're old enough to remember, but AOL used to send out floppies and cd's with "x hours of internet time free!".
MMO's of the time were just as bad, charging by the hour. Everquest broke the mold by simplifying it saying, pay $9.99 a month and you don't have to worry about meters.
I also don't buy the whole "console players dn't want to rent games" argument, because most are on xbox live, meaning they are probably paying for multiplayer access.
Seriously, if $15 a month is too much for someone to pay for a decent game, then they need a cheaper hobby, like hiking, or choosing to make a sandwich at home twice a month rather than eat fast food. I spend way more on season passes at the skii resort than I ever could on MMO's.
Everything is psychological, its ok to rent services but not to rent games. Thats the thinking behind it.
And yes im too young to remember that but maybe the model wasnt right for the time? in those days most gamers were young and had loads of time so paying the monthly prices worked for them but now the majority of gamers are older and have a family. That model might suit our times better.
If these cash shops are stocked so dileberately then nobody cares what is in them. I have been checking games for a few months now and not but 1 of them had a cash shop worth looking into.
I am of the opposite mind myself. I think subscription money need to rise. Or at least for us to be given a choise to pay a premium price and don't have to see a cash shop of any form at all, or at least get access to everything in it. I wouldn't mind paying double of what today is considered standard to get rid of anything cash shop.
I think some companies (ie. BW/€A most recently) should've dropped the sub prices, rather than going F2P, because some games just aren't worth the money they're asking for it... There's a really slim chance I'll play another sub game since sub prices are just too high which means I should be getting new content every few weeks.
Originally posted by Onomas
B2P like GW2 = cash shop also.
Cash shop which you never have to open. You bought the game and you can do whatever you like in the game, full access with no limitations, without ever needing to open the cash shop. Which doesn't offer anything good anyways.
I'm not sure why you think gw2's cash shop would milk you dry in order to continue playing.
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life." -------------------------------
Comments
I did, but I replied to the discussion, not a single post.
sorry
For me personaly it aint the price itself, its the 1month or nothing option i hate. Where is the 1-2-3-4 week option. If i pay one month and play 1 week i feel i wasted money, and it has gone so far that i usaly dont bother to sub at all.
Players have changed.
Once upon a time, we played our favorite game until we were burned out. Then we unsubbed and went to game #2 for a while until either the urge to play game #1 came back or we got caught up in game #2 or game #3.
Today, it is more common than not for players to play more than one game at a time. Sometimes it is a sub and a F2P game, sometimes multiple subs, sometimes multiple F2P games. In any case, we have changed the way we play.
We want lots of options yet we're still on a budget. Something might have to give but it probably won't be the developers.
Show me a highly popular MMO that when released didn't have customer service and hack/bot security issues. This "quality of life" benefits usually come later in the life of a popular mmo or early if the mmo isn't that popular. Making a broad statement like that doesn't really make sense.
I agree that a good idea would be to lower montly subs. An even better idea IMMO is to remove sub prices all together and just pay for an entry price like it has been done since the beginning of gaming before all the new business models came to existence.
/signed. I'd pay 8.99 a month for a couple of mmo's on my list, provided they dropped their p2w models.
quite alot of mmos would be pretty sweet if they just stopped being p2w lol
The Deep Web is sca-ry.
A real MMORPG would need to raise the sub prices to be successful. Currently it isn't worth it to keep servers running on games with low populations because the sub prices are the same as what we had 13yrs ago. In order for a company to even think about having a long running MMO they need to look at $50/mo sub price but that will only work if you have real content and gameplay not a casual MMO that is only a few weeks of content and gameplay. I am talking what EQ,AC, DAOC and Vanilla WOW gave us at launch. There are plenty of people who will play the game.
They just need to stop thinking about trying to get 10million subs and make a game around 10K subs. It cna work if they put their time and energy into the game and game design instead of marketing and false promises.
Is it the players that have changed or is it the games?
It took the average player over a year to level cap in EQ. it took the average player 3-6 months to level cap in WoW.
It takes the average person less than a month to cap in Rift or SWTOR
less time invested into character = less draw to stay
While I'd naturally agree to this. There is one overlooked factor. When WoW released in 04, it started with 60 levels that took months to get to. And the model was such that the closer you got to cap, the longer each level took. But that was in 2004. In 2012, WoW has 4 expaniosns and 90 levels. They couldn't just leave the grind the way it was. While I don't like how they did what they did, the still had to do something or the gap for potential new players would be too great to bridge normally. If they had left the original gind in place and just continued it up to 90 the way it was, It could take a new player 1-2 years to cap. And do it solo the whole way up. Not to mention the job it would to on the motivation for current players to level alts. When a game is young, it's fine to leave a longer grind in place, but when a game matures and the players move more and more away from lower level content, it's just that much harder to play for those that are still doing it.
Well you either you encourage alts and create alts friendly game or you go for more one character type of game.
You cannot have both and things like heirlooms does not work. You cannot give months of levelling for new players and days long for alts with things like heirlooms.
That's also one of reason why mmorpg's go for instance heavy end-game focused gameplay.
Instead of having to choose between excluding themself solutions for above problems they can just marginalize and speed up "levelling" and throw out problems that come with it.
That's why games went from long months or more for level cap to few weeks or even just few days.
I think its not the price of the sub but the actual sub that is the problem. A lot of the MMO players we see today are also console players(that includes me) and a lot of them dont want to "rent" games, they expect that when they pay for it they dont have to pay for it anymore unless they know what they are getting in terms of content(DLC).
Also another problem is that the sub model doesnt let you chose when to play, you always feel like you got to squeeze the most out of the sub and people go hardcore on it and get bored fast.
I think a better bussines model than subs or F2P would be the system that chinese users use. Paying the time you play. Aka buying minutes of playtime.
Sub prices are fine. Game design has to increase though.
Basically, I'd rather pay 15 a month for a great game than pay 5 a month for a mediocre game.
You make me like charity
Naw quailty just needs to rise again.
I can get cola for 25 cents a can or so at walmart and yet I still pay ~ $1.25 a can for soda I have to buy online, because I am willing to pay alot more for a better product. Same is true with MMOs.
I will not play a game with a cash shop ever again. A dev job should be to make the game better not make me pay so it sucks less.
That's the very system that the sub model was designed to replace...
People were tired of getting metered for everything they did online. Not sure if you're old enough to remember, but AOL used to send out floppies and cd's with "x hours of internet time free!".
MMO's of the time were just as bad, charging by the hour. Everquest broke the mold by simplifying it saying, pay $9.99 a month and you don't have to worry about meters.
I also don't buy the whole "console players dn't want to rent games" argument, because most are on xbox live, meaning they are probably paying for multiplayer access.
Seriously, if $15 a month is too much for someone to pay for a decent game, then they need a cheaper hobby, like hiking, or choosing to make a sandwich at home twice a month rather than eat fast food. I spend way more on season passes at the skii resort than I ever could on MMO's.
You make me like charity
You make me like charity
I was more or less trying to say, they should have kept level 1 to cap the same. Meaning in Vanilla, it would take so many hrs of play to get to 60. Add an expansion with 10 levels and it's probably not a big deal. Add 4 expansions with 30 levels and it's a big deal. Yes they needed to shorten the time to cap, but really, they only needed to tweak it. Not what they've done now. I leveld 3 toons to 70 in TBC before 2.3. It took a while, but it wasn't that bad. Would I do that now if 1 90 just used the same curve as Vanilla only with another 30 levels? I doubt it. Regardless, they really went way too far in killing the leveling process.
There are many MMORPGs, but hardly any of them have decent marketing / advertisement.
Remember, the average MMO player doesn't visit forums like these. In fact, even though we have 1.9 million total members, you have to remember that it's just a tiny sliver of MMO gamers that participate on these forums regularly.
Since new MMOs find it difficult to reach out to new players (and MMOs usually pull you in because of guild ties), MMOs can continue to charge $15 and not worry about competition coming to blindside that number. I wouldn't be surprised if MMORPGs have one of the highest rates of (short-term) brand loyalty across all businesses, even if many posters here are saying that players like to game hop.
Plus, $15 is really cheap. I can't really find the time for more than one sub game, so I will never be bothered.
It's because Cash Shops can - and do - generate far more revenue than a flat sub fee ever could.
This is known fact that has been demonstrated and acknowledged by people in the industry already.
With a flat $15 sub fee, that's all the developer/publisher is getting out of you on a month-to-month basis - and that's assuming they're able to keep you from one month to the next to begin with.
Cash Shops are designed, and very deliberately and carefully stocked and configured to get people to spend as much money as possible, as often as possible, with no limit on how much people can spend in them. The result is, people will and do spend *far* more than they'd spend on even a box+sub in a single week sometimes, nevermind a month.
In the first couple weeks that GW2 was out, people were talking about how much they'd spent in the cash shop. I think the thread was on this site, in fact. One person spent over $200 in their first two weeks. That's almost 14 months worth of subs right there. That's 3-4 brand-new AAA games. There are people who will spend far more than that.
The best part is, many of those same people will scoff at paying $15 for a monthly sub and claim "it's not worth it". I'm usually pretty good at looking at things from the other person's perspective. Try as I might, that "logic" just does not add up to me.
One of the main problems with subscriptions isn't that they "don't work". Subscriptions do work. They have worked for well over a decade for MMOs, and for even longer in other markets. People continue to pay subscriptions to all manner of things to this very day. Anything that requires a month-to-month fee is a subscription-based service. You stop paying the fee, you stop getting the service. Cable TV, internet service, cellphone service... and so on. All of those are subscription based services that people pay far more to have, and don't think twice about it.
The problem isn't the revenue model. It's that the games aren't good enough, or designed with enough longevity to make the $15 worth it because people can blast through them and have completed most all the content before their first 30 days is up.
But that's not a failing of subscriptions. That's a failing of the developer to make a good enough game that keeps people wanting to play. That has always been the case. Those who have the knack for putting out product people want to have will survive, even thrive. Those who fail to do so, will fall by the way side. That's the way it goes in any area of business.
It boggles my mind how people don't see it for what it really is and keep wanting to point to subscriptions as being "the problem".
In no other area do people blame the failure of a product on its revenue model. Only in the MMORPG genre - and only since F2P gained a foothold, incidentally - do people look at a MMORPG that is poorly designed and failing to keep people playing, and say "oh, it's failing because it's sub-based". Would it suddenly be a well-designed and enjoyable game if it were F2P? Of course not! The only thing that changes is people drastically lowering their standards.
Prior to F2P gaining popularity in the West, people would see a game go offline and conclude "Oh, it just wasn't a very good game and they failed to keep enough players to keep it going". The'd discuss all the game's flaws, what it did wrong, what the developers did wrong, how they failed to support it well enough, how they had terrible customer service and all this.
Now all of a sudden, you have a game in danger for all the same reasons (because people are still discussing them), and yet, somehow, when the game goes F2P or goes offline completely, people ignore all those flaws and go "Oh, well it was a subscription MMO. So, yeah, that's why it failed".
No, it isn't. A game fails because it's not a good enough game to enough people. Period.
I can't help but feel the whole "blame subscriptions/P2P" thing is just another angle some are playing to try and build a negative attitude toward subs so people will become more and more accepting of F2P/Cash Shops. Because it makes no sense in any other context.
Everything is psychological, its ok to rent services but not to rent games. Thats the thinking behind it.
And yes im too young to remember that but maybe the model wasnt right for the time? in those days most gamers were young and had loads of time so paying the monthly prices worked for them but now the majority of gamers are older and have a family. That model might suit our times better.
Best Regards, ...
Cash shop which you never have to open. You bought the game and you can do whatever you like in the game, full access with no limitations, without ever needing to open the cash shop. Which doesn't offer anything good anyways.
I'm not sure why you think gw2's cash shop would milk you dry in order to continue playing.
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life."
-------------------------------