Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

[Dev Journal] General: Pathfinder Online’s Ryan Dancey Defends Elder Scrolls Online and Subscription

135678

Comments

  • Four0SixFour0Six Member UncommonPosts: 1,175

    First post back after my epic long ban, lesson learned (keep from posting when drunk)

     

    This is an awesome article. Why ? Economics.

     

    In super short: F2P MMOs are working of the idea that they can Perfectly Price Discriminate as a monopolist. If the subscription MMOs would adopt a more flexible approach to their subscription price (allow the market to determine the sub price)  both the consumers and the producers would be at a much more efficient result. In fact some consumers would actually get more than what they are willing to pay for a game experience. As opposed to the F2P monopolist getting all of surplus.

     

    Too bad to get the education you need to understand economics you need to attend post-secondary education. Fail on the part of educators for not teaching more of it earlier.

  • amber-ramber-r Member Posts: 323

    Subscription is simply a phase, once they exhaust it they swap to f2p.

     

    It's a great way to get a bit of the same apple twice.

  • ThomasN7ThomasN7 87.18.7.148Member CommonPosts: 6,690
    Well he can defend the game all he wants but from the current vibe we are getting ESO isn't even worthy of a subscription.
    30
  • jazneojazneo Member UncommonPosts: 52
    He can defend the p2p all he want but when people get bored and dont want to play anymore mostly like unsub from the game. that why p2p game are failing right now because they have no one will leave game still sub. when not playing it anymore 
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 24,429
    It is great to hear a defence of Subs by an article on this site. It is a shame we only get such a defence when an up and coming hyped to the sword hilt MMO is due to come out in a few months.
  • GravargGravarg Member UncommonPosts: 3,424
    I will never play a F2P game.  I've tried it over and over, and they're all the same.  Instead of spending time and resources on making content, they all seem to spend this on making cosmetic items to have players to spend money on.  On a subscription title, all they have to do is make good content.
     
    Edit: I'm also one of those people who will pay more than $15 a month on a "free" game for cosmetic items and boosters lol.  If you can't afford $15 a month, get a job :P
  • DoushiDoushi Member UncommonPosts: 96
    If ESO goes F2P, then I wont be playing it, F2P model kills games for me. I dont have that much of extra money in hand, but I gladly pay 15 dollars/13 euros sub in order to get higher quality content that isnt ruined by ingame shops. There isnt a single Dev team out there that I trust to make content for F2P model that isnt ruining the way the game is designed.

    mmorpg.com, the 4chan of mmo forums.

  • IDontThinkSoNoIDontThinkSoNo Member UncommonPosts: 57
    Pay walls keep the plebes out, let them tool around on Neverwinter and WoW.
  • TalulaRoseTalulaRose Member RarePosts: 1,247

    TSW still has a sub.

     

    Like most of the negative comments they have no basis in reality.

     

    Doesn't matter that these games that failed are still around with lots of players paying a sub the f2p crowd will just cover their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears while they tell you you are wrong and they are right.

  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    Originally posted by Gravarg
    I will never play a F2P game.  I've tried it over and over, and they're all the same.  Instead of spending time and resources on making content, they all seem to spend this on making cosmetic items to have players to spend money on.  On a subscription title, all they have to do is make good content.
     
    Edit: I'm also one of those people who will pay more than $15 a month on a "free" game for cosmetic items and boosters lol.  If you can't afford $15 a month, get a job :P

     

    I think that the comments like "I will never play an F2P." are a bit extreme. Take your favorite MMO, say WoW, and say it turns F2P. Will you still play it? Of course you will! Especially when you've already invested considerable time and money into the game. I've quit WoW like 3 separate times, for like a few months, but I go back for every single expansion and end up subscribing for a bunch of time again because how do you just not? If WoW went F2P it wouldn't discourage me in the least. If they still had a sub option I would still sub. If they didn't I'd probably end up paying $30 a month or $40 a month instead of the $15, just like you. 

     

    The issue is that even if you don't play, they won't care. Being that it's free, there is zero barrier to entry for new players. They can offer a level 90 "power up" for like $50 and people will pay it. They can offer unlocks, insta queues, or any other manner of thing to make your gaming life "easier", and they'd probably make double what they're making already, maybe more. 

     

    I gave the example earlier of Clash of Clans on mobile. It makes $2.5 million per DAY! PER DAY! In North America alone! Clearly it's P2W, I mean you can wait 10 hours for something to complete or buy to build it right now. Think of the number of barriers WoW uses to prevent people from progressing "too fast" like instance locks, queues, plus the new features coming in WoD and there are ample opportunities that WoW could use to monetize a 10 year old property to earn 3, 4, 5 times the amount they are already making. People would hate it, but they'd pay. Just fact. 

     

    Oh, and since the average core gamer in any free game pays more than a monthly subscriber, I'd argue that they probably DO have jobs. In fact, they may actually play some of these games so they can buy their way through barriers to entry that every single subscriber simply endures.

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • TalulaRoseTalulaRose Member RarePosts: 1,247
    Originally posted by jazneo
    He can defend the p2p all he want but when people get bored and dont want to play anymore mostly like unsub from the game. that why p2p game are failing right now because they have no one will leave game still sub. when not playing it anymore 
     

    Amazing how all these failed sub games are still around with people paying a sub. Stay ignorant bro.

  • fistormfistorm Member UncommonPosts: 868

    I think Lord of the Rings proves that subs are the way to go.

     

    You can have free play, but those customers, which I call the next generation of gamers do not want to pay for their games, they want them developed to their wants but do not want to pay a monthyy sub, nor do they pay anything to micro transactions or a sub wouldn't be a big deal to them

     

    Older gamers want subs, and they have cash, a lot of cash, and these are the people every game company should be creating the game for.   Most sub players spend mad money on microtransactions also.   When I played LOTRO I used to spend $75 a month on top of my $15 sub,  when the company stoped listening to me about Hunters I left the game to the FREE to play crowd to tell them how to develop their game.   But the fact remains SUB Players pay more revenue then any FREE TO PLAY person ever would.

     

    Far too often game companies listen to free to play players and ruin their game because no one who pays a sub wants what the next generation of FREE gamers want.  Companies should ignore everything FREE to play gamers want and only create what a sub customer wants.  These are the people who will spend the DOLLARS.

  • tharkthark Member UncommonPosts: 1,188

    I Think it's very important to Point out that many of these games with huge budgets like SWTOR and some others,  they are created and invested with the idea that they will retain subscribers  and sell initial boxsales/digital downloads. A pure FTP does NOT have a boxsale and sell you a client etc..The trend now seems to be to sell pioneer packs (neverwinter)

    There won't be any game that comes even Close to these budgets If it's going FTP on the get go, infact there is NOT many games created that started out as FTP at all.

    Best examples is ..

    Neverwinter

    Planetside 2

    and a whole plethora of asian/korean games.

     

    Somewhere inbetween this there is GW2 that ...Yeah ..has boxsales , but this is still more Money back for your investment than a FTP game.

     

    A real FTP game  will never come Close to the same quality as most of them pre subscription games.

     

    This is what bothers me, because it sets a standard and demand by players that a FTP game should be like SWTOR, LOTRO , AoC  , but there is simply no chance that we will see FTP games with as high quality as this ever.. There is ofcourse the middleground GW2 and even Neverwinter that sold pioneer packs to get back some of it's investments..

     

  • fistormfistorm Member UncommonPosts: 868

    I think Lord of the Rings proves that subs are the way to go.

     

    You can have free play, but those customers, which I call the next generation of gamers do not want to pay for their games, they want them developed to their wants but do not want to pay a monthyy sub, nor do they pay anything to micro transactions or a sub wouldn't be a big deal to them

     

    Older gamers want subs, and they have cash, a lot of cash, and these are the people every game company should be creating the game for.   Most sub players spend mad money on microtransactions also.   When I played LOTRO I used to spend $75 a month on top of my $15 sub,  when the company stoped listening to me about Hunters I left the game to the FREE to play crowd to tell them how to develop their game.   But the fact remains SUB Players pay more revenue then any FREE TO PLAY person ever would.

     

    Far too often game companies listen to free to play players and ruin their game because no one who pays a sub wants what the next generation of FREE gamers want.  Companies should ignore everything FREE to play gamers want and only create what a sub customer wants.  These are the people who will spend the DOLLARS.

  • PanzerbasePanzerbase Member Posts: 423
    After reading this piece I think the financial analysis is best left to the professionals, thanks for the opinion though.
  • SpottyGekkoSpottyGekko Member EpicPosts: 6,916
    Originally posted by CrazKanuk

    ...

     

    I just pray every day that we don't see more aggressive monetization strategies like with mobile games, "Would you like to be placed at the front of the Raid Finder queue? $0.99" or "Would you like to unlock this Raid for another run this week? $1.99". Don't kid yourself, I just gave WoW a billion dollar idea right there :) It's coming. 

     I'm afraid "that day" has already arrived in MMO land !

     

    There are already F2P MMO's that will allow you to buy extra dungeon run slots per week or reset/shorten your lockout timers. It is inevitable that the most "successful" monetization schemes from mobile games will find their way into ALL online games. And as more and more games become "internet-connection required", it means that one day soon you'll be able to accelerate your unit building research in that game of StarCraft by making a small online purchase of a "research booster"... image

  • DocBrodyDocBrody Member UncommonPosts: 1,926
    What a shame,Age of Conan and Secret World should have ten times the player numbers. Funcom marketing sucks but their games are simply the best
  • rodarinrodarin Member EpicPosts: 2,611

    LMAO, hard to take the column seriously when you have more people in LOTRO paying subs than actually play the game.

     

    A lot about free to play is also completely misconstrued.

     

    All the F2P games prove it. F2P does not invite 'kids' and griefers, ruin the community, or any of that. There is a SHORT term influx of 'negative' types but if the game sucked when it was pay to play it is going to suck when it is free to play. Or even if it doesnt suck, if people dont like it they wont play it even if it is free.

     

    GW2, is free (Buy to Play) there isnt an over abundance of asshats in that game. Lotro, that game is dead beyond the lifetime people who paid 199  7 years ago and get paid to have the game. RIFT, probably the best game going now isnt full of people either even though it is free now. EVE is also free for anyone who puts any tie into it. Buy PLEX play for free. AOC F2P, ghost town, Vanguard F2P ghost town. SWOTOR, F2P decent PvP but PvE leaves a lot to be desired.

     

    ESO will have people playing it because it is NEW, thats it. Whether people stay or not will depend on a few things, but when there is a sub attached that is the most important factor. This game doesnt offer half of what RIFT offers. And RIFT is free. Does that mean RIFT is 'better'? Maybe maybe not. But not enough people like/love it enough to support a sub model. The features it has blows ESO away and it isnt even close. But  I suspect they make more on fluff and cosmetic sales than they did on what few subs it had (and I subbed tot hat game off and on over the years).

     

    A GREAT next gen game with all the stuff free to play games have and more, which include but arent limited to...housing, mounted combat, economy, PvP, max level content (and a lot of it that is actually changing/dynamic), extensive and specialized crafting system, character flexibility, random open world encounters (be it rare mobs, random loot chests, random NPCs with unique quests etc) actual exploration and incentives to explore. THEN it might be worth a subscription price.

     

    But ESO doesnt have half that stuff. It doesnt even have the basics like an Auction House. Which some think will make it unique but I doubt it. Also a multiple guild system? Where you can join (I think) 5 guilds? Gimmick and GW2 already has it, so that isnt even unique either. ESO looks like a poor mans version of alot of games. They think they have taken the best features from those games and put them into ESO.

     

    The MAJOR problem with that is they already HAD an awesome franchise. Why rip off shit from other games? Its stupid. While they couldnt make Skyrim online, they certainly could have made something that resembled Skyrim rather than this mess they have created.

     

    Hey Skyrim online or a reasonable facsimile with the whole of Tamriel rendered that way with the exploration, random encounters, roaming mobs, housing (although I would want a better housing system in the online game), sprinkle in some open world co-ops or just upgrade the dragons to represent co-op fights or whatever and go to town. Then I might think about paying a sub.

     

    Final think..this whole idea of 'quality'. Other than RIFT what game gives free updates and offers all this so called quality when it charges a sub? Rift has done more since they went F2P than they did when they were sub based. So has AOC, but not enough people play that game to matter. Lotro? They have about the same schedule as when they were sub and they are now that hey are F2P. But that game has taken a major turn, but only because theyre looking to get to the lowest common denominator on the themepark ride. Original portion of the game is still awesome. But the stuff they have added the past few years you can see major downgrades. But that also have a lot to do with who bought them and the lack of money getting put back into the game. GW2 is But to play and they have so much random content thrown around it is sick. I dont play it a lot now but hey definitely have developing content and they send out emails consistently making people aware of it.

     

    So while it is difficult to start comparing and contrasting what games do what and when, it is very safe to say that thinking games are so much better when theyre sub based is a horrible misconception.

     

    They have copied a lot of games with ESO. All they really needed to do was copy their own game (Skyrim), mix in some MMOs elements, and then copy GW2s content schedule.

     

    Tie will tell but my (and a lot of other peoples) predictions is this game will be at least Buy 2 play if not full on free to play in less than a year. The fact they already have a store is the most obvious evidence. Once they fill that with all the generic cosmetics and random boosts and whatnot every other free to play game has and they figure out a currency system for it it will be game on. But they will milk the hardcore supporters of the game for as long and as much as they can. But in the end this game just isnt good enough to be a sub game.

     

    It might be some day but by then the masses will have left and youll be in a game with not a lot of people just like all the other free to play games out there. mega server is also irrelevant because RIFT has cross server/shard technology and even with that populations are spread out all over the place so even with all the toons at a certain level from all the servers available it isnt like there are thousands of people showing up. You can see a couple hundred here and there but still not massive enough and certainly not any types of numbers a game looking to sell 3 million copies of will want to see with a single server set up.

     

    This weekend will open a lot of eyes I am sure as more and more people get to see the game as it is. I also suspect that the feedback given in the forums will go along way in determining if there will be an open beta or not. Or if they opt for a pre order head start type scenario.

  • Kevyne-ShandrisKevyne-Shandris Member UncommonPosts: 2,077

    All this "exclude" WoW says one thing: subscriptions can and does work.

    The hype is more about publishers getting more money and they have a vested interest hyping the interest in F2P. But in the end, when you include WoW, it shows it can and does work and still profitable.

  • dirtyjoe78dirtyjoe78 Member Posts: 400
    I love the argument of "if you remove WoW" yes if you ignore the most successful one it changes the numbers.  If anything WoW is a great example of if you make a good game people will pay and play.  You can disagree all you want with WoW being a good game but the numbers don't lie it is evidently a game a lot of people play and enjoy.  The games that have come out in the last 8 to 10 years have been lackluster to say the least.  Personally i prefer a monthly subscription just let me set up a sub and give me the game and leave me alone so i can enjoy it.  My biggest problem with MTX is it usually leads to designing the game around tasking that pushes you towards the cash shop instead of concentrating on making an enjoyable game. 
  • DauzqulDauzqul Member RarePosts: 1,982
    I don't mind subscription, so long as there are absolutely NO microtransactions. If a game uses both methods, I will not play it.
  • dreadlordnafdreadlordnaf Member UncommonPosts: 88

    Let's keep it real, most people who fanatically hate f2p games that operate on microtransactions simply dont have  a real job and/or a family.  I have both and frankly I dont have the time I had anymore as a college kid to run back every 10 mins to drop items in my bank or sell them on the AH in the MMO I am playing, or grind for 8 hours a day for levels etc.  So I am willing to drop 5 to 15 bucks here and there for backpack inventory upgrades, consumables that let me quickly teleport here and there,  and minor xp boosts etc.  They make my playing time more valuable for me while also bringing in money to the game developer money to support a game I like, while enabling them to continue to allow access to free players who dont want to spend like me, but have more time to make up for it.    

     

    F2p/hybrid microtransactions are just classic econ 101 price discrimination methods, nothing else.  Its a tried and true reasonable method to maximize revenues.  It's the same reason there are senior citizen discounts at restaurants, or mid-day matinee discounts at the movies or student discounts on microsoft office.. Some groups will be able to pay more, others less, so why not cater to this and give each what they want?

     

    That said, I do think ESO might be a trainwreck but not because of the sub model.  But because most people I know still think ESO is going to be "Skyrim-online" with all the open worldness and sandbox play that this implies.  From what I have read about ESO though this isnt going to be the case and fans are going to be wildly dissapointed.

  • Agent_JosephAgent_Joseph Member UncommonPosts: 1,361
    I am ok with montly sub , but not with bad product.
  • koboldfodderkoboldfodder Member UncommonPosts: 447

    There are way too many MMOS out there VS people that actually play the games.  That is why they have to be F2P games.  Twelve years ago, you could easily buy and sub to all the games out there because there were only a small handful.  But now, with over 300 MMOs out there that you can play or will be released soon, you are talking thousands upon thousands of dollars that people just do not have to spend on all those games hoping they pick the right one.

     

    If a game is good, people will subscribe.  That is why WOW is still king.  It is an excellent game, no need to play one of the hundreds of WOW clones when you can play WOW.

     

    ESO is not worthy of a subscription.  That is the truth.  Unless dramatic changes happen in the gameplay, it is what it is....a 50 level themepark gear grind where the end game is instances and a closed off PVP area.  Lots of games out there do exactly that.

     

    They may not want to F2P ESO, but they will have to and sooner rather than later.  The game just is not that good.

  • kilunkilun Member UncommonPosts: 829
    Originally posted by DocBrody
    What a shame,Age of Conan and Secret World should have ten times the player numbers. Funcom marketing sucks but their games are simply the best

    Age of Conan suffered greatly from lack or raiding, BRC wing 2 wasn't able to be completed until nearly a year after launch.  Not to mention its initial havoc on PCs.  That is the thing about Funcom, they push the technology standard way above the average MMO players rig, so that many jump over, realise it looks and/or runs like crap on their rig compared to what screenshots/videos they have watched and go back to wherever they came from.

     

    As for the article, I am wondering why you included Penguin Club here?  Is it to show that many subs from children's stuff done right is indeed the most profitable for a 3-4 year span?

    I think many already know that who have children, market it to the children and parents buy it once the who hysteria sets in and kids want it (well not all parents obviously, I have yet to give into a trend other than Legos.  But I like Legos too, not to mention I wouldn't call them a trend.)

    As for sub fees, many many many MMO players want a sub model.  I prefer it to anything else.  As others have stated I don't want to be spend 2 here, 5 here, and 3 there.  I want a standard sub and if need be include a cash shop for those that want that 60% mount at level 10 instead of 30 and those spiffy looking outfits that show you bought them.

    The cash shop model in an MMO has been a negative for me, I won't play it if there is no sub model.  We got games selling locks and stuff to open boxes and stuff really?  That is what we get if we go pure MTX.  Everything looted has to be purchased.  Screw that.

Sign In or Register to comment.