I don't understand how people say they can't afford 15$ a month or it's too expensive,
No one says that.
It is never about affordability. I wouldn't think twice about dropping a few hundred bucks on a michelin star restaurant meal with my wife, but i won't pay a cent for a MMO.
Why? Because there are free alternatives that are as much fun. So why should i pay anything, not to mention $15 a month?
That is completely subjective. I find every single f2p , B2p games garbage. Every game that has f2p and sub option, the sub option is always in my experience a better deal, and makes the game a better experience. P2P will always to me be better. As you can see though, I always say to me, or in my experience.
Yes, it is completely subjective. And i find F2P MMOs just as, if not more fun, than P2P ones.
So why would i pay?
Again, the point is never about affordability, but subjective perception of fun.
I never mentioned affordability, I merely commented on how it s subjective, and I agree with another poster, if you haven t tried it because you would rather play F2P games, then how would you know they re funner. I can try any F2P game I choose, and have no problem trying a lot of P2P games. I can tell you in my experience, there isn t one F2P game as good as many P2P games. The F2P model lets me try them to see, and I ve literally tried them all.
1) I am responding to "I don't understand how people say they can't afford 15$ a month or it's too expensive", as quoted.
2) I have responded. I play free trial of P2P games (all of them have it, WoW, Eve ...) and decided that F2P are as much, if not more, fun. Plus, in case of unique IPs like Star Trek, there is no p2p comparison because they don't even exist. And in this particular case, Eve is a very boring, easy pve game (to me). STO is much better. F2P is just an added bonus.
3) Your experience is totally irrelevant to me. My preferences in games are clearly different than yours.
I don't understand how people say they can't afford 15$ a month or it's too expensive,
No one says that.
It is never about affordability. I wouldn't think twice about dropping a few hundred bucks on a michelin star restaurant meal with my wife, but i won't pay a cent for a MMO.
Why? Because there are free alternatives that are as much fun. So why should i pay anything, not to mention $15 a month?
That is completely subjective. I find every single f2p , B2p games garbage. Every game that has f2p and sub option, the sub option is always in my experience a better deal, and makes the game a better experience. P2P will always to me be better. As you can see though, I always say to me, or in my experience.
Yes, it is completely subjective. And i find F2P MMOs just as, if not more fun, than P2P ones.
So why would i pay?
Again, the point is never about affordability, but subjective perception of fun.
I never mentioned affordability, I merely commented on how it s subjective, and I agree with another poster, if you haven t tried it because you would rather play F2P games, then how would you know they re funner. I can try any F2P game I choose, and have no problem trying a lot of P2P games. I can tell you in my experience, there isn t one F2P game as good as many P2P games. The F2P model lets me try them to see, and I ve literally tried them all.
1) I am responding to "I don't understand how people say they can't afford 15$ a month or it's too expensive", as quoted.
2) I have responded. I play free trial of P2P games (all of them have it, WoW, Eve ...) and decided that F2P are as much, if not more, fun. Plus, in case of unique IPs like Star Trek, there is no p2p comparison because they don't even exist. And in this particular case, Eve is a very boring, easy pve game (to me). STO is much better. F2P is just an added bonus.
3) Your experience is totally irrelevant to me. My preferences in games are clearly different than yours.
Touchy one aren t we. If my experience is irrelevant , then simply ignore my post.
I don't understand how people say they can't afford 15$ a month or it's too expensive,
No one says that.
It is never about affordability. I wouldn't think twice about dropping a few hundred bucks on a michelin star restaurant meal with my wife, but i won't pay a cent for a MMO.
Why? Because there are free alternatives that are as much fun. So why should i pay anything, not to mention $15 a month?
That is completely subjective. I find every single f2p , B2p games garbage. Every game that has f2p and sub option, the sub option is always in my experience a better deal, and makes the game a better experience. P2P will always to me be better. As you can see though, I always say to me, or in my experience.
Yes, it is completely subjective. And i find F2P MMOs just as, if not more fun, than P2P ones.
So why would i pay?
Again, the point is never about affordability, but subjective perception of fun.
I never mentioned affordability, I merely commented on how it s subjective, and I agree with another poster, if you haven t tried it because you would rather play F2P games, then how would you know they re funner. I can try any F2P game I choose, and have no problem trying a lot of P2P games. I can tell you in my experience, there isn t one F2P game as good as many P2P games. The F2P model lets me try them to see, and I ve literally tried them all.
1) I am responding to "I don't understand how people say they can't afford 15$ a month or it's too expensive", as quoted.
2) I have responded. I play free trial of P2P games (all of them have it, WoW, Eve ...) and decided that F2P are as much, if not more, fun. Plus, in case of unique IPs like Star Trek, there is no p2p comparison because they don't even exist. And in this particular case, Eve is a very boring, easy pve game (to me). STO is much better. F2P is just an added bonus.
3) Your experience is totally irrelevant to me. My preferences in games are clearly different than yours.
Touchy one aren t we. If my experience is irrelevant , then simply ignore my post.
No more arguments? I suppose you agree with my reasoning and agree that it is perfectly logical for me to go f2p and it has nothing to do with affordability. It is mainly because p2p is unappealing and there are fun free alternatives .. for me of course.
So if you have fun playing F2P games, and I have fun playing P2P games, does any of this back n forth really matter? Both markets will continue to exist no matter how much you love or hate either one.
MMO's these days are very much a different breed than the ones released in the era of Everquest, EvE, and WoW. Back in 2004 releasing a mmo with attached monthly fees was the norm, and quite a few games became wildly successful because of it...
Logical fallacy.
Most games that are now F2P started as Subscriptions and thus your argument has no meaning. In fact, we have the games that we have today because of those early MMOs.
Is it worth pointing out that those games generally still have subscriptions?
That is one of the problems with the way this arguement is portrayed. F2P nowadays doesn't mean no subscription, it means no mandatory subscription (even if a significant portion of the games profit is still from such subscriptions - there was a reason why F2P market share jumped when games started switching P2P to F2P, and it wasn't that subscriptions had vanished).
Actually one of the problems with this argument is that far too many people know NOTHING about the F2P market and only know about F2P games in the west which aren't actually F2P games, they are paytrap/freemium games.
Nexon is one of the largest gaming companies on the planet with profits in the top 5, not top 5 MMO makers, top 5 GAME makers...they make more than Sony Games...and almost all of it comes from their F2P games. Not freemium...F2P. As in all revenue comes from their cash shops.
Atlantica Online makes more profits than all of Funcom and Turbine bogus Freemium games combined. Your knowledge of the F2P market is limited...Western MMO makers are going into the F2P market because that is where the real money is, the problem lies in that the idiots are so used to taking advantage of people so willing to throw their money away in the west that they cant drop the fleecing model and wind up not hitting the actual F2P market where the real money is.
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
P2P is dead because the companies doing it still are trying to double dip. People say $15 gives you everything...I can't think of a single p2p game that doesn't have a cash shop.
wildstar is the newest example of the greedy company trying to cash in both ways. I hope it bites them in the ass.
Not a chance. The P2P is all but completely dead. As much as the old guard hates this fact, the reality is that Free To Play games make far more money than sub only games. People aren't willing to justify spending 15 bucks a month for a a game when there are other options available.
The only remaining P2P holdouts are either dead (Warhammer), dying (World of Warcraft. I don't care how many subs they still have, losing 5 million players in such a short span of time is bad news!), or lacking real competition (EVE.) The market has spoken, folks. Free to Play and Buy to Play is the future. Releasing a sub based game in this day and age is financial suicide.
Sorry folks, but the war over P2P vs. F2P is over, and P2P has lost. Just look at the market.
P2P is dead because the companies doing it still are trying to double dip. People say $15 gives you everything...I can't think of a single p2p game that doesn't have a cash shop.
wildstar is the newest example of the greedy company trying to cash in both ways. I hope it bites them in the ass.
So are cable companies greedy for offering cable tv channel service and on-demand video services?
P2P is dead because the companies doing it still are trying to double dip. People say $15 gives you everything...I can't think of a single p2p game that doesn't have a cash shop.
wildstar is the newest example of the greedy company trying to cash in both ways. I hope it bites them in the ass.
P2P is dead because the companies doing it still are trying to double dip. People say $15 gives you everything...I can't think of a single p2p game that doesn't have a cash shop.
wildstar is the newest example of the greedy company trying to cash in both ways. I hope it bites them in the ass.
So are cable companies greedy for offering cable tv channel service and on-demand video services?
Yes. Especially when I can get those on demand movies for much cheaper elsewhere, and without the insane monthly price or contract.
Why do you think cable companies are seeing massive drops in their customer base? Cheaper, better alternatives. Just like the MMO market.
$15 a month to play a game is nothing, maybe a couple hours of work in minimum wage? And sometimes it's even cheaper than that. A typical 14-21 day trial also gives a good grasp of the game before you purchase.
Let's compare this to most F2P games where you get a handicapped experience if you don't buy a bunch of "convenience" stuff. Or the pay2win ones where people spend hundreds a month to stay competitive. Your money's value does not even compare especially when the P2P tends to be superior in most areas.
A good P2P game will survive and does not need to go anywhere else to keep its playebase. P2P games will be kept to a minimum, because good games are generally kept to a minimum.
As with most things in life, you get what you paid for.
Totally agree with you there $15 sub is still dirt cheap entertainment these days, My issue is with so many good FTP titles out now I find my gameplay style changed where as I'm enjoying playing a variety of games. I could never justify to myself paying a sub for 3-4 games. Even at 2 I could never play them enough to get my monies worth. Not having a sub also works if RL gets in the way I don't log for days I feel I didn't waste my money. Seems like FTP is another payment model that works well for some also so I can see P2P having some stiff competition down the line.
MMO's these days are very much a different breed than the ones released in the era of Everquest, EvE, and WoW. Back in 2004 releasing a mmo with attached monthly fees was the norm, and quite a few games became wildly successful because of it...
Logical fallacy.
Most games that are now F2P started as Subscriptions and thus your argument has no meaning. In fact, we have the games that we have today because of those early MMOs.
Is it worth pointing out that those games generally still have subscriptions?
That is one of the problems with the way this arguement is portrayed. F2P nowadays doesn't mean no subscription, it means no mandatory subscription (even if a significant portion of the games profit is still from such subscriptions - there was a reason why F2P market share jumped when games started switching P2P to F2P, and it wasn't that subscriptions had vanished).
Actually one of the problems with this argument is that far too many people know NOTHING about the F2P market and only know about F2P games in the west which aren't actually F2P games, they are paytrap/freemium games.
Nexon is one of the largest gaming companies on the planet with profits in the top 5, not top 5 MMO makers, top 5 GAME makers...they make more than Sony Games...and almost all of it comes from their F2P games. Not freemium...F2P. As in all revenue comes from their cash shops.
Atlantica Online makes more profits than all of Funcom and Turbine bogus Freemium games combined. Your knowledge of the F2P market is limited...Western MMO makers are going into the F2P market because that is where the real money is, the problem lies in that the idiots are so used to taking advantage of people so willing to throw their money away in the west that they cant drop the fleecing model and wind up not hitting the actual F2P market where the real money is.
I am aware Nexon is enormous. I am also aware they also deal in many other gaming genres, beyond MMOs.
I have also never claimed to have an in depth knowledge of the worldwide MMO market and how the different payment models break down globally. I would be shocked if anyone on this forum would make such a claim, even moreso if anyone actually believed such to be true.
However given the discussion here was in general referring to the western market (since generally the western market is the one discussed here) I was under the impression we were discussing such a market, in which case as I stated the MMO market took a large swing AFTER the AAA P2P titles started switching (thus counting subscriptions in a 'F2P' model as F2P). Though yes in the grand scheme globally it is true F2P games possibly do dwarf those that follow a subscriptiojn model, given the subscription model is not universally adopted worldwide nor in the same way in differing regions (even within the western market there are many variations).
I agree with the F2P / Freemium point you made. Too many (especially on this forum) categorise games into 2 types, F2P or P2P with one being a very narrow definition, and the other being an 'everything else' catch all in order to support their views. Then again the use of the word free is powerful, it always has been.
I am also aware it's all about money. Very little in this world isn't (some would argue nothing, though that may be seen as cynical). The issue is that currently businesses are seeing what they can get away with before their customers start souring of this monetisation progression, and we are a long way off from that.
MMO's these days are very much a different breed than the ones released in the era of Everquest, EvE, and WoW. Back in 2004 releasing a mmo with attached monthly fees was the norm, and quite a few games became wildly successful because of it...
Logical fallacy.
Most games that are now F2P started as Subscriptions and thus your argument has no meaning. In fact, we have the games that we have today because of those early MMOs.
Is it worth pointing out that those games generally still have subscriptions?
That is one of the problems with the way this arguement is portrayed. F2P nowadays doesn't mean no subscription, it means no mandatory subscription (even if a significant portion of the games profit is still from such subscriptions - there was a reason why F2P market share jumped when games started switching P2P to F2P, and it wasn't that subscriptions had vanished).
Actually one of the problems with this argument is that far too many people know NOTHING about the F2P market and only know about F2P games in the west which aren't actually F2P games, they are paytrap/freemium games.
Nexon is one of the largest gaming companies on the planet with profits in the top 5, not top 5 MMO makers, top 5 GAME makers...they make more than Sony Games...and almost all of it comes from their F2P games. Not freemium...F2P. As in all revenue comes from their cash shops.
Atlantica Online makes more profits than all of Funcom and Turbine bogus Freemium games combined. Your knowledge of the F2P market is limited...Western MMO makers are going into the F2P market because that is where the real money is, the problem lies in that the idiots are so used to taking advantage of people so willing to throw their money away in the west that they cant drop the fleecing model and wind up not hitting the actual F2P market where the real money is.
I am aware Nexon is enormous. I am also aware they also deal in many other gaming genres, beyond MMOs.
I have also never claimed to have an in depth knowledge of the worldwide MMO market and how the different payment models break down globally. I would be shocked if anyone on this forum would make such a claim, even moreso if anyone actually believed such to be true.
However given the discussion here was in general referring to the western market (since generally the western market is the one discussed here) I was under the impression we were discussing such a market, in which case as I stated the MMO market took a large swing AFTER the AAA P2P titles started switching (thus counting subscriptions in a 'F2P' model as F2P). Though yes in the grand scheme globally it is true F2P games possibly do dwarf those that follow a subscriptiojn model, given the subscription model is not universally adopted worldwide nor in the same way in differing regions (even within the western market there are many variations).
I agree with the F2P / Freemium point you made. Too many (especially on this forum) categorise games into 2 types, F2P or P2P with one being a very narrow definition, and the other being an 'everything else' catch all in order to support their views. Then again the use of the word free is powerful, it always has been.
I am also aware it's all about money. Very little in this world isn't (some would argue nothing, though that may be seen as cynical). The issue is that currently businesses are seeing what they can get away with before their customers start souring of this monetisation progression, and we are a long way off from that.
I'm not so sure that we are "a long way from" a consumer backlash against overly exploitative F2P payment models. Every week I seem to see more anti-F2P sentiments on this site, more often than not from people who have tried it and hated it.
A few years ago, the anti-F2P rhetoric was mostly flat out rejection based on the perception that those were inferior games. Since then, a great many players have spent time in quite a few different F2P games. Some have embraced it, but quite a few have come to realise that it's not a model they are comfortable with.
There is no single "best fit" payment model. We are seeing more variety as time passes, which is a good thing.
This brings me to my main point, how can any new p2p mmo possibly come up with a reasonable and defensible answer to why they need a monthly stipend from you, in addition to the base game cost?
lol
well let's put it this way, regardless of which payment model a game has, they still need "x" amount of dollars per month/year to stay afloat.
They need to get that money somehow. So they either charge for access to the game (lol at your "stipend") or they adopt a "f2p" model and put a lot of things in a cash shop with the hopes that the "whales" will pony up the money to keep the game afloat.
Additionally, they could adopt a f2p model that puts just enough pressure on the player to decide to subscribe.
Even GW2 has a cash shop to make up the money they need.
The problem with p2p is that companies didn't really move fast enough with their content updates and suddenly players start wondering "what the heck am I paying for?" Especially when they are sitting at level cap running the same instances "just because".
It's the hope that these cash shops will sustain these games and they constantly have to come up with ways to monetize their game to keep cash flowing in.
So, how many "hats" do you think these mmo's need to sell over time in order to keep their game afloat?
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
However given the discussion here was in general referring to the western market (since generally the western market is the one discussed here) I was under the impression we were discussing such a market, in which case as I stated the MMO market took a large swing AFTER the AAA P2P titles started switching (thus counting subscriptions in a 'F2P' model as F2P). Though yes in the grand scheme globally it is true F2P games possibly do dwarf those that follow a subscriptiojn model, given the subscription model is not universally adopted worldwide nor in the same way in differing regions (even within the western market there are many variations).
MMOs are not "market" based...they are world based which is why you are seeing more and more F2P games in the west. Its due to the massive profits being made in the east and the difficulty to enter those markets by western companies because they cant compete, so they are trying to emulate and are failing both ways. They aren't increasing their base in the east because they are going with a half-assed F2P job with bad cash shops and locking parts of their game...and they aren't as successful in the west for the same reasons.
Either way, F2P has been in the west since the late 90s when NWNO went F2P after returning and Nexons first F2P which was also the first MMO to top over 1 million players was released in the west in 1997, a year after its release in Korea...it was actually Guild Wars that kicked open the door to no Subs with its 6 million players, most of whom were in the west.
As for the F2P dwarfing subs because the sub model is not universal...no, its due to there being far far more F2P players than sub players and that F2P games in the east offer far better items for a much lower price. In the west they try to fleece you with their shops much like with subs.
I mean seriously, $35 for a freakin mount in Tera...same game, same item in Korea costs $12. lol...
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 said this in the news topic on Wildstar's payment model but I'll reiterate it here. While each payment model may have some advantages and disadvantages, ultimately they are just not all that important compared to the quality of the game being put out. Which is a sentiment one of the Wildstar Dev's commented on.
I don't think there are too many people out there in the gaming populace who would say "This is a completely awesome gaming experience which I'll get hours and hours of gaming enjoyment out of....easly worth $15 for a month...but I won't play it because it is structured as a subscription" nor are there too many folks, I think, that would say "Wow this game is boring and unenjoyable.....but now that it's F2P, I'll gladly spend an average of $15 per month to play it."
Ultimately a game prospers or flops (in the long run, after the initial hype is over) based upon it's quality and whether the Developer is, on average, setting a price point that is justified by it's quality.
What I really see when people say "F2P saved DDO or LOTRO or (insert game here)" was that the game simply wasn't good enough to continue charging (on average) what the Developer wanted to charge for it. F2P didn't help them....offering variable pricing that was more in line with what the average consumer felt the game was worth did.
Same issue holds true with the F2P model. If the individual items they offer for sale in the cash shops are priced more then they are worth......while they may have people continue to play them game for free.....they won't be making much revenue, as not enough people will think the items are worth it to buy.
While "F2P" offers more granuality in pricing.....it's not the only way to do variable pricing, nor is it the only way to offer "try before you buy" and it comes with it's own set of baggage.
Ultimately for me, I simply haven't seen that many MMO's that are worth my TIME to play in recent years let alone my dollars. Dropping $15 isn't a big issue for me for a month's worth of QUALITY entertainment. There have been plenty of Single Player Games that I've dropped $40-$60 on that I haven't gotten more then 3 months out of play from....and I drop $15 for 2-3 hours to see a mediocre movie without popcorn.
Bottom line is that a game has to convince me that it's FUN enough to be worth both my TIME and CASH to play. If it does, the payment model doesn't matter unless it starts interfering with that FUN.
I don't think there are too many people out there in the gaming populace who would say "This is a completely awesome gaming experience which I'll get hours and hours of gaming enjoyment out of....easly worth $15 for a month...but I won't play it because it is structured as a subscription" nor are there too many folks, I think, that would say "Wow this game is boring and unenjoyable.....but now that it's F2P, I'll gladly spend an average of $15 per month to play it."
Nope but there are a ton of people that will say "I can get into this new fun game for $60 + $15 a month, or I can get into one of many more fun games with more content for free or just the initial cost of the game...yeah, I will pass".
There is just plain way too many great games on the market right now, and coming out that make the idea of a subscription laughable.
And yeah, I CAN afford $15 a month...I spend more in some F2P games, when its a choice and I feel I am getting something for it. Sure as hell not going to keep paying a monthly fee to use a piece of furniture I bought just because its quality...its a funny idea when you think about it.
BUY THIS GAME, THEN KEEP PAYING TO BE ABLE TO PLAY IT!
The MMO industry has gotten away with highway robbery for years!
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
This brings me to my main point, how can any new p2p mmo possibly come up with a reasonable and defensible answer to why they need a monthly stipend from you, in addition to the base game cost?
lol
well let's put it this way, regardless of which payment model a game has, they still need "x" amount of dollars per month/year to stay afloat.
They need to get that money somehow. So they either charge for access to the game (lol at your "stipend") or they adopt a "f2p" model and put a lot of things in a cash shop with the hopes that the "whales" will pony up the money to keep the game afloat.
Additionally, they could adopt a f2p model that puts just enough pressure on the player to decide to subscribe.
Even GW2 has a cash shop to make up the money they need.
The problem with p2p is that companies didn't really move fast enough with their content updates and suddenly players start wondering "what the heck am I paying for?" Especially when they are sitting at level cap running the same instances "just because".
It's the hope that these cash shops will sustain these games and they constantly have to come up with ways to monetize their game to keep cash flowing in.
So, how many "hats" do you think these mmo's need to sell over time in order to keep their game afloat?
Good rebutal... I am personally not in any of the P2P or B2P or F2P camps and instead look for the MMO that makes the most sense for my entertainment dollar. I also understand that all MMO's have maintenance costs involved with providing access to their consumers but what I wanted to buildup a discussion about, through this thread, is how new and old MMO's alike will create new and innovative business plans to accommodate the changing dynamic happening in this genre. In my mind most new MMO's should include a very wide ranging hybrid plan that will allow you to reach the most people, the quickest while still maintaining that P2P quality feel.
Commodities and services in different markets cost different things. I'm sure the internet bill I pay for mediocre 10Mbit DSL in Oregon doesn't cost me the same as it would in Korea. I know that McDonalds burger meal in my area costs about half what it costs when I visited London, and that was 20 years ago.
Thanks, you just compared a real world item to a digital one and also used an argument that hasn't been valid for nearly a decade with bringing up an internet bill.
Your costs to your ISP is based on whatever that ISP decides to fleece from you...the costs to companies for bandwidth is pennies and can be easily looked up by doing a search for worldwide bandwidth costs. This is the reason why a seedboxes monthly cost can be as low as $10 a month for 250Gig while many ISPs like Com(munist)cast places that cap on their ISP customers no matter which speed package they have including the highest priced one which is over $60 a month.
Bandwidth for companies costs little...and a single digital item like a MOUNT takes up next to no bandwidth! Have you EVER monitored the amount of information that is sent back and forth while playing an MMO? You are not sending out massive amounts of information. It would take you a month to send out more info playing an MMO than it would streaming a single blueray movie from Netflix...so please, trying again with the whole 3x the amount cost is justified in one market over the other crap.
And no...the Tera mount I am talking about is the SAME. I am not comparing the full account mount to the single character mount. The single character mounts are $3 in Korea, not $12.
Its been discussed many times at the GDCs by Nexon, why are western companies, and even companies like PWI charging such a different amount between regions...the idea that it should be done because western nations are richer is moronic because South Korea and Japan are WEALTHY nations and they are getting far far more money even with cheaper items.
10,000 people may be willing to buy that expensive item, but its been proven that 100,000 people are more likely to buy it at 1/3rd the price.
1/3rd the price, 10x the customers...do the math. Nexon did it...and PWI should know better by the difference they make in each market with the same items/games.
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 don't think there are too many people out there in the gaming populace who would say "This is a completely awesome gaming experience which I'll get hours and hours of gaming enjoyment out of....easly worth $15 for a month...but I won't play it because it is structured as a subscription" nor are there too many folks, I think, that would say "Wow this game is boring and unenjoyable.....but now that it's F2P, I'll gladly spend an average of $15 per month to play it."
Nope but there are a ton of people that will say "I can get into this new fun game for $60 + $15 a month, or I can get into one of many more fun games with more content for free or just the initial cost of the game...yeah, I will pass".
There is just plain way too many great games on the market right now, and coming out that make the idea of a subscription laughable.
And yeah, I CAN afford $15 a month...I spend more in some F2P games, when its a choice and I feel I am getting something for it. Sure as hell not going to keep paying a monthly fee to use a piece of furniture I bought just because its quality...its a funny idea when you think about it.
BUY THIS GAME, THEN KEEP PAYING TO BE ABLE TO PLAY IT!
The MMO industry has gotten away with highway robbery for years!
Sure, if I could find an F2P game which I consider "better quality and overall value" than FFXIV:ARR or Wildstar, then I'll gladly play it. But I can't find one.
I don't play games because they are free, I play them if I enjoy them. The sub or lack of is not relevant to my decision.
Perhaps EQ:Next will be a great F2P game. But I'll most likely end up taking the EQN freemium sub anyway
I don't think there are too many people out there in the gaming populace who would say "This is a completely awesome gaming experience which I'll get hours and hours of gaming enjoyment out of....easly worth $15 for a month...but I won't play it because it is structured as a subscription" nor are there too many folks, I think, that would say "Wow this game is boring and unenjoyable.....but now that it's F2P, I'll gladly spend an average of $15 per month to play it."
Nope but there are a ton of people that will say "I can get into this new fun game for $60 + $15 a month, or I can get into one of many more fun games with more content for free or just the initial cost of the game...yeah, I will pass".
There is just plain way too many great games on the market right now, and coming out that make the idea of a subscription laughable.
And yeah, I CAN afford $15 a month...I spend more in some F2P games, when its a choice and I feel I am getting something for it. Sure as hell not going to keep paying a monthly fee to use a piece of furniture I bought just because its quality...its a funny idea when you think about it.
BUY THIS GAME, THEN KEEP PAYING TO BE ABLE TO PLAY IT!
The MMO industry has gotten away with highway robbery for years!
But you really haven't "bought" anything different with the F2P game either.....other then entertainment hours. You'll discover that the first time a publisher decided to close operations on whatever MMO you are playing.
So it's really all about what price the Developer has set for the hours of fun it delivered and how enjoyable was that game.....and the individual consumers personal preferences.
For example if you are playing your F2P game....and you have your eye on a Purple Pony for $20 and a Green Pirates costume for $10.....and after you bought them you discover they netted you all of 30 minutes of mild entertainment it's a pretty raw deal compared to a $15 sub based game where you get access to those and every other item in the game for a whole month. Now you might indeed have access to your $30 worth of items till Doomsday.....but if you actualy only got enjoyment out of them for half an hour....that half hour is the value you got out of them.
So it really depends on how the individual player actualy plays, what they enjoy in the game and how the Developer prices it.
So for me, when I'm playing a sub based game...... I'm not paying for whatever items my character has access to.....I'm paying for the hours of entertainment I have in the game....whatever that entertainment is......and I'm paying for not having any restrictions on what I can do or access in the game and not having my gaming experience interrupted by having to engage in a shopping experience.....the way I play the game I might well end up spending $40 in a month if it were "F2P" but when I'm done with a game, I'm done...sub over. So what's the better deal for my type of player.....spending $15 per month to do everything I want to do in a game without interuptions.......or spending on average $40 per month for everything I want to do with interruptions to "buy" stuff that I'll never see again after I'm done playing with it?
You tell me which is the rip-off?
The payment model really doesn't matter....it's the amount of fun you are having in a game compared to the amount you are paying for that fun.
Commodities and services in different markets cost different things. I'm sure the internet bill I pay for mediocre 10Mbit DSL in Oregon doesn't cost me the same as it would in Korea. I know that McDonalds burger meal in my area costs about half what it costs when I visited London, and that was 20 years ago.
Thanks, you just compared a real world item to a digital one and also used an argument that hasn't been valid for nearly a decade with bringing up an internet bill.
Your costs to your ISP is based on whatever that ISP decides to fleece from you...the costs to companies for bandwidth is pennies and can be easily looked up by doing a search for worldwide bandwidth costs. This is the reason why a seedboxes monthly cost can be as low as $10 a month for 250Gig while many ISPs like Com(munist)cast places that cap on their ISP customers no matter which speed package they have including the highest priced one which is over $60 a month.
Bandwidth for companies costs little...and a single digital item like a MOUNT takes up next to no bandwidth! Have you EVER monitored the amount of information that is sent back and forth while playing an MMO? You are not sending out massive amounts of information. It would take you a month to send out more info playing an MMO than it would streaming a single blueray movie from Netflix...so please, trying again with the whole 3x the amount cost is justified in one market over the other crap.
And no...the Tera mount I am talking about is the SAME. I am not comparing the full account mount to the single character mount. The single character mounts are $3 in Korea, not $12.
Its been discussed many times at the GDCs by Nexon, why are western companies, and even companies like PWI charging such a different amount between regions...the idea that it should be done because western nations are richer is moronic because South Korea and Japan are WEALTHY nations and they are getting far far more money even with cheaper items.
10,000 people may be willing to buy that expensive item, but its been proven that 100,000 people are more likely to buy it at 1/3rd the price.
1/3rd the price, 10x the customers...do the math. Nexon did it...and PWI should know better by the difference they make in each market with the same items/games.
You really don't understand the difference between a service model and a commodity model. All MMO's are service models, even "F2P" ones. They just monetize themselves differently. You don't actualy "BUY" anything when you get your Purple Pony in a game. You are simply paying for access to it in the entertainment service you are using. What you are actualy paying for in both cases is the service itself under both models. In the P2P model they monetize it by making you pay directly in the form of a sub-fee. In the F2P model they monetize it by calculating the average fee that they can get a user to spend in thier cash shop. What you are actualy paying for in both cases is the salary for the companies engineers and programmers and customer service reps and HR staff....along with it's hosting fee's or data center operations budget (if hosting itself), taxes, etc.
Those costs DO vary by region. For example, I can offshore my tech support to India for $5 per man-hour of work....about the same as a company in India might have to pay for it localy....or I can pay $15 for it in the US. The $5 per man-hour is possible because given conversion rates and standards of living differences it's not a bad salary over in India. However it comes with the downside that service might not as be effective when "Bob" in New Dehli is trying to service Mary Sue in Peroria with communicating complicated technical issues.....I might be better off paying the $15 for Mike in Atlanta to do that job....which is a call that some companies make.
P2P was a tougher sell back in Everquest era than it is now.
People didn't trust online transactions, people didn't want to give out their credit card numbers, people didn't have credit cards. Paypal didn't exist / wasn't known. The playerbase was younger.
Now the average MMO player is older, has more disposable income of his own... OK, he has less free time, but $15 a month is no biggie for even 10 hours of entertainment a month.
OK, people even subbed to the old Neverwinter game, but how many exactly were they? Not exactly mass interest there.
The thing is, MMOs have gotten old. Back then people actually looked for ways to get in (to WOW, mostly), they went out of their way to get in, they bought new PCs, they used their friends' credit cards... because it was exciting! If we have exciting stuff again, make no mistake, people are going to pay monthly subs for it.
If anything, $15 is a bit low now; the price hasn't moved. If exciting stuff comes along, I'm pretty sure people will pay $20 a month for it, too. Maybe even $25.
Back then in early 2000s, a lot of people played a lot of bad online games not to pay a monthly fee. I couldn't get any of my friends to sub to any quality MMO (AC, UO, EQ, AO, SWG etc.) And then came WOW, and everybody got in.
It's all about how exciting, how entertaining the game is. The payment scheme is not the deciding factor.
P2P was a tougher sell back in Everquest era than it is now.
People didn't trust online transactions, people didn't want to give out their credit card numbers, people didn't have credit cards. Paypal didn't exist / wasn't known. The playerbase was younger.
Now the average MMO player is older, has more disposable income of his own... OK, he/she has less free time, but $15 a month is no biggie for even 10 hours of entertainment a month.
OK, people even subbed to the old Neverinter game, but how many exactly were those people? Not exactly mass interest.
The thing is, MMOs have gotten old. Back then people actually looked for ways to get in (to WOW, mostly), they went out of their way to get in, they bought new PCs, they used their friends' credit cards... because it was exciting! If we have exciting stuff again, make no mistake, people are going to pay monthly subs for it.
If anything, $15 is a bit low now; the price hasn't moved. If exciting stuff comes along, I'm pretty sure people will pay $20 a month for it, too. Maybe even $25.
Back then in early 2000s, a lot of people played a lot of bad online games not to pay a monthly fee. I couldn't get any of my friends to sub to any quality MMO (AC, UO, EQ, AO, SWG etc.) And then came WOW, and everybody got in.
It's all about how exciting, how entertaining the game is. The payment scheme is not the deciding factor.
I completely agree.
The way we interacted with these games 10 years ago was different, very different than our spg or consoles. It was exciting, a whole world, new people, hundreds of things to do.
Now we are used to it, online activity is the norm.
I've stated it before and I'll state it again. No game will come out with the kinda of excited, intense feeling/excitement/populations (as compared to games of each time period e.g 500,000 in a total population of 2 million...) until developers change how we fundamentally interact with the game.
I don't know what that is: Virtual reality, kinect, surround 360 degree screens... don't know. But I believe until they change how we interact you will never get that feeling or runaway success again.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Comments
1) I am responding to "I don't understand how people say they can't afford 15$ a month or it's too expensive", as quoted.
2) I have responded. I play free trial of P2P games (all of them have it, WoW, Eve ...) and decided that F2P are as much, if not more, fun. Plus, in case of unique IPs like Star Trek, there is no p2p comparison because they don't even exist. And in this particular case, Eve is a very boring, easy pve game (to me). STO is much better. F2P is just an added bonus.
3) Your experience is totally irrelevant to me. My preferences in games are clearly different than yours.
Touchy one aren t we. If my experience is irrelevant , then simply ignore my post.
No more arguments? I suppose you agree with my reasoning and agree that it is perfectly logical for me to go f2p and it has nothing to do with affordability. It is mainly because p2p is unappealing and there are fun free alternatives .. for me of course.
So if you have fun playing F2P games, and I have fun playing P2P games, does any of this back n forth really matter? Both markets will continue to exist no matter how much you love or hate either one.
Actually one of the problems with this argument is that far too many people know NOTHING about the F2P market and only know about F2P games in the west which aren't actually F2P games, they are paytrap/freemium games.
Nexon is one of the largest gaming companies on the planet with profits in the top 5, not top 5 MMO makers, top 5 GAME makers...they make more than Sony Games...and almost all of it comes from their F2P games. Not freemium...F2P. As in all revenue comes from their cash shops.
Atlantica Online makes more profits than all of Funcom and Turbine bogus Freemium games combined. Your knowledge of the F2P market is limited...Western MMO makers are going into the F2P market because that is where the real money is, the problem lies in that the idiots are so used to taking advantage of people so willing to throw their money away in the west that they cant drop the fleecing model and wind up not hitting the actual F2P market where the real money is.
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
P2P is dead because the companies doing it still are trying to double dip. People say $15 gives you everything...I can't think of a single p2p game that doesn't have a cash shop.
wildstar is the newest example of the greedy company trying to cash in both ways. I hope it bites them in the ass.
Not a chance. The P2P is all but completely dead. As much as the old guard hates this fact, the reality is that Free To Play games make far more money than sub only games. People aren't willing to justify spending 15 bucks a month for a a game when there are other options available.
The only remaining P2P holdouts are either dead (Warhammer), dying (World of Warcraft. I don't care how many subs they still have, losing 5 million players in such a short span of time is bad news!), or lacking real competition (EVE.) The market has spoken, folks. Free to Play and Buy to Play is the future. Releasing a sub based game in this day and age is financial suicide.
Sorry folks, but the war over P2P vs. F2P is over, and P2P has lost. Just look at the market.
So are cable companies greedy for offering cable tv channel service and on-demand video services?
Both FFXI and FFXIV don't have a cash shop.
Yes. Especially when I can get those on demand movies for much cheaper elsewhere, and without the insane monthly price or contract.
Why do you think cable companies are seeing massive drops in their customer base? Cheaper, better alternatives. Just like the MMO market.
Totally agree with you there $15 sub is still dirt cheap entertainment these days, My issue is with so many good FTP titles out now I find my gameplay style changed where as I'm enjoying playing a variety of games. I could never justify to myself paying a sub for 3-4 games. Even at 2 I could never play them enough to get my monies worth. Not having a sub also works if RL gets in the way I don't log for days I feel I didn't waste my money. Seems like FTP is another payment model that works well for some also so I can see P2P having some stiff competition down the line.
I am aware Nexon is enormous. I am also aware they also deal in many other gaming genres, beyond MMOs.
I have also never claimed to have an in depth knowledge of the worldwide MMO market and how the different payment models break down globally. I would be shocked if anyone on this forum would make such a claim, even moreso if anyone actually believed such to be true.
However given the discussion here was in general referring to the western market (since generally the western market is the one discussed here) I was under the impression we were discussing such a market, in which case as I stated the MMO market took a large swing AFTER the AAA P2P titles started switching (thus counting subscriptions in a 'F2P' model as F2P). Though yes in the grand scheme globally it is true F2P games possibly do dwarf those that follow a subscriptiojn model, given the subscription model is not universally adopted worldwide nor in the same way in differing regions (even within the western market there are many variations).
I agree with the F2P / Freemium point you made. Too many (especially on this forum) categorise games into 2 types, F2P or P2P with one being a very narrow definition, and the other being an 'everything else' catch all in order to support their views. Then again the use of the word free is powerful, it always has been.
I am also aware it's all about money. Very little in this world isn't (some would argue nothing, though that may be seen as cynical). The issue is that currently businesses are seeing what they can get away with before their customers start souring of this monetisation progression, and we are a long way off from that.
Not in the modern but in the future maybe LETS GO TOGETHER!! TO THE FUTURE!!!
and the future i speak of has games that contains more than just a shallow combat and a quest line you are forced to follow
I'm not so sure that we are "a long way from" a consumer backlash against overly exploitative F2P payment models. Every week I seem to see more anti-F2P sentiments on this site, more often than not from people who have tried it and hated it.
A few years ago, the anti-F2P rhetoric was mostly flat out rejection based on the perception that those were inferior games. Since then, a great many players have spent time in quite a few different F2P games. Some have embraced it, but quite a few have come to realise that it's not a model they are comfortable with.
There is no single "best fit" payment model. We are seeing more variety as time passes, which is a good thing.
lol
well let's put it this way, regardless of which payment model a game has, they still need "x" amount of dollars per month/year to stay afloat.
They need to get that money somehow. So they either charge for access to the game (lol at your "stipend") or they adopt a "f2p" model and put a lot of things in a cash shop with the hopes that the "whales" will pony up the money to keep the game afloat.
Additionally, they could adopt a f2p model that puts just enough pressure on the player to decide to subscribe.
Even GW2 has a cash shop to make up the money they need.
The problem with p2p is that companies didn't really move fast enough with their content updates and suddenly players start wondering "what the heck am I paying for?" Especially when they are sitting at level cap running the same instances "just because".
It's the hope that these cash shops will sustain these games and they constantly have to come up with ways to monetize their game to keep cash flowing in.
So, how many "hats" do you think these mmo's need to sell over time in order to keep their game afloat?
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
MMOs are not "market" based...they are world based which is why you are seeing more and more F2P games in the west. Its due to the massive profits being made in the east and the difficulty to enter those markets by western companies because they cant compete, so they are trying to emulate and are failing both ways. They aren't increasing their base in the east because they are going with a half-assed F2P job with bad cash shops and locking parts of their game...and they aren't as successful in the west for the same reasons.
Either way, F2P has been in the west since the late 90s when NWNO went F2P after returning and Nexons first F2P which was also the first MMO to top over 1 million players was released in the west in 1997, a year after its release in Korea...it was actually Guild Wars that kicked open the door to no Subs with its 6 million players, most of whom were in the west.
As for the F2P dwarfing subs because the sub model is not universal...no, its due to there being far far more F2P players than sub players and that F2P games in the east offer far better items for a much lower price. In the west they try to fleece you with their shops much like with subs.
I mean seriously, $35 for a freakin mount in Tera...same game, same item in Korea costs $12. lol...
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 said this in the news topic on Wildstar's payment model but I'll reiterate it here. While each payment model may have some advantages and disadvantages, ultimately they are just not all that important compared to the quality of the game being put out. Which is a sentiment one of the Wildstar Dev's commented on.
I don't think there are too many people out there in the gaming populace who would say "This is a completely awesome gaming experience which I'll get hours and hours of gaming enjoyment out of....easly worth $15 for a month...but I won't play it because it is structured as a subscription" nor are there too many folks, I think, that would say "Wow this game is boring and unenjoyable.....but now that it's F2P, I'll gladly spend an average of $15 per month to play it."
Ultimately a game prospers or flops (in the long run, after the initial hype is over) based upon it's quality and whether the Developer is, on average, setting a price point that is justified by it's quality.
What I really see when people say "F2P saved DDO or LOTRO or (insert game here)" was that the game simply wasn't good enough to continue charging (on average) what the Developer wanted to charge for it. F2P didn't help them....offering variable pricing that was more in line with what the average consumer felt the game was worth did.
Same issue holds true with the F2P model. If the individual items they offer for sale in the cash shops are priced more then they are worth......while they may have people continue to play them game for free.....they won't be making much revenue, as not enough people will think the items are worth it to buy.
While "F2P" offers more granuality in pricing.....it's not the only way to do variable pricing, nor is it the only way to offer "try before you buy" and it comes with it's own set of baggage.
Ultimately for me, I simply haven't seen that many MMO's that are worth my TIME to play in recent years let alone my dollars. Dropping $15 isn't a big issue for me for a month's worth of QUALITY entertainment. There have been plenty of Single Player Games that I've dropped $40-$60 on that I haven't gotten more then 3 months out of play from....and I drop $15 for 2-3 hours to see a mediocre movie without popcorn.
Bottom line is that a game has to convince me that it's FUN enough to be worth both my TIME and CASH to play. If it does, the payment model doesn't matter unless it starts interfering with that FUN.
Nope but there are a ton of people that will say "I can get into this new fun game for $60 + $15 a month, or I can get into one of many more fun games with more content for free or just the initial cost of the game...yeah, I will pass".
There is just plain way too many great games on the market right now, and coming out that make the idea of a subscription laughable.
And yeah, I CAN afford $15 a month...I spend more in some F2P games, when its a choice and I feel I am getting something for it. Sure as hell not going to keep paying a monthly fee to use a piece of furniture I bought just because its quality...its a funny idea when you think about it.
BUY THIS GAME, THEN KEEP PAYING TO BE ABLE TO PLAY IT!
The MMO industry has gotten away with highway robbery for years!
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
Good rebutal... I am personally not in any of the P2P or B2P or F2P camps and instead look for the MMO that makes the most sense for my entertainment dollar. I also understand that all MMO's have maintenance costs involved with providing access to their consumers but what I wanted to buildup a discussion about, through this thread, is how new and old MMO's alike will create new and innovative business plans to accommodate the changing dynamic happening in this genre. In my mind most new MMO's should include a very wide ranging hybrid plan that will allow you to reach the most people, the quickest while still maintaining that P2P quality feel.
Thanks, you just compared a real world item to a digital one and also used an argument that hasn't been valid for nearly a decade with bringing up an internet bill.
Your costs to your ISP is based on whatever that ISP decides to fleece from you...the costs to companies for bandwidth is pennies and can be easily looked up by doing a search for worldwide bandwidth costs. This is the reason why a seedboxes monthly cost can be as low as $10 a month for 250Gig while many ISPs like Com(munist)cast places that cap on their ISP customers no matter which speed package they have including the highest priced one which is over $60 a month.
Bandwidth for companies costs little...and a single digital item like a MOUNT takes up next to no bandwidth! Have you EVER monitored the amount of information that is sent back and forth while playing an MMO? You are not sending out massive amounts of information. It would take you a month to send out more info playing an MMO than it would streaming a single blueray movie from Netflix...so please, trying again with the whole 3x the amount cost is justified in one market over the other crap.
And no...the Tera mount I am talking about is the SAME. I am not comparing the full account mount to the single character mount. The single character mounts are $3 in Korea, not $12.
Its been discussed many times at the GDCs by Nexon, why are western companies, and even companies like PWI charging such a different amount between regions...the idea that it should be done because western nations are richer is moronic because South Korea and Japan are WEALTHY nations and they are getting far far more money even with cheaper items.
10,000 people may be willing to buy that expensive item, but its been proven that 100,000 people are more likely to buy it at 1/3rd the price.
1/3rd the price, 10x the customers...do the math. Nexon did it...and PWI should know better by the difference they make in each market with the same items/games.
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
Sure, if I could find an F2P game which I consider "better quality and overall value" than FFXIV:ARR or Wildstar, then I'll gladly play it. But I can't find one.
I don't play games because they are free, I play them if I enjoy them. The sub or lack of is not relevant to my decision.
Perhaps EQ:Next will be a great F2P game. But I'll most likely end up taking the EQN freemium sub anyway
But you really haven't "bought" anything different with the F2P game either.....other then entertainment hours. You'll discover that the first time a publisher decided to close operations on whatever MMO you are playing.
So it's really all about what price the Developer has set for the hours of fun it delivered and how enjoyable was that game.....and the individual consumers personal preferences.
For example if you are playing your F2P game....and you have your eye on a Purple Pony for $20 and a Green Pirates costume for $10.....and after you bought them you discover they netted you all of 30 minutes of mild entertainment it's a pretty raw deal compared to a $15 sub based game where you get access to those and every other item in the game for a whole month. Now you might indeed have access to your $30 worth of items till Doomsday.....but if you actualy only got enjoyment out of them for half an hour....that half hour is the value you got out of them.
So it really depends on how the individual player actualy plays, what they enjoy in the game and how the Developer prices it.
So for me, when I'm playing a sub based game...... I'm not paying for whatever items my character has access to.....I'm paying for the hours of entertainment I have in the game....whatever that entertainment is......and I'm paying for not having any restrictions on what I can do or access in the game and not having my gaming experience interrupted by having to engage in a shopping experience.....the way I play the game I might well end up spending $40 in a month if it were "F2P" but when I'm done with a game, I'm done...sub over. So what's the better deal for my type of player.....spending $15 per month to do everything I want to do in a game without interuptions.......or spending on average $40 per month for everything I want to do with interruptions to "buy" stuff that I'll never see again after I'm done playing with it?
You tell me which is the rip-off?
The payment model really doesn't matter....it's the amount of fun you are having in a game compared to the amount you are paying for that fun.
You really don't understand the difference between a service model and a commodity model. All MMO's are service models, even "F2P" ones. They just monetize themselves differently. You don't actualy "BUY" anything when you get your Purple Pony in a game. You are simply paying for access to it in the entertainment service you are using. What you are actualy paying for in both cases is the service itself under both models. In the P2P model they monetize it by making you pay directly in the form of a sub-fee. In the F2P model they monetize it by calculating the average fee that they can get a user to spend in thier cash shop. What you are actualy paying for in both cases is the salary for the companies engineers and programmers and customer service reps and HR staff....along with it's hosting fee's or data center operations budget (if hosting itself), taxes, etc.
Those costs DO vary by region. For example, I can offshore my tech support to India for $5 per man-hour of work....about the same as a company in India might have to pay for it localy....or I can pay $15 for it in the US. The $5 per man-hour is possible because given conversion rates and standards of living differences it's not a bad salary over in India. However it comes with the downside that service might not as be effective when "Bob" in New Dehli is trying to service Mary Sue in Peroria with communicating complicated technical issues.....I might be better off paying the $15 for Mike in Atlanta to do that job....which is a call that some companies make.
Here's a different take on it:
P2P was a tougher sell back in Everquest era than it is now.
People didn't trust online transactions, people didn't want to give out their credit card numbers, people didn't have credit cards. Paypal didn't exist / wasn't known. The playerbase was younger.
Now the average MMO player is older, has more disposable income of his own... OK, he has less free time, but $15 a month is no biggie for even 10 hours of entertainment a month.
OK, people even subbed to the old Neverwinter game, but how many exactly were they? Not exactly mass interest there.
The thing is, MMOs have gotten old. Back then people actually looked for ways to get in (to WOW, mostly), they went out of their way to get in, they bought new PCs, they used their friends' credit cards... because it was exciting! If we have exciting stuff again, make no mistake, people are going to pay monthly subs for it.
If anything, $15 is a bit low now; the price hasn't moved. If exciting stuff comes along, I'm pretty sure people will pay $20 a month for it, too. Maybe even $25.
Back then in early 2000s, a lot of people played a lot of bad online games not to pay a monthly fee. I couldn't get any of my friends to sub to any quality MMO (AC, UO, EQ, AO, SWG etc.) And then came WOW, and everybody got in.
It's all about how exciting, how entertaining the game is. The payment scheme is not the deciding factor.
I completely agree.
The way we interacted with these games 10 years ago was different, very different than our spg or consoles. It was exciting, a whole world, new people, hundreds of things to do.
Now we are used to it, online activity is the norm.
I've stated it before and I'll state it again. No game will come out with the kinda of excited, intense feeling/excitement/populations (as compared to games of each time period e.g 500,000 in a total population of 2 million...) until developers change how we fundamentally interact with the game.
I don't know what that is: Virtual reality, kinect, surround 360 degree screens... don't know. But I believe until they change how we interact you will never get that feeling or runaway success again.