Its probably smart of them to ask a box price with a sub, figuring most folks will play a second month, or at least forget to cancel before the second month comes around. They can always change the model after the second or third month. Perhaps a bit conspiracy theory, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if they were counting on people to forget not to renew, rather than actually having a game worth paying a subscription for.
On the other hand, I've been paying a monthly sub to Everquest the past three months, just to support a great old game.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I cannot believe that any publisher would seriously expect to make the most profit with a subscription model in the long term these days. My guess is the aim is to squeeze as much money as possible from the gullible people willing to shell out for the game itself and a few months subs. Then a few months down the line when those people are drifting away, announce a switch to a B2P or F2P model to attract the masses. They're sure to have done the relevant programming during development so it will be a simple matter to switch.
It makes little difference to me anyway. I had no intention of playing any of these games regardless of payment model. The three games I'm looking forward to most are EQN, Archeage and The Repopulation and all of them are F2P from the start.
Originally posted by Lord.Bachus Subs only works if your game is better then anything else in your cattegory..
Ahhh, no... That's an extremely over-simplistic way to look at it.
Subs work if your game is interesting and engaging enough to a sufficient number of people to make it viable and sustainable.
It boggles the mind how many people (Mike Bittoni included in this article) base their views on oft-repeated concepts that sound great on the surface, but utterly fall apart upon any contact with critical thought.
It would take pages to take apart all of what I've seen in this thread up to Bachus' post - all the typical, most often repeated ones - but I'll just focus on his remark in particular, since I quoted his post...
People do not fit neatly into "categories". Every person is different. They have different interests, different tastes, different things they find important or unimportant. The games that are going to get their interest are the ones that hit the most "right marks" for them, personally.
For the most part, people are going to play games that they find entertaining and interesting to them. They're going to not stick with games that do little, or nothing, for them.
Plenty of people have tried numerous other themepark MMOs, which they found to be lacking or otherwise just plain "un-fun". Yet, they checked out ARR, and it just hit all the right marks for them. And there seems to be an awful lot of them. As long as there are enough of those people to meet SE's requirements, the game will do fine. Will be an "OMG Blockbuster hit"? Perhaps not, but then... if it doesn't have to be in order for SE to continue developing and supporting it, then what does it matter? If they settle at around 500k players and they're comfortable with that, then why should anyone else be squawking because "they didn't hit 1 million"?
The same goes for any other MMO out there. The same will go for TESO and Wildstar. If they're good enough games, to enough people, they will remain as such and continue. If they fail to entertain enough people, or can't keep up with the player churn... they may have to consider other options.
But of course, if that's the case, then it's a failure of the developer to make a game worthy of a subfee to enough people. It's not a failure of the revenue model.
A frequent argument I see is something along the lines of, "If a sub-based MMO game fails to maintain enough players to make subscriptions work... then it's a failure of the revenue model".
No, it's not.
That's like saying if a carriage's wheels fall off because the driver was steering the horses over broken terrain, that somehow it's the horses' fault. It's completely ass-backwards.
It's a failure of the driver to navigate over smoother ground, and it's the failure of the developers to produce a good enough game.
And, maybe it's just me, but arguing that a MMO that's not suited for a subscription is "better off going F2P"... well, that's not exactly what I'd call "praise for Cash Shops and Microtransactions. It's like MTs are getting the sloppy seconds, if you'll excuse the figure of speech.
It's really all about the endgame at launch when it comes to subscriptions. And it's about being prepared for the players being faster than you thought. You need a back up plan so if your content gets blown through you can toss something out there quickly.
If you can retain the pre-order, launch day crowd for close to 6 months, they'll be invested and will stick out the highs and the lows for years to come.
I don't know about you guys but I find I spend a heck of a lot more on f2ps than a sub... I'll be quite happy paying my ten a month on ffxiv over whatever else. Love gw2 and it's model it's too much of a slippery slope for many devs. Here's the thing, I expect ffxiv to have modest success here but much more success in the east. That's okay as far as I go. I'm tired of f2p it isn't free.. it fing expensive.
so narrowminded, that is the problem with p2p people, which I was for years, until RIFT went free2play. Their model is flawless, and it doesnt have any problems what so ever with f2p
2 of these 3 games will be f2p within a yr of launch, FF14 has a loyal base, but it should be f2p as well, but they will keep it p2p. ESO and Wildstar especially will be hurting for players, 3-6 months after launch. Wildstar, wouldnt surpise me to see f2p within 6 months, its player base isnt gonna be that good, after the "free" 60$ month.
Ironic you use the world "narrowminded" Rift's model is NOT flawless....is there anything ...ANYTHING in the Cash Shop, Cash Shop only? Yes including so called "useless" vanity items like dyes, flavor armor etc?
Yes? Then its not flawless....I want the ENTIRE game for one low monthly fee. All the game...ALL the vanity items...everything !
What game offers that that only charges a monthly fee? No extra RMT, no xpacs and dlc box fee charges, nothing extra, just a sub. I'm having a hard time coming up with one game that does that and has all their vanity items in game. I would say Lineage but it doesn't have appearance mods and it's not available in NA. Is that one game, if it exists even any good?
If you are willing to wait a few more days, I'll give you a title that fits.
Sure. I'm in no hurry, but I hope you're not talking about FFXIV(v2.0):ARR. They charge more than just the sub to play the game. They charge extra fees in addition to the subscription, just like microtransaction games do.
Just so I know I'm not making a clerical error, can you please break down those fees for me?
I have 2. $29.99 for the box which includes a month, so it'e really a bit more than half of that. And then $12.99/mo starting in Sept. Did I miss more fees?
RIFT, you can get every part of the game (except for cosmetics) from playing the game. You can buy RIFT cash using in game currency, so essentially, you can get everything in game from playing the game.
I have spent zero in 3 months playing RIFT f2p and will unlikely ever spend a dime
For me, it is that MMOs released lately (the past 6 years or so) have not been worth a subscription. They have all been based on the game theory of "Get to max level fast and grind." That's not what I look for in an MMO.
The question is, will FFXIV:ARR, Wildstar, and TES:O be worth a subscription fee?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
For me, it is that MMOs released lately (the past 6 years or so) have not been worth a subscription. They have all been based on the game theory of "Get to max level fast and grind." That's not what I look for in an MMO.
The question is, will FFXIV:ARR, Wildstar, and TES:O be worth a subscription fee?
Title of this article is misleading subscription model hasn't gone anywhere. All new games have launched this way (save GW series). These games transition to f2p after a number of years in subscription mode.
To say it's a 'return' is to imply that games have been launching with f2p models, but they haven't.
RIFT, you can get every part of the game (except for cosmetics) from playing the game. You can buy RIFT cash using in game currency, so essentially, you can get everything in game from playing the game.
I have spent zero in 3 months playing RIFT f2p and will unlikely ever spend a dime
Well thats just great !
However if ALL of us did that there wouldnt even be a game. So Im sorry your opinion isnt even a factor.
F2P games count on people (whales) spending far above $15 to cover for players like yourself (which is your every right) that dont pay a dime.
So yeah F2P sucks for alot of people. We contsantly get nickeld and dimed for what SHOULD be basic MMO features.
We would rather just pay $15 and get all the content we want...fair is fair.
Gw2 is free to play yes and the release version is great, but after that? Face it: it is not only free to play moneyvise but F2P from the biweekly offered content as well. I would gladly pay a sub and get real updates with solid content.
If subbed games deliver quality, I will gladly pay for it.
10 people play a P2P MMO, they all pay $15 = $150.
10 people play a F2P MMO, 7 of them never spend anything 3 of them end up paying $50 each. = $150
You simply CANT have all 10 people pay $0....then there wouldnt be a game.
Either way, the bills MUST BE PAID. For those 7 people, sounds like a great deal why wouldnt it !!! For the other 3 they pay way more than $15.
This is why we support P2P. $15 for EVERYTHING....or $50 for a COUPLE cash shop items....
Its a no brainer.
Close, but no cigar.
10 people play P2P MMO. Three of them play 20 hours a month, 4 of them play 80 hours a month, and the remaining 3 play 160 hours a month. They all pay $15, thus 70% of subscribers are subsidizing the play of 30% hardcore players that play 40+ hours a week, 160 hours a month.
100 people play f2p MMO, ten of whom pay $15 on average for the content they want; 4 of them might buy xpacs, 3 might buy vanity items, 3 might buy consumables. Then, on top of that, of the remaining 90 players, 10 might spend $10, another 10 might spend $5, and another 20 might spend $1. And yes, you would then have 50 players who pay nothing. But you're still making more money than P2P games. F2P models lower the barrier to entry, namely the subscription price point.
Your analysis ignores a fundamental underpinning of f2p financing. Volume of players. You can't just compare 10 players from one system with 10 players from another because the systems are fundamentally different. f2p relies on an increased volume of players, and from that increased volume, one achieves parity with p2p models (or exceeds it).
F2P is trash and the worst thing to happen to MMORPGs. It's more suitable to games like LOL where the only thing you can buy are skins extra champs. There's no pay to win there, no facilitated cheating, no buy your way thru the game. The most critical parts of LOL can only be had due to playing. No F2P MMORPG ever does F2P that cleanly, there is always some kind of pay 2 win, or immersion destroying cheeseball items from the store, or micro transactions, or cash barriers, or worse.
I'm glad to see sub-based being tried still but unfortunately the games doing it are iffy. I don't think sub-based is extinct, or that people don't want to play subs, but it's not realistic to expect people to pay subs for games that aren't worthy of a sub - that's been the problem with every MMO since WoW. When you emphasize solo ez-mode and don't provide stuff for people to actually do for years, it's not worth a sub. F2P ended up being more suitable to games for casuals, soloists, and people who have no reason to invest serious time in weak games.
FFXIV looks like it's going to be a dumber and more simplistic than usual WoW clone. All of the WoW clones have failed (to keep subscribers around or to remain sub-based) because of their design model of trying to be everything to everyone and not really being MMORPGs worthy of subs. When you emphasize solo ez mode to the point of basically having one part easy single player game and one part group-based endgame (with a dash of perpetually unbalanced, pointless, meaningless, unrelated PvP minigame because you HAVE to be everything to everyone), you aren't strong enough with anything. And you fail.
So unless Square has something pretty amazing up their sleeves or held back, I not only see FFXIV going the same route as SWTOR (the epitome of post WoW clone failures) but doing it even faster and more dramatically. Hype, big release, massive player loss a few months after due to the soloists and casuals quickly finishing the "single player campaign" and bailing and the game not having enough balls for serious players. I hope I'm wrong since I bought the game but that's the way I see this game so far.
TESO isn't even going to BE an MMORPG. It's a GW2 clone - massively single player online game. No structured grouping, they've announced they won't have some basic MMORPG features like AH, or boss type mobs. It's basically a skyrim expansion where there will be lots of soloists sharing servers (ala GW2).
Who actually wants this? As someone who loves Skyrim and MMORPGs it's not what I want. Skyrm isn't amazing to me for it's combat - it's amazing due to amazing content and immersion. I'd rather have closed personal servers ala Minecraft or Cubeworld for just me and a few friends to enjoy the usually deep and rich ES PvE. Why does TESO have PvP when PvP hasn't ever been a part of the series (oh yeah, gotta be everything to everybody).
How is a single player game that happens to be online and lacks core features that even GW2 as a nonMMORPG has going to be worth a sub? It may end up being an enjoyable game but not the kind of game you play obsessively for years because it will be severely lacking in meaningful multiplayer and content that builds friendships and community (things that inspire you to stick around). You also can't really have progression in such a game, and progression is another thing that keeps people around - chasing the carrot thru tough content that takes time and effort to master.
4-5 soloists who can do everything and are invulnerable sharing a chat channel and an instance simply is not very compelling (ala GW2). Soloing in online games is not all that interesting (compared to what you can do in say...SKYRIM). It will more likely be just another game in your stable of games that you play occasionally. Ie, not worth a sub. Nobody wants to pay a sub for a game they play sometimes. Subs are acceptable when you play so much that the entertainment value greatly exceeds the monthly cost. I just don't see TESO providing this and as much as people love Skyrim I don't see them throwing down $180/year for a bastardized version of it.
I haven't fully researched WildStar because it looked like a WoW clone when I first encountered it. A return of 40 man raiding is about as dumb as an idea as trying to build a game around FFA PvP (ala shadowbane - pure fail). 40 man is beyond niche. It was when bliz did it in vanilla WoW. It's even more extreme now with a huge field of both MMORPGs and tons of other online gaming options that weren't around in vanilla. Really silly idea. I love raiding, I hate 40 man, I don't see how in todays competitive for players online gaming massacre, that there will ever be enough guilds in one game to do enough 40 man to make it worth the dev effort. Bliz shifted away from 40 man in the most popular MMORPG ever for a reason - they were making complex content that took a lot of dev time that a very tiny percent of players ever got to experience. Ie, it was a stupid and inefficient type of content. So yeah, it's genius that someone is bringing it back.
The WildStar crew does have some interesting ideas and when I first read it was going to be sub-based with a box price I thought the game sounded even better - since F2P is gutter sludge. At this point I'd be happy to sub to any above average MMORPG that might result in an more old school style of game for years type of experience. WildStar might end up being that kind of game...except..
Then, I'm reading thru that release and they start talking about pricing and CREDD. CREDD is a system where losers can essentially buy in-game gold for cash from the company. WTF?Technically it's a 3 way exchange - you buy CREDD from company on top of your sub cost, you sell that in-game to a player for gold, that player can use the CREDD to pay their sub - so you basically pay for 2 subs but the ultimate end result is paying cash for gold. A $60 box, a 15/mo sub, AND the company is going to facilitate cheating for a few extra bucks? Facilitated cheating (providing game currency for cash like a RMT) is even worse than P2W and is usually associated with the absolute worst of F2P. WTF is that doing mixed in with a game that's going to have premium P2P pricing and supposedly have quality customer support.
Any game that provides built-in cheating is not worth a sub no matter what else the game has going on. In fact, for me, it makes it a clear no sale. No longer interested. This kind of thing is one of the things I grew to hate about GW2. It's also the reason Rift's otherwise very kind F2P implementation is a steaming pile of dog dookie. I have zero desire to be surrounded by blatant cheaters in online games. I've always felt like people who bought gold from RMT deserved to get hacked and should've had their accounted deleted, not restored after getting hacked. Play, earn your own way via your in-game actions, not your wallet, or go the hell away.
So basically, we have 3 games coming out that are going to be sub- based and none of them would appear to be worth a sub to me before they even freakin release.
Of the 3 FFXIV is the least obnoxious and the most normal (clone) and you *might* get a few months of subbing out of it before you feel like the game is over (ala every other clone failure). I'll sub to it for a few months since I don't mind paying for my gaming entertainment. I surely won't be doing more than a 3 month sub til Square "shows me the money" and proves the game is something more than a distraction designed for infants.
This all bothers me because I despise F2P for MMORPGs. It lowers the quality of the games and the players. If new games come out with subs and clearly aren't worth subbing, it will only make this crap worse and delay this stupid F2P fad from going away.
"Swotr's failure had nothing to do with it's sub cost, and everything to do with the game itself"
Exactly. Weak games aren't worth a sub.
The games that still have subs? The original MMORPGs. The oldies but goodies. Still chugging along. The WoW clones all emphasize solo and ez-mode. The classics were more challenging and all but demanded nonstop grouping. Which style of game retains subs and which ends up being F2P sewage? Yeah, WoW still has subs. WoW is a great game but in many ways bliz got lucky to release when online game kind of exploded and without a lot of competition. They snagged and retained a TON of first time online players. Nobody else is repeating that.
It doesn't really matter if your game has wider appeal and you sell tons of boxes when you can't retain subscribers and end up going F2P and being considered a failure. The classic MMORPGs never had the crazy numbers the more hyped newer MMORPGs hit, but, they also keep chugging along and didn't have to sell their souls to F2P to remain in service (I question whether some of these games actually NEED to go F2P but with corporate whoredom pulling the strings and demanding higher profits, and F2P being profitable, it happens).
So now, instead of going back to the origins of the genre - that never were bad and that still roll today - devs continue to either make post WoW clone failures or worse, they got GW2/TESO/(and probably EQN) and ditch the MM of MMORPG entirely and are instead single player games that are even more unsuited to subs.
I sigh.
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
Of the big AAA MMOs on the horizon over the next few years (EQN, WS, FFXIV, and ESO), two of the four are announced as subscription-based, while EverQuest Next (similar to all other SOE titles) will go F2P.
The Author of this piece forgot the biggest player of them all in that list: Star Citizen. (B2P/F2P) Not P2W
Simply put There is a place for Subscription models as its known that Free to play games arent really free. 90% of the F2P games have P2W cash shops, the other 10% of the F2P games are chinese based throw away games that they develop dime a dozen that typically only sell vanity items in their cash shops.
Now take into account the AAA titles that have come and failed and gone F2P, Startrek online, Rift, Age of Conan... the list goes on. It wasnt because the games failed, it was because the Developers failed the players. Bugs, glitches, poor content, screwy UI, in the case of Warhammer.. total catastrophe.... it happens. Hell When I got wind that Cryptic was developing Neverwinter I was so pissed because that could have been a AAA Title except it went to a shit ball Company like Cryptic.
I would have loved a Forgotten Realms based MMORPG.. I think it would have gone over well . However they screwed it up, filled it with instance based Bull and well lets just say if it werent for the foundry the game would have been a major bomb.
Now with Free to play games players spend alot more than they would by subscription. A lot more. So is Sub based games going away? I think not, they tend to be fewer in population and the ones that stay around serve the players decently.. until they are dumbed down.. but thats another story.
I keep seeing this, people act like there is some grand return of the sub model... but when did it leave? That I know of, there have only been two "AAA" MMOs that have released as a F2P. All the rest of these western F2P games were once sub games, they only made the switch years after their release.
Subscription games being announced is nothing new. So I'm still sitting here wondering why people are acting like it's been ten years since the last sub game was released. If these games go F2P in the next few years, will we then be cheering (or jeering) at the resurgence of the supposedly extinct F2P model?
Its just like the game press saying "PC gaming is back from the death". The thing is many gamers and most of the game press don't really know how the business works anymore. They are focused on the most popular thing and not so much on the entire scene. Consoles where the hip thing to play on so everyone said pc gaming was dead or at least dying (something they been saying for 10 years but it never died anyway). The consoles entered their final stage with the next gen announced and suddenly you read everywhere "PC gaming is back" so apparently i played on something else then a pc for years. And you saw the game press as well preferring the consoles over the pc and doing their best to say how bad the pc was (lots of fake piracy stories and how poor the publishers are cause of all the piracy where the consoles get almost pirated as much after a research from a pc game magazine).
The same we see with sub based games. It is funny how even the game press go into the F2P hype and becomes blind to the facts.
- Just because F2P has more players doesn't mean it is a better concept. How many of those F2P gamers play the game actively for months compared with P2P games? Most F2P players leave the game within two weeks. Mostly just downloading it, start it up, play a hour or two and then leave again for good.
- Yes some major MMO's gona F2P after being P2P. However these games failed not because of the subs but because the games didn't provide. Dungeons and Dragons online went Free too play cause it was dying. Going F2P was their last resort to turn too cause for a sub the game didn't offer enough. SWToR was dying as well cause there had been made many promises that never made it into the game and wasn't the game many people had hoped for it would be (i played it till recently and always had a sub).
- Why do the F2P gamers think many games go F2P? Do they believe it's because the publishers care so much about the players that they offer it free so more people can enjoy their game? Let me ruin that amazing dream of you people. F2P is more expensive then a sub based game if you want the same game experience. Publisher wanna earn money, and lots of it. That F2P suddenly became popular had to do with it that it earned more money for the publishers cause a lot of people where willing to pay 2 -3 dollars for a item or even 10 dollars just to ride a freaking horse. That is 13 dollars already, 2 more and you had the horse for free and could wear any armor you liked when finding it in a sub based game. F2P is the most expensive if you want the same game experience. People can argue "yeah but i rather pay a few dollars for the stuff i want to access then having to pay 15 dollars and have stuff i don't play" but why would you not want the entire game unlocked for you if it only costs a few dollars more while you probably spend more then a sub fee per month on the stuff you really want.
- Why do people say P2P has failed. Many F2P games are in a much worse state with lesser players then P2P games. Also WoW is almost 10 years old and still got 8 million subs, 8 million paying subs. Most F2P games don't even reach the 5 million players who play the game regular. Same goes for Final Fantasy 11, also a old game and it still runs on subs and still has plenty of players. WoW and FF11 are examples why P2P works, cause they offer what their players want to see and willing to pay for per month (doesn't have to be your type of game but the player who play it want to see it like that).
The thing is i can't say that there is one right model. It depends what you prefer. However P2P is not failed. And F2P can work well when its done like Tera, where you aren't limited in what you can do gameplay wise. As Roleplayer i do prefer P2P cause often when a game goes F2P you see that RP servers get flooded with a lot of none rpers that really breaks the immersion when you see "sexyhotgirl" and "pwnstar45" running around who shout "RPers are derps" cause they won't get kicked anyway or just make a new account when theirs get banned. Yeah you got those players as well with P2P but a lot less.
It just gets tiresome when people say that P2P is old fashioned and failed cause of some games. It's the whole console vs pc thing all over again. One camp thinks their way of the playing is the only valid one and tries to enforce it on everything and shouts a game will fail cause it offers a sub and the gamepress is more then willing too shout this as well. The only reason a game will fail is if it fails to deliver worth the content to pay for each month. However its false to say if a game goes F2P after a few years that the P2P failed. We live in a age where a lot of MMO's come out each year. Meaning people got a lot to chose from and there for switch more easy then before. Managing to keep people interested in your game for 2 years now is the same as managing to keep people playing your games for 6 years in the past.
I have to say mmorpg.com really kisses Gw2's ass lol, the article doesn't really describe the depth of the content or the reason y games went f2p. Gw2 for instance the content is all story, and nothing but skins no challenge its just a grind. So thats in my b2p/f2p category its pretty boring, p2p games right now. WoW always releases content, people just getting tired of playing wow but it still has done what it needed. Sub games coming out FFXIV has promised lots of content, as well a huge amount of content on release it fixed mistakes that swtor/rift made. Wildstar alot of people are hyped for this game also going sub based has the challenge and the content. Elder scrolls, its elder scrolls with friends could be fun. all of these games don't pay wall me or entice me to pay cash shop fees, so i no the set amount i'm paying. with swtor i'm stuck behind a pay wall, rift/secret world/guildwars2 are all similar in cash shop models, could end up spending tons of money cause your inibitions low with meh content. Rift has done pretty good with content however, but secret world and guildwars2 not so much. games like guildwars 2 last people a couple months and most people get bored. Sub games never went away, just companies that have released their mmo's in past years have taken spot light nothing more. I'm gonna play ffxiv as my main mmo, but i look forward to playing elder scrolls and wildstar as well, mainly cause i can stop sub at anytime i want and don't have to be pay walled for something i want in the game!
Well if the games are good then a sub will work well for them.. if they turn out to be sub par run of the will seen it all before games then of course people will not want to pay for it..
We have just seen too many wow clones over the years that have course have failed and had to go f2p.. i mean why would people play a cheap copy of wow when you can play wow..
So hopefully the people behind these games have gone a different way.
Subs require resources ($) that keep the audience more at the working adult level, and less at the minor / kid level. It also slows the turnover so there is some hope of a community forming.
Many of us who play to relax after a hard day at work will pay to avoid the F2P cash grab ads in our face, and having what little free time we have ruined by immaturity and cursing.
Tbh, I can see EQ:N draining the players from WOW because:
1. It brings a ton of new ideas together that freshen up the game.
2. It does the same accessibly pattern.
3. Enough players eg ex-wow and other players play EQ:N, then it becomes the magnet mmo.
4. The pricing of F2P plus chip in what you want for doing what you want eg building cool stuff and breaking cool stuff! is going to be more expansive than just combat gameplay.
So F2P I think will work like a dream for SOE for EQ:N.
But for other mmopgs the story is entirely different. If they are just another mmorpg then F2P is the only realistic choice. If they have something different to offer, then they can go P2P. Quick summary - but indicates: Most mmorpgs are not worth playing. If P2P, then it needs to be much more sophisticated design.
Comments
Sorry, but except for maybe in game purchases, I am not interested in paying (too many other games to choose from that are not greedy)!
Scratch these games off the list of possibles...
Its probably smart of them to ask a box price with a sub, figuring most folks will play a second month, or at least forget to cancel before the second month comes around. They can always change the model after the second or third month. Perhaps a bit conspiracy theory, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if they were counting on people to forget not to renew, rather than actually having a game worth paying a subscription for.
On the other hand, I've been paying a monthly sub to Everquest the past three months, just to support a great old game.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I'm laughing at people thinking FFXIV will go F2P.
Wildstar, ESO - maybe.
FFXIV - not a chance.
They'd shut it down first. They don't do F2P. If FFXI is still holding on, FFXIV can retain a modest fanbase and be fine.
I cannot believe that any publisher would seriously expect to make the most profit with a subscription model in the long term these days. My guess is the aim is to squeeze as much money as possible from the gullible people willing to shell out for the game itself and a few months subs. Then a few months down the line when those people are drifting away, announce a switch to a B2P or F2P model to attract the masses. They're sure to have done the relevant programming during development so it will be a simple matter to switch.
It makes little difference to me anyway. I had no intention of playing any of these games regardless of payment model. The three games I'm looking forward to most are EQN, Archeage and The Repopulation and all of them are F2P from the start.
Ahhh, no... That's an extremely over-simplistic way to look at it.
Subs work if your game is interesting and engaging enough to a sufficient number of people to make it viable and sustainable.
It boggles the mind how many people (Mike Bittoni included in this article) base their views on oft-repeated concepts that sound great on the surface, but utterly fall apart upon any contact with critical thought.
It would take pages to take apart all of what I've seen in this thread up to Bachus' post - all the typical, most often repeated ones - but I'll just focus on his remark in particular, since I quoted his post...
People do not fit neatly into "categories". Every person is different. They have different interests, different tastes, different things they find important or unimportant. The games that are going to get their interest are the ones that hit the most "right marks" for them, personally.
For the most part, people are going to play games that they find entertaining and interesting to them. They're going to not stick with games that do little, or nothing, for them.
Plenty of people have tried numerous other themepark MMOs, which they found to be lacking or otherwise just plain "un-fun". Yet, they checked out ARR, and it just hit all the right marks for them. And there seems to be an awful lot of them. As long as there are enough of those people to meet SE's requirements, the game will do fine. Will be an "OMG Blockbuster hit"? Perhaps not, but then... if it doesn't have to be in order for SE to continue developing and supporting it, then what does it matter? If they settle at around 500k players and they're comfortable with that, then why should anyone else be squawking because "they didn't hit 1 million"?
The same goes for any other MMO out there. The same will go for TESO and Wildstar. If they're good enough games, to enough people, they will remain as such and continue. If they fail to entertain enough people, or can't keep up with the player churn... they may have to consider other options.
But of course, if that's the case, then it's a failure of the developer to make a game worthy of a subfee to enough people. It's not a failure of the revenue model.
A frequent argument I see is something along the lines of, "If a sub-based MMO game fails to maintain enough players to make subscriptions work... then it's a failure of the revenue model".
No, it's not.
That's like saying if a carriage's wheels fall off because the driver was steering the horses over broken terrain, that somehow it's the horses' fault. It's completely ass-backwards.
It's a failure of the driver to navigate over smoother ground, and it's the failure of the developers to produce a good enough game.
And, maybe it's just me, but arguing that a MMO that's not suited for a subscription is "better off going F2P"... well, that's not exactly what I'd call "praise for Cash Shops and Microtransactions. It's like MTs are getting the sloppy seconds, if you'll excuse the figure of speech.
If you can retain the pre-order, launch day crowd for close to 6 months, they'll be invested and will stick out the highs and the lows for years to come.
Just so I know I'm not making a clerical error, can you please break down those fees for me?
I have 2. $29.99 for the box which includes a month, so it'e really a bit more than half of that. And then $12.99/mo starting in Sept. Did I miss more fees?
RIFT, you can get every part of the game (except for cosmetics) from playing the game. You can buy RIFT cash using in game currency, so essentially, you can get everything in game from playing the game.
I have spent zero in 3 months playing RIFT f2p and will unlikely ever spend a dime
For me, it is that MMOs released lately (the past 6 years or so) have not been worth a subscription. They have all been based on the game theory of "Get to max level fast and grind." That's not what I look for in an MMO.
The question is, will FFXIV:ARR, Wildstar, and TES:O be worth a subscription fee?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
from what I have played, no way in hell
I have yet to play a game worthy of a subscription (which you are essentially renting the game).
But, let's revisit this topic in 2 years to see what happens.
Title of this article is misleading subscription model hasn't gone anywhere. All new games have launched this way (save GW series). These games transition to f2p after a number of years in subscription mode.
To say it's a 'return' is to imply that games have been launching with f2p models, but they haven't.
I can not believe that wild star is so dumb that they are going to
release the same time as elders scrolls online.
they don't care about the gamers onley in making a quick buck,
and time and time again it has shown that games with no sub.
make more money.please don't come with that stuped argument of world of warcraft
the onley reason it worked was cause their weren't any other mmo games to play then
and its parents paying the subscription fee every month cause the game looks harmless.
world of warcraft is not WOW -wow is when you describe something great.
Well thats just great !
However if ALL of us did that there wouldnt even be a game. So Im sorry your opinion isnt even a factor.
F2P games count on people (whales) spending far above $15 to cover for players like yourself (which is your every right) that dont pay a dime.
So yeah F2P sucks for alot of people. We contsantly get nickeld and dimed for what SHOULD be basic MMO features.
We would rather just pay $15 and get all the content we want...fair is fair.
Gw2 is free to play yes and the release version is great, but after that? Face it: it is not only free to play moneyvise but F2P from the biweekly offered content as well. I would gladly pay a sub and get real updates with solid content.
If subbed games deliver quality, I will gladly pay for it.
Let me break it down another way.
10 people play a P2P MMO, they all pay $15 = $150.
10 people play a F2P MMO, 7 of them never spend anything 3 of them end up paying $50 each. = $150
You simply CANT have all 10 people pay $0....then there wouldnt be a game.
Either way, the bills MUST BE PAID. For those 7 people, sounds like a great deal why wouldnt it !!! For the other 3 they pay way more than $15.
This is why we support P2P. $15 for EVERYTHING....or $50 for a COUPLE cash shop items....
Its a no brainer.
Close, but no cigar.
10 people play P2P MMO. Three of them play 20 hours a month, 4 of them play 80 hours a month, and the remaining 3 play 160 hours a month. They all pay $15, thus 70% of subscribers are subsidizing the play of 30% hardcore players that play 40+ hours a week, 160 hours a month.
100 people play f2p MMO, ten of whom pay $15 on average for the content they want; 4 of them might buy xpacs, 3 might buy vanity items, 3 might buy consumables. Then, on top of that, of the remaining 90 players, 10 might spend $10, another 10 might spend $5, and another 20 might spend $1. And yes, you would then have 50 players who pay nothing. But you're still making more money than P2P games. F2P models lower the barrier to entry, namely the subscription price point.
Your analysis ignores a fundamental underpinning of f2p financing. Volume of players. You can't just compare 10 players from one system with 10 players from another because the systems are fundamentally different. f2p relies on an increased volume of players, and from that increased volume, one achieves parity with p2p models (or exceeds it).
F2P is trash and the worst thing to happen to MMORPGs. It's more suitable to games like LOL where the only thing you can buy are skins extra champs. There's no pay to win there, no facilitated cheating, no buy your way thru the game. The most critical parts of LOL can only be had due to playing. No F2P MMORPG ever does F2P that cleanly, there is always some kind of pay 2 win, or immersion destroying cheeseball items from the store, or micro transactions, or cash barriers, or worse.
I'm glad to see sub-based being tried still but unfortunately the games doing it are iffy. I don't think sub-based is extinct, or that people don't want to play subs, but it's not realistic to expect people to pay subs for games that aren't worthy of a sub - that's been the problem with every MMO since WoW. When you emphasize solo ez-mode and don't provide stuff for people to actually do for years, it's not worth a sub. F2P ended up being more suitable to games for casuals, soloists, and people who have no reason to invest serious time in weak games.
FFXIV looks like it's going to be a dumber and more simplistic than usual WoW clone. All of the WoW clones have failed (to keep subscribers around or to remain sub-based) because of their design model of trying to be everything to everyone and not really being MMORPGs worthy of subs. When you emphasize solo ez mode to the point of basically having one part easy single player game and one part group-based endgame (with a dash of perpetually unbalanced, pointless, meaningless, unrelated PvP minigame because you HAVE to be everything to everyone), you aren't strong enough with anything. And you fail.
So unless Square has something pretty amazing up their sleeves or held back, I not only see FFXIV going the same route as SWTOR (the epitome of post WoW clone failures) but doing it even faster and more dramatically. Hype, big release, massive player loss a few months after due to the soloists and casuals quickly finishing the "single player campaign" and bailing and the game not having enough balls for serious players. I hope I'm wrong since I bought the game but that's the way I see this game so far.
TESO isn't even going to BE an MMORPG. It's a GW2 clone - massively single player online game. No structured grouping, they've announced they won't have some basic MMORPG features like AH, or boss type mobs. It's basically a skyrim expansion where there will be lots of soloists sharing servers (ala GW2).
Who actually wants this? As someone who loves Skyrim and MMORPGs it's not what I want. Skyrm isn't amazing to me for it's combat - it's amazing due to amazing content and immersion. I'd rather have closed personal servers ala Minecraft or Cubeworld for just me and a few friends to enjoy the usually deep and rich ES PvE. Why does TESO have PvP when PvP hasn't ever been a part of the series (oh yeah, gotta be everything to everybody).
How is a single player game that happens to be online and lacks core features that even GW2 as a nonMMORPG has going to be worth a sub? It may end up being an enjoyable game but not the kind of game you play obsessively for years because it will be severely lacking in meaningful multiplayer and content that builds friendships and community (things that inspire you to stick around). You also can't really have progression in such a game, and progression is another thing that keeps people around - chasing the carrot thru tough content that takes time and effort to master.
4-5 soloists who can do everything and are invulnerable sharing a chat channel and an instance simply is not very compelling (ala GW2). Soloing in online games is not all that interesting (compared to what you can do in say...SKYRIM). It will more likely be just another game in your stable of games that you play occasionally. Ie, not worth a sub. Nobody wants to pay a sub for a game they play sometimes. Subs are acceptable when you play so much that the entertainment value greatly exceeds the monthly cost. I just don't see TESO providing this and as much as people love Skyrim I don't see them throwing down $180/year for a bastardized version of it.
I haven't fully researched WildStar because it looked like a WoW clone when I first encountered it. A return of 40 man raiding is about as dumb as an idea as trying to build a game around FFA PvP (ala shadowbane - pure fail). 40 man is beyond niche. It was when bliz did it in vanilla WoW. It's even more extreme now with a huge field of both MMORPGs and tons of other online gaming options that weren't around in vanilla. Really silly idea. I love raiding, I hate 40 man, I don't see how in todays competitive for players online gaming massacre, that there will ever be enough guilds in one game to do enough 40 man to make it worth the dev effort. Bliz shifted away from 40 man in the most popular MMORPG ever for a reason - they were making complex content that took a lot of dev time that a very tiny percent of players ever got to experience. Ie, it was a stupid and inefficient type of content. So yeah, it's genius that someone is bringing it back.
The WildStar crew does have some interesting ideas and when I first read it was going to be sub-based with a box price I thought the game sounded even better - since F2P is gutter sludge. At this point I'd be happy to sub to any above average MMORPG that might result in an more old school style of game for years type of experience. WildStar might end up being that kind of game...except..
Then, I'm reading thru that release and they start talking about pricing and CREDD. CREDD is a system where losers can essentially buy in-game gold for cash from the company. WTF?Technically it's a 3 way exchange - you buy CREDD from company on top of your sub cost, you sell that in-game to a player for gold, that player can use the CREDD to pay their sub - so you basically pay for 2 subs but the ultimate end result is paying cash for gold. A $60 box, a 15/mo sub, AND the company is going to facilitate cheating for a few extra bucks? Facilitated cheating (providing game currency for cash like a RMT) is even worse than P2W and is usually associated with the absolute worst of F2P. WTF is that doing mixed in with a game that's going to have premium P2P pricing and supposedly have quality customer support.
Any game that provides built-in cheating is not worth a sub no matter what else the game has going on. In fact, for me, it makes it a clear no sale. No longer interested. This kind of thing is one of the things I grew to hate about GW2. It's also the reason Rift's otherwise very kind F2P implementation is a steaming pile of dog dookie. I have zero desire to be surrounded by blatant cheaters in online games. I've always felt like people who bought gold from RMT deserved to get hacked and should've had their accounted deleted, not restored after getting hacked. Play, earn your own way via your in-game actions, not your wallet, or go the hell away.
So basically, we have 3 games coming out that are going to be sub- based and none of them would appear to be worth a sub to me before they even freakin release.
Of the 3 FFXIV is the least obnoxious and the most normal (clone) and you *might* get a few months of subbing out of it before you feel like the game is over (ala every other clone failure). I'll sub to it for a few months since I don't mind paying for my gaming entertainment. I surely won't be doing more than a 3 month sub til Square "shows me the money" and proves the game is something more than a distraction designed for infants.
This all bothers me because I despise F2P for MMORPGs. It lowers the quality of the games and the players. If new games come out with subs and clearly aren't worth subbing, it will only make this crap worse and delay this stupid F2P fad from going away.
"Swotr's failure had nothing to do with it's sub cost, and everything to do with the game itself"
Exactly. Weak games aren't worth a sub.
The games that still have subs? The original MMORPGs. The oldies but goodies. Still chugging along. The WoW clones all emphasize solo and ez-mode. The classics were more challenging and all but demanded nonstop grouping. Which style of game retains subs and which ends up being F2P sewage? Yeah, WoW still has subs. WoW is a great game but in many ways bliz got lucky to release when online game kind of exploded and without a lot of competition. They snagged and retained a TON of first time online players. Nobody else is repeating that.
It doesn't really matter if your game has wider appeal and you sell tons of boxes when you can't retain subscribers and end up going F2P and being considered a failure. The classic MMORPGs never had the crazy numbers the more hyped newer MMORPGs hit, but, they also keep chugging along and didn't have to sell their souls to F2P to remain in service (I question whether some of these games actually NEED to go F2P but with corporate whoredom pulling the strings and demanding higher profits, and F2P being profitable, it happens).
So now, instead of going back to the origins of the genre - that never were bad and that still roll today - devs continue to either make post WoW clone failures or worse, they got GW2/TESO/(and probably EQN) and ditch the MM of MMORPG entirely and are instead single player games that are even more unsuited to subs.
I sigh.
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
Of the big AAA MMOs on the horizon over the next few years (EQN, WS, FFXIV, and ESO), two of the four are announced as subscription-based, while EverQuest Next (similar to all other SOE titles) will go F2P.
The Author of this piece forgot the biggest player of them all in that list: Star Citizen. (B2P/F2P) Not P2W
Simply put There is a place for Subscription models as its known that Free to play games arent really free. 90% of the F2P games have P2W cash shops, the other 10% of the F2P games are chinese based throw away games that they develop dime a dozen that typically only sell vanity items in their cash shops.
Now take into account the AAA titles that have come and failed and gone F2P, Startrek online, Rift, Age of Conan... the list goes on. It wasnt because the games failed, it was because the Developers failed the players. Bugs, glitches, poor content, screwy UI, in the case of Warhammer.. total catastrophe.... it happens. Hell When I got wind that Cryptic was developing Neverwinter I was so pissed because that could have been a AAA Title except it went to a shit ball Company like Cryptic.
I would have loved a Forgotten Realms based MMORPG.. I think it would have gone over well . However they screwed it up, filled it with instance based Bull and well lets just say if it werent for the foundry the game would have been a major bomb.
Now with Free to play games players spend alot more than they would by subscription. A lot more. So is Sub based games going away? I think not, they tend to be fewer in population and the ones that stay around serve the players decently.. until they are dumbed down.. but thats another story.
Played: UO, LotR, WoW, SWG, DDO, AoC, EVE, Warhammer, TF2, EQ2, SWTOR, TSW, CSS, KF, L4D, AoW, WoT
Playing: The Secret World until Citadel of Sorcery goes into Alpha testing.
Tired of: Linear quest games, dailies, and dumbed down games
Anticipating:Citadel of Sorcery
Its just like the game press saying "PC gaming is back from the death". The thing is many gamers and most of the game press don't really know how the business works anymore. They are focused on the most popular thing and not so much on the entire scene. Consoles where the hip thing to play on so everyone said pc gaming was dead or at least dying (something they been saying for 10 years but it never died anyway). The consoles entered their final stage with the next gen announced and suddenly you read everywhere "PC gaming is back" so apparently i played on something else then a pc for years. And you saw the game press as well preferring the consoles over the pc and doing their best to say how bad the pc was (lots of fake piracy stories and how poor the publishers are cause of all the piracy where the consoles get almost pirated as much after a research from a pc game magazine).
The same we see with sub based games. It is funny how even the game press go into the F2P hype and becomes blind to the facts.
- Just because F2P has more players doesn't mean it is a better concept. How many of those F2P gamers play the game actively for months compared with P2P games? Most F2P players leave the game within two weeks. Mostly just downloading it, start it up, play a hour or two and then leave again for good.
- Yes some major MMO's gona F2P after being P2P. However these games failed not because of the subs but because the games didn't provide. Dungeons and Dragons online went Free too play cause it was dying. Going F2P was their last resort to turn too cause for a sub the game didn't offer enough. SWToR was dying as well cause there had been made many promises that never made it into the game and wasn't the game many people had hoped for it would be (i played it till recently and always had a sub).
- Why do the F2P gamers think many games go F2P? Do they believe it's because the publishers care so much about the players that they offer it free so more people can enjoy their game? Let me ruin that amazing dream of you people. F2P is more expensive then a sub based game if you want the same game experience. Publisher wanna earn money, and lots of it. That F2P suddenly became popular had to do with it that it earned more money for the publishers cause a lot of people where willing to pay 2 -3 dollars for a item or even 10 dollars just to ride a freaking horse. That is 13 dollars already, 2 more and you had the horse for free and could wear any armor you liked when finding it in a sub based game. F2P is the most expensive if you want the same game experience. People can argue "yeah but i rather pay a few dollars for the stuff i want to access then having to pay 15 dollars and have stuff i don't play" but why would you not want the entire game unlocked for you if it only costs a few dollars more while you probably spend more then a sub fee per month on the stuff you really want.
- Why do people say P2P has failed. Many F2P games are in a much worse state with lesser players then P2P games. Also WoW is almost 10 years old and still got 8 million subs, 8 million paying subs. Most F2P games don't even reach the 5 million players who play the game regular. Same goes for Final Fantasy 11, also a old game and it still runs on subs and still has plenty of players. WoW and FF11 are examples why P2P works, cause they offer what their players want to see and willing to pay for per month (doesn't have to be your type of game but the player who play it want to see it like that).
The thing is i can't say that there is one right model. It depends what you prefer. However P2P is not failed. And F2P can work well when its done like Tera, where you aren't limited in what you can do gameplay wise. As Roleplayer i do prefer P2P cause often when a game goes F2P you see that RP servers get flooded with a lot of none rpers that really breaks the immersion when you see "sexyhotgirl" and "pwnstar45" running around who shout "RPers are derps" cause they won't get kicked anyway or just make a new account when theirs get banned. Yeah you got those players as well with P2P but a lot less.
It just gets tiresome when people say that P2P is old fashioned and failed cause of some games. It's the whole console vs pc thing all over again. One camp thinks their way of the playing is the only valid one and tries to enforce it on everything and shouts a game will fail cause it offers a sub and the gamepress is more then willing too shout this as well. The only reason a game will fail is if it fails to deliver worth the content to pay for each month. However its false to say if a game goes F2P after a few years that the P2P failed. We live in a age where a lot of MMO's come out each year. Meaning people got a lot to chose from and there for switch more easy then before. Managing to keep people interested in your game for 2 years now is the same as managing to keep people playing your games for 6 years in the past.
Well if the games are good then a sub will work well for them.. if they turn out to be sub par run of the will seen it all before games then of course people will not want to pay for it..
We have just seen too many wow clones over the years that have course have failed and had to go f2p.. i mean why would people play a cheap copy of wow when you can play wow..
So hopefully the people behind these games have gone a different way.
Subs require resources ($) that keep the audience more at the working adult level, and less at the minor / kid level. It also slows the turnover so there is some hope of a community forming.
Many of us who play to relax after a hard day at work will pay to avoid the F2P cash grab ads in our face, and having what little free time we have ruined by immaturity and cursing.
Tbh, I can see EQ:N draining the players from WOW because:
1. It brings a ton of new ideas together that freshen up the game.
2. It does the same accessibly pattern.
3. Enough players eg ex-wow and other players play EQ:N, then it becomes the magnet mmo.
4. The pricing of F2P plus chip in what you want for doing what you want eg building cool stuff and breaking cool stuff! is going to be more expansive than just combat gameplay.
So F2P I think will work like a dream for SOE for EQ:N.
But for other mmopgs the story is entirely different. If they are just another mmorpg then F2P is the only realistic choice. If they have something different to offer, then they can go P2P. Quick summary - but indicates: Most mmorpgs are not worth playing. If P2P, then it needs to be much more sophisticated design.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem