Originally posted by Rydeson I've had my fill of Sub based games.. No way to justify the monthly profit IMO.. The cost of hardware and maintenance isn't even $5 a month anymore.. The other $10 a pretty much cash cow profit.. Sure some games like WoW allocate a few bucks each month towards added content patch here and there, but the rest is just price gauging.. Blizzard has been laughing all the way to the bank for years, but not off my dime I won't support that greed..
I hear game developers, GMs, customer service, security, admin, HR, IT services and building rent are all free these days so yeah PURE PROFIT
Originally posted by Diemos My experience in WoW begs to differ koldmiser
There are no doubt retards in any anonymous envyroment...that being said though....there was a dude in this very same thread yesterday who was happy that he "didn't have to worry about playing this game now"....that mentality, in and of it self, is toxic for an MMO community. P2P by no means weeds out all the retards, but it does indeed weed out quite a few game hoppers who dont contribute much to the community....that has literally been proven by admition in this very same thread.
I will definitely be trying this game out then! It will be nice trying a game out and actually playing with players that have interest in the game and not the freeloaders. I always hated the limitations those 3 formats brings and believe me, I rather being paying a monthly sub instead of random dollar here and a dollar there in my mmorpg games.
I am so sick to death with all these F2P, B2P and P2P store mechanics and communities that these formats bring. Hate all you want on the subscription system, I hope they stick with it and wish the game a success.
Sorry to disappoint you, but it wont be a success. And calling people who want to save money and play free mmos names is childish. Grow up.
I just call as I see it, but apparently you took it personal for some reason and welcome to the forum.
You called people who play Free to Play games 'Freeloaders' How was I not supposed to take that personally being a free to play gamer?
So, apparently some of you seem to think that subscription games keep proving us 'freeloaders' wrong. Well, that could not be further from the truth. There are a handful of games out there now that use a subscription model and it is that way for a reason...demand. People are demanding a change in the way that MMOs are paid for. Of the recent Subscription games that were released, people waited till they went free to play. The Secret World and SWTOR are the two most recent examples. People literally posted in forums in droves that they would wait till free to play before they would play the game. The same thing is going to happen to Wildstar.
Kotaku did a extensive analysis of why the subscription model is dead for all but a handful of games. Most of the games that are out now either started and kept a subscription model, thus getting a big player base under a sub model to begin with, or were niche games like Darkfall and Eve Online. There is a reason that Eve Onlines subscriber base has stagnated at around 500k active accounts and only a max of 50k of them are online at any one time. CCP would kill to be able to switch over to F2P, but they keep buckling to the preassure of current players. If they bit the bullet and went free to play, do you think their player numbers would go up or down? They would sky rocket. Subscription games died in 2012, they are now the minority.
And to the poster who said free to play was some PR stunt, thats just not true. If you knew your MMO history, which you clearly dont, you would know that that is not the case.
Free to Play started with DDO. That game was originally released as a subscription game and it bled players to the point that they were going to close the game down. In a last ditched attempt to save the game, they switched over to a free to play model. Nearly overnight, their playerbase increased by 500% and within moths, they were making more money than they did with subs at the height of their player population. Its not a PR stunt or a fad. Simply put, free to play is the future of MMOs and can be amazing if it is done correctly.
If they can live up to their promise of QUALITY then I don't have a problem with this. If they release the game in an unfinished, clunkly, buggy mess *cough* FFXIV* *cough*..... Then I may have a problem with it. We'll see...
Stop letting your opinions get in the way of reality.
Reality is, subscriptions mean NOTHING when it comes to quality or maintaining that quality. not for the game or the community.
Your opinion is not supported in the least by historical fact.
WoW set the standard for poor community.
Countless games that started with subs went F2P because of a lack of quality.
And Guild Wars 2 proves that quality can be improved and content continually added without a subscription.
Deal with it. Subscriptions are nothing more than an antiquated payment model that companies are trying to hold on to because they believe there are just enough fools out there still willing to give them more. Get as much as possible before going F2P, the model they already know it will become but fleece as many as possible before doing so.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
For a mmo that's going the hardcore raiding route, P2P is the best way to go. F2P is more to grab a large, casual player base. Jeremy Gaffney has stated that this game is being designed to grab the 1%ers. These are players looking for a serious commitment. Anybody looking for a serious commitment to a mmo will have no issues paying box and sub. With that said, Carbine has to bring their A game and deliver without a hitch to pull this off.
Stop letting your opinions get in the way of reality.
Reality is, subscriptions mean NOTHING when it comes to quality or maintaining that quality. not for the game or the community.
Your opinion is not supported in the least by historical fact.
WoW set the standard for poor community.
Countless games that started with subs went F2P because of a lack of quality.
And Guild Wars 2 proves that quality can be improved and content continually added without a subscription.
Deal with it. Subscriptions are nothing more than an antiquated payment model that companies are trying to hold on to because they believe there are just enough fools out there still willing to give them more. Get as much as possible before going F2P, the model they already know it will become but fleece as many as possible before doing so.
I'm confused. It was stated earlier that F2P games generate more revenue than sub games (in fact, just a few posts up). However, game developers take the P2P route to take advantage of the fools? It seems to me that any business would go the highest profit route. All MMORPGS *WANT* to be sub games. They switch over to F2P when the quality simply isn't high enough to hold a large enough subscription base.
Now, if you don't believe that F2P generates as much or more revenue than subscriptions models, why is it that you believe game developers should not be fairly compensated for a high quality product (one that could sustain a subscription base large enough to remain profitable)? Do you believe that people should spend years of their lives developing video games so that you can play them for free?
Stop letting your opinions get in the way of reality.
Reality is, subscriptions mean NOTHING when it comes to quality or maintaining that quality. not for the game or the community.
Your opinion is not supported in the least by historical fact.
WoW set the standard for poor community.
Countless games that started with subs went F2P because of a lack of quality.
And Guild Wars 2 proves that quality can be improved and content continually added without a subscription.
Deal with it. Subscriptions are nothing more than an antiquated payment model that companies are trying to hold on to because they believe there are just enough fools out there still willing to give them more. Get as much as possible before going F2P, the model they already know it will become but fleece as many as possible before doing so.
And your bias is getting in the way of reality....nobody is saying P2P weeds out all the douches...but it does weed out quite a few game hoppers...and to claim that WoW has purportionitly higher amount of douches is diengenious at best, considering that the game has 10 times more players than all other MMOs, so for sure you will run into more douches than other games.
I am so disappointed by this; yet another rental. This CREDD garbage is also wildly missing the mark too. As MANY have said before, this is purely a cash grab to recoup dev costs. That being said, I really don't have a problem with it; the devs deserve to get paid. What disappoints me most though is the lack of creativity in doing so. I had such high hopes for WS, this announcement shows a lack of creativity in a simple pay model, and the mindless desire to do what MANY games have done in the past: "Just go with P2P, we're worth it, they'll love us, glad that decision is over". What happened to that hybrid model we were teased with? I guess this is it, but it surely isn't what MANY were expecting.
This all said, I'm my worst enemy; I'll likely buy the box, play, and MAYBE sub for a month or two (hell, I've been subbing to multiple MMOs since 2005). That will probably be it though; I'm hoping that the content will be worth it, but as rentals go, I won't be surprised if it gets boring after a short time.
I'm confused. It was stated earlier that F2P games generate more revenue than sub games (in fact, just a few posts up).
Because it was also stated earlier that it doesn't, that F2P = lower quality...
Not to mention what the article is about...
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
I'm confused. It was stated earlier that F2P games generate more revenue than sub games (in fact, just a few posts up).
Because it was also stated earlier that it doesn't, that F2P = lower quality...
Not to mention what the article is about...
Which leads into the second part of that same post...
"Now, if you don't believe that F2P generates as much or more revenue than subscriptions models, why is it that you believe game developers should not be fairly compensated for a high quality product (one that could sustain a subscription base large enough to remain profitable)? Do you believe that people should spend years of their lives developing video games so that you can play them for free?"
There are always going to be folks who just don't like Subscription games, and those who don't care for Free-2-Play games. I understand their conflicts of interest and I am not going to fight them on it.
Buy-2-Play is what most every older gamer is used to. You buy the game outright and it's yours for $40-$60 dollars. And maybe buy an expansion later. It is THE traditional model. But it really doesn't support developers well in a MMO market.
Free-2-Play is the new kid on the block. It's faddish and fresh but to my experience eventually falls on it's face. Cash shops are always a controversy, especially when F2P means Pay-2-Win. I have never stuck with a P2W game for more than a couple hours. Having to throw many at a computer screen to compete is never fun. (Unless you have more money than sense.)
Subscription is the traditional MMO payment model. It obviously still works because people still play these games. Developers get a consistent inflow of money to support their playership properly, and the only way they really lose is if they fail on the follow through. If they fail to support their customer base, they lose money at a loss of subscribers.
II will take the Subscription model on a good game over F2P and B2P every single time. And I say that because it sets the bar of expectations. I will expect AAA support systems. I will expect AAA ongoing development. I will expect AAA bug fixes and patching. And I will expect a AAA game. And like every other Subscription player, if I don't get it, I am gone. I may find myself disappointed in a game that holds high hope for me, but that's the way it rolls.
That aside, what I also like about subscription games is that it sets the price of admission. And through the price of admission it requires a minimum quality of player. The player has to have sufficient disposable income to play. The player is more likely to take his or her game time seriously. The player is less likely to do things that get their accounts banned because of their monetary investment. And generally I find it keeps asshattery to a minimum and ensures that a portion of the community actually cares about the game.
Sure, there will always be asshats, every crowd has them. But I find that in general a subscription promotes a better community.
I'm confused. It was stated earlier that F2P games generate more revenue than sub games (in fact, just a few posts up).
Because it was also stated earlier that it doesn't, that F2P = lower quality...
Not to mention what the article is about...
Which leads into the second part of that same post...
"Now, if you don't believe that F2P generates as much or more revenue than subscriptions models, why is it that you believe game developers should not be fairly compensated for a high quality product (one that could sustain a subscription base large enough to remain profitable)? Do you believe that people should spend years of their lives developing video games so that you can play them for free?"
Which leads to a logical fallacy.
Do you think the developers worked for free for years? Do you think the makers of games like Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 were not fairly compensated for their high quality products? They were, afterall...B2P games with no Subscriptions that made big profits...do you think the makers of Atlantica Online didn't get paid fairly for their actual FREE 2 PLAY game that has been making more profits per year than most western subscription MMOS?!? There is NOT A SINGLE thing that comes with Subscriptions that also cannot come from B2P or F2P games. Nothing...other than being fleeced...
Its an argument created to argue or by those that know zip about the F2P market.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
The bottom line is that very few CUSTOMERS are going to base their decisions about paying for a game upon the games payment model. They are going to base it on whether the game offers enjoyment to be worth the money charged. Those that aren't good won't get many people to spend money on them (past the initial hype) no matter what payment model they use and those that are good will get people to spend money on them will get those customers regardless of what payment model they chose.
It's only when the payment model has a significant negative effect on the enjoyment of a game (which can happen in some poorly executed cash shop models) that it has a significant effect on sales. Sticking a "F2P" label on an unenjoyable game isn't suddenly going to make it more enjoyable to play...and it won't net the game a sustainable increase in revenues though it may get a short term bump as some more people are willing to give it a try without any monetary investment.
The people who P2P is a deal breaker for are those who are playing multiple MMO's every month..... and honestly that doesn't represent alot of the general gaming populace (though it may represent a fair number of players on this site).....certainly not alot of casual gamers......and of those it doesn't represent alot of those who are actualy willing to PAY anything to play thier games.
Non-Paying players may SOUND nice when trying to hype a games user base in a press release but each one of them is actualy a COST against the games operational budget. It's the people who will actualy pay something that are a publishers true concern.
The 2 things that F2P offers as a significant advantage really have nothing to do with the payment model itself.
Low barrier to entry - Essentialy it allows people to "Try before they buy", meaning you are able to get the game in front of more peoples eyes since they don't have to commit anything before they try it. Sub based games can easly accomplish the same thing with a "Free Trial". Nothing about the payment model really dictates that.
Variable Pricing - Essentialy all products struggle with the concept that different consumers will have different opinions of what thier product is worth. They try to set a price point that will yield the most proffit from the most individuals while understanding this will eliminate a certain number of consumers who don't think it's worth what the vendor is charging. F2P games experience this phenominon as well....with every single item placed in the cash shop. One thing F2P commonly does is allow consumers a little more flexability in determining what they will pay.....but there is really nothing inherent in the subscription model that say you can't set different subscription levels and price them at different price points to address that consumer flexability. For example....you could easly add a "limited subscription" option of 10 hours of play time per month for $5 to address those who feel your game really isn't worth $15 to them.
Ultimately I don't know whether Wildstar will succeed or flop but I do know thier payment model won't have alot to do with it. It'll be whether they produce a game that's enjoyable enough to a large enough group of people who are willing to pay what the Developers want to charge for it.
This arguement about dubs or not misses the point. The price = the average you pay per year, so we need to wait and see. Box + £120 a year plus box prices is overpriced in this day and age (economies of scale, cheaper server cost etc) £5 or so a month seems reasonable - and also competitive with the other payment modes that have proven that games can flourish without being greedy.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Before it sounds like I'm ranting about the sub fee, I say I am actually a fairly strong supporter of them. But, I have to say over the years, I have began to move away from from many of the sub fee games since I rarely feel that it is worth it at this point. $15 a month nowadays seems a bit excessive. Just taking a look at recent MMOs and their respective companies, rarely do I personally feel like that money I'm putting in everyone month is matched in value by the content released (this is not a statement saying that I think Carbine will not be able to fulfill their promises and provide that excellent content. I am just a little skeptical). Personally, I think a lower sub fee would be more alluring in a time where gamers seem to be more and more disappointed with the MMO genre. Here is a video that I found pretty interesting on the topic. It was made when GW2 was coming out but I think it is still relevant here.
Again, it's just my opinion and I'm definitely going to try the game out anyways!
Free-2-Play is the new kid on the block. It's faddish and fresh but to my experience eventually falls on it's face. Cash shops are always a controversy, especially when F2P means Pay-2-Win. I have never stuck with a P2W game for more than a couple hours. Having to throw many at a computer screen to compete is never fun. (Unless you have more money than sense.)
There is no, zero evidence in fact, that free to play falls flat on its face. Quite the opposite in fact. Free to play is used to save games and/or to increase the revenue from a game. DDO was saved by Free to play, EQ 1 and 2 are now running on free to play, Lord of the Rings was saved by free to play, Star Trek Online was saved by free to play, Archlord was saved by free to play. Its not a fad, its a sensible business model and its been proven to be profitable time and time again and has saved many an MMO from being sent off into the sunset.
Anarchy Online - saved
Conana - Saved
Vanguard Saga of Heores - Not only saved, but is now booming because it went free to play with active development being undertaken once again to produce more content for the game after years in stagnation.
I'm confused. It was stated earlier that F2P games generate more revenue than sub games (in fact, just a few posts up).
Because it was also stated earlier that it doesn't, that F2P = lower quality...
Not to mention what the article is about...
Which leads into the second part of that same post...
"Now, if you don't believe that F2P generates as much or more revenue than subscriptions models, why is it that you believe game developers should not be fairly compensated for a high quality product (one that could sustain a subscription base large enough to remain profitable)? Do you believe that people should spend years of their lives developing video games so that you can play them for free?"
Which leads to a logical fallacy.
Do you think the developers worked for free for years? Do you think the makers of games like Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 were not fairly compensated for their high quality products? They were, afterall...B2P games with no Subscriptions that made big profits...do you think the makers of Atlantica Online didn't get paid fairly for their actual FREE 2 PLAY game that has been making more profits per year than most western subscription MMOS?!? There is NOT A SINGLE thing that comes with Subscriptions that also cannot come from B2P or F2P games. Nothing...other than being fleeced...
Its an argument created to argue or by those that know zip about the F2P market.
This is not to say one game is better than the other, but take a game like WoW for instance, at least PVE wise, there is an insane amount more to do at max level than in GW2(GW2 is still very high quality, dont get me wrong)....now, you may not like what WoW offers, but there is no denying that it does offer more endgame content than any other themepark game by a large margin. GW2 couldnt survive as a P2P game, we can all agree on that. I think the point people are tyring to make, is that in order for Wildstart to survive as P2P, it needs to offer at the very least, the same or better quality and amount of endgame content as WoW......not many people are suggesting that P2P and quality are directly related, heck games like AoC and SWTOR prove the opposite...and 1 more time....I am not saying GW2 isnt awsome or not of amaizingly high quality...so please don't flip this into a debate about how good GW2 is..
I'm confused. It was stated earlier that F2P games generate more revenue than sub games (in fact, just a few posts up).
Because it was also stated earlier that it doesn't, that F2P = lower quality...
Not to mention what the article is about...
Which leads into the second part of that same post...
"Now, if you don't believe that F2P generates as much or more revenue than subscriptions models, why is it that you believe game developers should not be fairly compensated for a high quality product (one that could sustain a subscription base large enough to remain profitable)? Do you believe that people should spend years of their lives developing video games so that you can play them for free?"
Which leads to a logical fallacy.
Do you think the developers worked for free for years? Do you think the makers of games like Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 were not fairly compensated for their high quality products? They were, afterall...B2P games with no Subscriptions that made big profits...do you think the makers of Atlantica Online didn't get paid fairly for their actual FREE 2 PLAY game that has been making more profits per year than most western subscription MMOS?!? There is NOT A SINGLE thing that comes with Subscriptions that also cannot come from B2P or F2P games. Nothing...other than being fleeced...
Its an argument created to argue or by those that know zip about the F2P market.
According to NCSoft's quarterly reports, GW2 revenue has been declining every single quarter since launch. However, I thought GW2 was a below average game from a design perspective, so I don't believe it could sustain a subscription. Atlantica Online has good game design in my opinion, but it is a pay to win game. I find their monetization methods of random boxes you buy with cash to be the MOST dishonest form of monetization that exists in video games. Gambling with no posted odds... right.
Oh well, at least a sub based game means I won't see or interact in game with people that refuse to pay a sub. If it's a great game, your loss. Really, if it's a great game and you think you should be able to play it for free, that is completely entitled behavior... to a fault.
Originally posted by koldmiser I like it! I think it keeps some of the trash out. People tend to behave a little better when they have something to lose.
You think wrong. Unless you forgot WoW, SWTOR and TERA, to name only a few. Oh, and this thread. There's some "better" behavior for you. The problem with your idea is that most pro-sub posters here say that $15 is "nothing", so what do they really have to lose? I guess I find it difficult to believe that there are still people who think a sub means a better community after all the games I've played and saw the opposite. *shrug*
Lol they think if they pay more it will be invested in the game, doesn't work that way - in reality more expensive sub = more profit that shareholders suck right out of the game. Only a mug would pay £180 a year for standard well polished game on top of box fees.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Comments
I hear game developers, GMs, customer service, security, admin, HR, IT services and building rent are all free these days so yeah PURE PROFIT
Give me liberty or give me lasers
[PvX]Tempest - Check us out
There are no doubt retards in any anonymous envyroment...that being said though....there was a dude in this very same thread yesterday who was happy that he "didn't have to worry about playing this game now"....that mentality, in and of it self, is toxic for an MMO community. P2P by no means weeds out all the retards, but it does indeed weed out quite a few game hoppers who dont contribute much to the community....that has literally been proven by admition in this very same thread.
You called people who play Free to Play games 'Freeloaders' How was I not supposed to take that personally being a free to play gamer?
So, apparently some of you seem to think that subscription games keep proving us 'freeloaders' wrong. Well, that could not be further from the truth. There are a handful of games out there now that use a subscription model and it is that way for a reason...demand. People are demanding a change in the way that MMOs are paid for. Of the recent Subscription games that were released, people waited till they went free to play. The Secret World and SWTOR are the two most recent examples. People literally posted in forums in droves that they would wait till free to play before they would play the game. The same thing is going to happen to Wildstar.
Kotaku did a extensive analysis of why the subscription model is dead for all but a handful of games. Most of the games that are out now either started and kept a subscription model, thus getting a big player base under a sub model to begin with, or were niche games like Darkfall and Eve Online. There is a reason that Eve Onlines subscriber base has stagnated at around 500k active accounts and only a max of 50k of them are online at any one time. CCP would kill to be able to switch over to F2P, but they keep buckling to the preassure of current players. If they bit the bullet and went free to play, do you think their player numbers would go up or down? They would sky rocket. Subscription games died in 2012, they are now the minority.
And to the poster who said free to play was some PR stunt, thats just not true. If you knew your MMO history, which you clearly dont, you would know that that is not the case.
Free to Play started with DDO. That game was originally released as a subscription game and it bled players to the point that they were going to close the game down. In a last ditched attempt to save the game, they switched over to a free to play model. Nearly overnight, their playerbase increased by 500% and within moths, they were making more money than they did with subs at the height of their player population. Its not a PR stunt or a fad. Simply put, free to play is the future of MMOs and can be amazing if it is done correctly.
Stop letting your opinions get in the way of reality.
Reality is, subscriptions mean NOTHING when it comes to quality or maintaining that quality. not for the game or the community.
Your opinion is not supported in the least by historical fact.
WoW set the standard for poor community.
Countless games that started with subs went F2P because of a lack of quality.
And Guild Wars 2 proves that quality can be improved and content continually added without a subscription.
Deal with it. Subscriptions are nothing more than an antiquated payment model that companies are trying to hold on to because they believe there are just enough fools out there still willing to give them more. Get as much as possible before going F2P, the model they already know it will become but fleece as many as possible before doing so.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
I'm confused. It was stated earlier that F2P games generate more revenue than sub games (in fact, just a few posts up). However, game developers take the P2P route to take advantage of the fools? It seems to me that any business would go the highest profit route. All MMORPGS *WANT* to be sub games. They switch over to F2P when the quality simply isn't high enough to hold a large enough subscription base.
Now, if you don't believe that F2P generates as much or more revenue than subscriptions models, why is it that you believe game developers should not be fairly compensated for a high quality product (one that could sustain a subscription base large enough to remain profitable)? Do you believe that people should spend years of their lives developing video games so that you can play them for free?
And your bias is getting in the way of reality....nobody is saying P2P weeds out all the douches...but it does weed out quite a few game hoppers...and to claim that WoW has purportionitly higher amount of douches is diengenious at best, considering that the game has 10 times more players than all other MMOs, so for sure you will run into more douches than other games.
This all said, I'm my worst enemy; I'll likely buy the box, play, and MAYBE sub for a month or two (hell, I've been subbing to multiple MMOs since 2005). That will probably be it though; I'm hoping that the content will be worth it, but as rentals go, I won't be surprised if it gets boring after a short time.
Because it was also stated earlier that it doesn't, that F2P = lower quality...
Not to mention what the article is about...
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Which leads into the second part of that same post...
"Now, if you don't believe that F2P generates as much or more revenue than subscriptions models, why is it that you believe game developers should not be fairly compensated for a high quality product (one that could sustain a subscription base large enough to remain profitable)? Do you believe that people should spend years of their lives developing video games so that you can play them for free?"
There are always going to be folks who just don't like Subscription games, and those who don't care for Free-2-Play games. I understand their conflicts of interest and I am not going to fight them on it.
Buy-2-Play is what most every older gamer is used to. You buy the game outright and it's yours for $40-$60 dollars. And maybe buy an expansion later. It is THE traditional model. But it really doesn't support developers well in a MMO market.
Free-2-Play is the new kid on the block. It's faddish and fresh but to my experience eventually falls on it's face. Cash shops are always a controversy, especially when F2P means Pay-2-Win. I have never stuck with a P2W game for more than a couple hours. Having to throw many at a computer screen to compete is never fun. (Unless you have more money than sense.)
Subscription is the traditional MMO payment model. It obviously still works because people still play these games. Developers get a consistent inflow of money to support their playership properly, and the only way they really lose is if they fail on the follow through. If they fail to support their customer base, they lose money at a loss of subscribers.
II will take the Subscription model on a good game over F2P and B2P every single time. And I say that because it sets the bar of expectations. I will expect AAA support systems. I will expect AAA ongoing development. I will expect AAA bug fixes and patching. And I will expect a AAA game. And like every other Subscription player, if I don't get it, I am gone. I may find myself disappointed in a game that holds high hope for me, but that's the way it rolls.
That aside, what I also like about subscription games is that it sets the price of admission. And through the price of admission it requires a minimum quality of player. The player has to have sufficient disposable income to play. The player is more likely to take his or her game time seriously. The player is less likely to do things that get their accounts banned because of their monetary investment. And generally I find it keeps asshattery to a minimum and ensures that a portion of the community actually cares about the game.
Sure, there will always be asshats, every crowd has them. But I find that in general a subscription promotes a better community.
Which leads to a logical fallacy.
Do you think the developers worked for free for years? Do you think the makers of games like Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 were not fairly compensated for their high quality products? They were, afterall...B2P games with no Subscriptions that made big profits...do you think the makers of Atlantica Online didn't get paid fairly for their actual FREE 2 PLAY game that has been making more profits per year than most western subscription MMOS?!? There is NOT A SINGLE thing that comes with Subscriptions that also cannot come from B2P or F2P games. Nothing...other than being fleeced...
Its an argument created to argue or by those that know zip about the F2P market.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
The bottom line is that very few CUSTOMERS are going to base their decisions about paying for a game upon the games payment model. They are going to base it on whether the game offers enjoyment to be worth the money charged. Those that aren't good won't get many people to spend money on them (past the initial hype) no matter what payment model they use and those that are good will get people to spend money on them will get those customers regardless of what payment model they chose.
It's only when the payment model has a significant negative effect on the enjoyment of a game (which can happen in some poorly executed cash shop models) that it has a significant effect on sales. Sticking a "F2P" label on an unenjoyable game isn't suddenly going to make it more enjoyable to play...and it won't net the game a sustainable increase in revenues though it may get a short term bump as some more people are willing to give it a try without any monetary investment.
The people who P2P is a deal breaker for are those who are playing multiple MMO's every month..... and honestly that doesn't represent alot of the general gaming populace (though it may represent a fair number of players on this site).....certainly not alot of casual gamers......and of those it doesn't represent alot of those who are actualy willing to PAY anything to play thier games.
Non-Paying players may SOUND nice when trying to hype a games user base in a press release but each one of them is actualy a COST against the games operational budget. It's the people who will actualy pay something that are a publishers true concern.
The 2 things that F2P offers as a significant advantage really have nothing to do with the payment model itself.
Low barrier to entry - Essentialy it allows people to "Try before they buy", meaning you are able to get the game in front of more peoples eyes since they don't have to commit anything before they try it. Sub based games can easly accomplish the same thing with a "Free Trial". Nothing about the payment model really dictates that.
Variable Pricing - Essentialy all products struggle with the concept that different consumers will have different opinions of what thier product is worth. They try to set a price point that will yield the most proffit from the most individuals while understanding this will eliminate a certain number of consumers who don't think it's worth what the vendor is charging. F2P games experience this phenominon as well....with every single item placed in the cash shop. One thing F2P commonly does is allow consumers a little more flexability in determining what they will pay.....but there is really nothing inherent in the subscription model that say you can't set different subscription levels and price them at different price points to address that consumer flexability. For example....you could easly add a "limited subscription" option of 10 hours of play time per month for $5 to address those who feel your game really isn't worth $15 to them.
Ultimately I don't know whether Wildstar will succeed or flop but I do know thier payment model won't have alot to do with it. It'll be whether they produce a game that's enjoyable enough to a large enough group of people who are willing to pay what the Developers want to charge for it.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Before it sounds like I'm ranting about the sub fee, I say I am actually a fairly strong supporter of them. But, I have to say over the years, I have began to move away from from many of the sub fee games since I rarely feel that it is worth it at this point. $15 a month nowadays seems a bit excessive. Just taking a look at recent MMOs and their respective companies, rarely do I personally feel like that money I'm putting in everyone month is matched in value by the content released (this is not a statement saying that I think Carbine will not be able to fulfill their promises and provide that excellent content. I am just a little skeptical). Personally, I think a lower sub fee would be more alluring in a time where gamers seem to be more and more disappointed with the MMO genre. Here is a video that I found pretty interesting on the topic. It was made when GW2 was coming out but I think it is still relevant here.
Again, it's just my opinion and I'm definitely going to try the game out anyways!
There is no, zero evidence in fact, that free to play falls flat on its face. Quite the opposite in fact. Free to play is used to save games and/or to increase the revenue from a game. DDO was saved by Free to play, EQ 1 and 2 are now running on free to play, Lord of the Rings was saved by free to play, Star Trek Online was saved by free to play, Archlord was saved by free to play. Its not a fad, its a sensible business model and its been proven to be profitable time and time again and has saved many an MMO from being sent off into the sunset.
Anarchy Online - saved
Conana - Saved
Vanguard Saga of Heores - Not only saved, but is now booming because it went free to play with active development being undertaken once again to produce more content for the game after years in stagnation.
This is not to say one game is better than the other, but take a game like WoW for instance, at least PVE wise, there is an insane amount more to do at max level than in GW2(GW2 is still very high quality, dont get me wrong)....now, you may not like what WoW offers, but there is no denying that it does offer more endgame content than any other themepark game by a large margin. GW2 couldnt survive as a P2P game, we can all agree on that. I think the point people are tyring to make, is that in order for Wildstart to survive as P2P, it needs to offer at the very least, the same or better quality and amount of endgame content as WoW......not many people are suggesting that P2P and quality are directly related, heck games like AoC and SWTOR prove the opposite...and 1 more time....I am not saying GW2 isnt awsome or not of amaizingly high quality...so please don't flip this into a debate about how good GW2 is..
According to NCSoft's quarterly reports, GW2 revenue has been declining every single quarter since launch. However, I thought GW2 was a below average game from a design perspective, so I don't believe it could sustain a subscription. Atlantica Online has good game design in my opinion, but it is a pay to win game. I find their monetization methods of random boxes you buy with cash to be the MOST dishonest form of monetization that exists in video games. Gambling with no posted odds... right.
Oh well, at least a sub based game means I won't see or interact in game with people that refuse to pay a sub. If it's a great game, your loss. Really, if it's a great game and you think you should be able to play it for free, that is completely entitled behavior... to a fault.
You think wrong. Unless you forgot WoW, SWTOR and TERA, to name only a few. Oh, and this thread. There's some "better" behavior for you. The problem with your idea is that most pro-sub posters here say that $15 is "nothing", so what do they really have to lose? I guess I find it difficult to believe that there are still people who think a sub means a better community after all the games I've played and saw the opposite. *shrug*
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D