When a game is good enough people will pay for a subscription,
what is a good game? depends on who you ask. But imo it needs to have some serieus longlivity. and im not talking about replayability. not everyone is an altoholic.
When a game isn't good enough, people won't play it all, it won't matter what the revenue model is. If it is good enough, and there is content they haven't played yet, many will sub. Until they run out of content. Then most will stop paying a sub, no matter how high the quality of the content they already played was. Those same players, if offered a free option, will check back on the progress of the game far more often than they would if they have to pay fifteen dollars every time they want to take a peek.
As i said the game needs to have some serious longlivity.
being able to clear it in 2 months =/= longlivity. because there is not point in staying further.
If suits want to keep using the sub model. they will need a Longer lasting game. And community is a factor in that. community will keep you checking in. the current solo-nature of mmo's does not. Basicly reverting back to what MMO's where instead of what they became.
But this also holds true for the F2P model. If a game isn't keeping me interested I am not going to log in. Whether or not I am paying has little to do with whether or not I am entertained.
If we are going back to what MMOs were, WoW was for the most part a solo MMO in their first year and they reached 6 million subs in that year. In vanilla only a very small percentage of players participated in instanced content at cap. But it was a social MMO, people talked to and helped each other. Guilds were almost a requirement if you wanted to do instanced content. PUGs were doable but you needed a lot of time to get one together. The big question is how do you get players back to being social and helpful to each other?
making content difficult. Limit solo content tremendously (soloists can have their place but it should be less rewarding then grouping and the time taken to get o endgame is longer by being difficult) actually lets remove the endgame tought train. and focus on the journey in wich you make friends because you somewhat need eachother.
its not forced grouping. you can still solo. not advisable tho.
its gonna be another 5+ years tho before we get MMO's with this mechanics.
I would love a game like this. The thing is, in vanilla WoW it wasn't really difficult to solo, you just couldn't face pull everything and expect to live. You had to be aware of your surroundings. I think a balance needs to be struck with difficulty. You can't make it too frustrating for solo players, but you have to teach them that you need to pay attention and take your time if you want to live. Being in a group increases your chance at survival and increases the rate at which you can get through an area. Really where I think WoW screwed the pooch was they almost discourage grouping by making grouping less rewarding, placing artificial limits on group size, having queued for content with random people.
If they make the same mistake so many others have made over the last ~10 years - creating a game that people can race to level cap within 1-2 weeks and by the end of the first month - and are left wondering "Okay, so now what?" before the first sub payment comes due... no, they won't work out.
MMOs with a subscription revenue model can not work with that kind of design. They must be built for the long-term. They must keep people playing the game from month to month, not just day to day or week to week.
Cash Shop MMOs can get away with the faster pacing because they also happen to sell items in their cash shop that help faciliate that... and so they make their money.
A subscription-based game has got to focus on the long-term, and designing a game that can be "finished" - by even the hardcore - inside the first month or even first 3 months.. is just not going to work. Building a MMO with quick-burn content, and then implementing a "slow-burn" type of revenue model is just ridiculous. It's just shooting yourself in the foot.
If you want to see what makes a game last for years, look at the 1st and 2nd gen MMOs. Some are running for almost a decade - or more - and still have active paying player-bases. Look at what they did. Their content was built around long-term progression. And I don't just mean "long-term grinds". I mean goals that players would have to play and work toward for months..
They also have to do better in terms of building and nurturing community. Less "Me", more "We". I'm not talking "the people in your guild". I'm talking giving people a reason to interact, to socialize, to get involved. One way is to take off the training wheels and stop feeling compelled to spell every damn thing in the game out. Let the players solve things. Let the players figure things out, theory-craft and so-forth. An awesome meta situation builds around that, as guides go up, forums, and such... A MMO that builds and nurtures a strong, healthy and vibrant community remains strong and healthy far longer than one that treats everyone like a lone-wolf, which actually works against it.
All the new games coming out with their subscription models make me wonder if it's not just part of a new business strategy.
1) Take advantage of the new hype by selling a box and a subscription.
2) When subs drop beyond a certain threshold switch to a F2P-optional subscription hybrid system.
3) ????
4) Profit all the way.
Ding ding ding.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
All the new games coming out with their subscription models make me wonder if it's not just part of a new business strategy.
1) Take advantage of the new hype by selling a box and a subscription.
2) When subs drop beyond a certain threshold switch to a F2P-optional subscription hybrid system.
3) ????
4) Profit all the way.
Pretty much (unfortunately)...I prefer sub but will play anything that I enjoy regardless of payment model. I'd probably pay $50 a month if the game was engaging enough. Games won't succeed or fail because they are sub or F2P. That's just a fiction stirred up by some around here and other forums.
Neither ESO or Wildstar is really a game I forsee myself playing long-term and I'm tired of subbing to a game for one month just to see if it's good although I still might do that with ESO. I do think games that want a $60 box price at launch + a sub have a higher burden of quality than they used to to justify that at least with me.
No one has really answered the questions he asked in the article:
1. If anyone truly believes NCsoft's offering can reach and sustain a player population in the seven digits, or even the mid- to high six digits, I'm keen to see why in the comments.
2. What's more, even if both do well, another question remains. How much would their combined success alter the market balance that currently exists between subscription and F2P? In this respect, taking gamers away from WoW or any other sub-based titles makes no difference. For it to change significantly, the two games would have to pull in substantial numbers of non-MMOG players and/or convert a lot who now choose F2Ps.
Honestly, this is one of the flaws I see with their choice. Unless they can drag numbers from an existing mmo where are their subscribers coming from? How many different game subscriptions is one person going to support? For how long?
To answer the original question posed in the article that he answers in the last paragraph: I think subscriptions will truly prosper in 2014 in two cases, the first being smaller niche games, and the second being the approach SoE is using with their "All Access" pass. However, only the first truly applies to sub-locked games. The second is that subscriptions could become more popular in subscription-optional games/publishers that offer benefits for more than one game.
The first question itself is flawed in that it presumes a game has to see seven digit populations to prosper. Frankly it comes off as another Wildstar troll post. That said I don't think Wildstar will have trouble hitting 1 million subs. That is simply because I have played the game and it is the first time in a long time that I have played any game that felt like it had that magical special sauce that WoW used to have. The developers seem to have built the game from the ground up for fast updates. The developers have put out a lot of information on the game, and they seem to have considered a lot of the things that often cause MMOs to fail.
Concerning the second question, it doesn't necessarily have to alter the market much at all. Many people play more than one game, especially if we are talking about shallow F2P games that don't hold your interest for long. A game doesn't have to pull subs from an existing game, they can play more than one game. Also let us consider that over 100 million players have played WoW at one time or another. That is a fairly large number of players to draw on.
I think the "All access" approach is good for SoE because they have a large number of crap games that people wouldn't pay a sub for individually. It allows them to provide value with quantity instead of the quality they are lacking. I don't think it is a great approach for most companies as they generally don't have the same quantity of games to draw on. On the other hand I think a sub for one quality game can easily compete with "All access". It simply comes down to quality vs. quantity.
The reason I see a subscription based MMO not working out nowadays is because a lot of games have adopted the WoW style "release content that only takes a little time to devour and then expect people to quit until you release new content" ideal. People won't continue paying $15 a month if content isn't going to last them, they will stop paying monthly as soon as they run out of stuff to do that they deem worth paying for.
That is why I feel like the idea of F2P/B2P in recent MMOs works, because that is how MMOs nowadays tend to be structured, and frankly, that's generally how the MMO audience tends to be as well. I hope Wildstar's reasoning for wanting to be a subscription based game (in order to release more and better content) is true, and they actually live up to that, I'm tired of playing MMOs that are not the time sinks they once used to be and just feel like a waste of my money every month for a few hours of game play every week or so (due to lockouts and such).
I have a lot of free time, and in my free time I'd like to use it playing a game, but it seems like MMOs nowadays just don't have enough to offer to me for how much free time I have, there's always a brick wall in my way. It seems like the MMO audience nowadays doesn't have enough time to actually play a MMO (although I would argue what's their rush?), and so companies have to change the game to revolve around them. And then people who just want a fun time sink with friends are SOL.
No one has really answered the questions he asked in the article:
1. If anyone truly believes NCsoft's offering can reach and sustain a player population in the seven digits, or even the mid- to high six digits, I'm keen to see why in the comments.
2. What's more, even if both do well, another question remains. How much would their combined success alter the market balance that currently exists between subscription and F2P? In this respect, taking gamers away from WoW or any other sub-based titles makes no difference. For it to change significantly, the two games would have to pull in substantial numbers of non-MMOG players and/or convert a lot who now choose F2Ps.
Honestly, this is one of the flaws I see with their choice. Unless they can drag numbers from an existing mmo where are their subscribers coming from? How many different game subscriptions is one person going to support? For how long?
To answer the original question posed in the article that he answers in the last paragraph: I think subscriptions will truly prosper in 2014 in two cases, the first being smaller niche games, and the second being the approach SoE is using with their "All Access" pass. However, only the first truly applies to sub-locked games. The second is that subscriptions could become more popular in subscription-optional games/publishers that offer benefits for more than one game.
The first question itself is flawed in that it presumes a game has to see seven digit populations to prosper. Frankly it comes off as another Wildstar troll post. That said I don't think Wildstar will have trouble hitting 1 million subs. That is simply because I have played the game and it is the first time in a long time that I have played any game that felt like it had that magical special sauce that WoW used to have. The developers seem to have built the game from the ground up for fast updates. The developers have put out a lot of information on the game, and they seem to have considered a lot of the things that often cause MMOs to fail.
Concerning the second question, it doesn't necessarily have to alter the market much at all. Many people play more than one game, especially if we are talking about shallow F2P games that don't hold your interest for long. A game doesn't have to pull subs from an existing game, they can play more than one game. Also let us consider that over 100 million players have played WoW at one time or another. That is a fairly large number of players to draw on.
I think the "All access" approach is good for SoE because they have a large number of crap games that people wouldn't pay a sub for individually. It allows them to provide value with quantity instead of the quality they are lacking. I don't think it is a great approach for most companies as they generally don't have the same quantity of games to draw on. On the other hand I think a sub for one quality game can easily compete with "All access". It simply comes down to quality vs. quantity.
That's a lot of words just to say that you couldn't answer the questions either.
Too many words to actually read? I gave my opinion why Wildstar will be fine. The only way to answer the question is with a subjective opinion unless you can see the future or time travel. That said it is pretty clear the OP was trolling.
Originally posted by MysteryB NCsoft shut down 2 of my favorite games, I will never give them another dime.
As they say, all good things must end. The other way to look at it is that NCSoft funded and developed two of your favorite games and provided years of entertainment for you.
Perhaps, but I get where he's coming from. Many of us still believe (with some evidence) that City of Heroes was still profitable and NCSoft shut it down to help hide how much Guild Wars 2 was really costing them. I'm not saying it's true but there's there's enough proof out there to keep the thought alive.
The only thing that would keep me away from Wildstar is the fact NCSoft is the publisher. I think the game itself has potential as a place where I can game for years and enjoy myself. If people want to stay away because of the game's publisher, I won't blame them.
No one has really answered the questions he asked in the article:
1. If anyone truly believes NCsoft's offering can reach and sustain a player population in the seven digits, or even the mid- to high six digits, I'm keen to see why in the comments.
Honestly, this is one of the flaws I see with their choice. Unless they can drag numbers from an existing mmo where are their subscribers coming from? How many different game subscriptions is one person going to support? For how long?
To answer the original question posed in the article that he answers in the last paragraph: I think subscriptions will truly prosper in 2014 in two cases, the first being smaller niche games, and the second being the approach SoE is using with their "All Access" pass. However, only the first truly applies to sub-locked games. The second is that subscriptions could become more popular in subscription-optional games/publishers that offer benefits for more than one game.
Speaking just for myself if I buy Wildstar I would give up the ftp games on Perfect World (Neverwinter and Star Trek). Both have gotten a bit stale and I'm sick of the ways they try to get money out of you. I reached max level way too quickly for my tastes and I only play Neverwinter now because you get a reward for signing in daily and some busy work that's a distraction. It's not as much fun anymore and Wildstar seems to remember that games are about having fun.
but i do believe a balance is coming. american's are not used to paying for bandwidth, they pay for cable service as a package. most do not buy minutes for their phone, they purchase a comprehensive plan that covers their needs.
this is an overall aspect of american consumer purchasing. first, there will always be options to 'purchase minutes', ie., to pay as you go a la carte. however, the predominant model for purchasing in the US is the comprehensive plan.
this is convenience for consumers here. i believe that most americans can be wearied by the constant trickle being extracted every time they turn a corner. this is one of the benefits of Rift's implementation: it provides convenience w/o requiring you to pay at every gameplay crossroad.
but this neither means the end of f2p, nor that subs will overwhelm f2p games. rather that the convenience of the sub model is beginning to exert itself.
i personally believe that many of the american complaints about this or that company's f2p model, attacked as 'greedy', is actually a reaction against the inconvenience of having to constantly flip a cash shop 'switch' in order to proceed further into the game.
thus saith the aspekx.
"There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite, the other infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play." Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
Subscription still exist, and will exist as long as new mmo's start to make their own business model that require a monthly fee. World of Warcraft, Wildstar, Elder Scrolls Online, Pathfinder Online and other games that i miss still require a subscription fee, however there still lots of games that are F2P with the optional choice of Subscription fees to get access to better content and gain better benefits then the avarage user.
Lol, where have you been since 2004, WOW like every year is still the leading mmo and it's sub based.
A sub based mmo is leading the way, like it or not people will still pay a sub if the game is up to scratch.
One game does not establish a pattern. New games do not manage to support high numbers of subs long term. It just doesn't happen, and it isn't because every single game that isn't WoW somehow "sucks." WoW is a fluke which was only possible because of the condition of the market at the time it launched. The market has changed. Hybrid models are the norm now, and every piece of available data suggests that will remain the case for the forseeable future.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
If you have a great game P2P works, if not then just F2P it.
People love to say this, but the available evidence is inconsistent with this theory. Many of the games which have added free options are at the very least good games, and depending on your tastes, some of them could even be considered great games. The only major (Eve is niche) game that is more than a few months old for which relying solely on subscriptions still "works" is WoW. A game which is, by definition, abnormal.
(Normal is a relative term. When nine games fit the same pattern, and one game does not fit that pattern, the exception isn't the "normal" game that you compare new products to, it is the outlier that you ignore.)
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Lol i can't figure out why so many is bashing ESO, saying it has no content, is not innuative etc.
It has an innuative crafting system. Craft anything, at anylvl with any look and any stat without having to overgrind your way in crafting (with some limitations). And not to say the special crafting skills u can apply...
Use any piece of armor, any type of weapon.
If you follow crafting, and explore, quest, do all dungeons and open public dungeons. Its takes around 50-60 hours to do the beginner zone alone. You dont even have to quest, u can reach 1-15 in beginner zone alone by doing the exploration, outdoor bosses etc.
The way skills work is a blessing, dont wanna stick to the usually class specified skill, well hell, join a guild and mnix with those, use racial, and all the other trees which can be unlocked.
Why do damage numbers have to be in K's.. uwee i did a 45k critical when it in the end means the same.
Landscaping. wow, see the world changing without having to load all the time.. Amazing.
Dungeons.. So wonderfull, now i can play a dungeon without having to trash my way through so much trash that a 1 hour run 10 minutes is bosses rest is trash.
No more spamming 1 2 3 4 5, most of the time its positioning and use left mouse button attacks.
And the P2P model makes it so we can espect new content every month or two.
If this game was F2P i wouldnt bother. Cause i know that the P2P have been proving more beneficial in the end for any game that could deliver what remotely reminds of a quality game with replayability. And therefor P2P tend to give more content over a span of time than F2P games do.
Wildstar actually is doesnt bring anything new other than ground warning from normal mods and a PROMISE to give the game a noend feeling.. It's a promise, well politicians promise stuff all the time without delivering.
I will try both, but the graphics in wildstar turns me off and ill probraly stay with ESO and gladly pay the P2P i now have 2 beta sessions in ESO and i still can't wait.
I already have over 25 mmo's behind me, and since the beginning of WoW and EQ yes i started in wow, and it was fun untill the 2nd expansion. But as i said, after that i tried and tried and never found an MMo i could play longer than a week or two, it was simply not new enough, I finally found a calling in ESO, and i actually feel i finally have found a game i can play for over a month Not enough content? it has 3 times the content that wow had when it was launched.
Lol, where have you been since 2004, WOW like every year is still the leading mmo and it's sub based.
A sub based mmo is leading the way, like it or not people will still pay a sub if the game is up to scratch.
One game does not establish a pattern. New games do not manage to support high numbers of subs long term. It just doesn't happen, and it isn't because every single game that isn't WoW somehow "sucks." WoW is a fluke which was only possible because of the condition of the market at the time it launched. The market has changed. Hybrid models are the norm now, and every piece of available data suggests that will remain the case for the forseeable future.
Big load of nonsense if you ask me. People sub to a lot of games. Lotro, Swtor, Rift, etc. They could play them free, but the still sub. Get your head out of the sand and look around. People who ignore the obvious don't hold much weight around here. A subscription is still a legitimate funding mechanism, especially for new games. Now whether they can keep that up remains in the developer's hands to provide continued adequate gameplay
If a 10 year old game can do it, any game can do it!
But why mmorpg.com has to bring up this again? All we gonna see is f2p vs subcription and comments about how subscription is so 1990s ...
/threat
Because this is an ongoing dvelopment and it won't be put to rest till it comes to its conclusion.
Anyways, back to topic. Will P2P prosper? i doubt it but it will continue to exist in minority.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.' -Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid." -Luke McKinney
Lol, where have you been since 2004, WOW like every year is still the leading mmo and it's sub based.
A sub based mmo is leading the way, like it or not people will still pay a sub if the game is up to scratch.
One game does not establish a pattern. New games do not manage to support high numbers of subs long term. It just doesn't happen, and it isn't because every single game that isn't WoW somehow "sucks." WoW is a fluke which was only possible because of the condition of the market at the time it launched. The market has changed. Hybrid models are the norm now, and every piece of available data suggests that will remain the case for the forseeable future.
Big load of nonsense if you ask me. People sub to a lot of games. Lotro, Swtor, Rift, etc. They could play them free, but the still sub. Get your head out of the sand and look around. People who ignore the obvious don't hold much weight around here. A subscription is still a legitimate funding mechanism, especially for new games. Now whether they can keep that up remains in the developer's hands to provide continued adequate gameplay
If a 10 year old game can do it, any game can do it!
Also add FF XIV;ARR to that list, not to mention the still P2P FF XI which has been around for near enough a decade too, or how about CCP's Eve Online, also P2P for a decade or more, it really is a case of, the best games are either P2P or a P2P/F2P hybrid, that seems to be the most successful financial model, even B2P, is struggling, GW2 and Arenanet have seen a decline in numbers and falling profits. If a game is good enough, then people pay, its probably the biggest indication of a successful game there is.
Lol, where have you been since 2004, WOW like every year is still the leading mmo and it's sub based.
A sub based mmo is leading the way, like it or not people will still pay a sub if the game is up to scratch.
One game does not establish a pattern. New games do not manage to support high numbers of subs long term. It just doesn't happen, and it isn't because every single game that isn't WoW somehow "sucks." WoW is a fluke which was only possible because of the condition of the market at the time it launched. The market has changed. Hybrid models are the norm now, and every piece of available data suggests that will remain the case for the forseeable future.
Big load of nonsense if you ask me. People sub to a lot of games. Lotro, Swtor, Rift, etc. They could play them free, but the still sub. Get your head out of the sand and look around. People who ignore the obvious don't hold much weight around here. A subscription is still a legitimate funding mechanism, especially for new games. Now whether they can keep that up remains in the developer's hands to provide continued adequate gameplay
If a 10 year old game can do it, any game can do it!
Also add FF XIV;ARR to that list, not to mention the still P2P FF XI which has been around for near enough a decade too, or how about CCP's Eve Online, also P2P for a decade or more, it really is a case of, the best games are either P2P or a P2P/F2P hybrid, that seems to be the most successful financial model, even B2P, is struggling, GW2 and Arenanet have seen a decline in numbers and falling profits. If a game is good enough, then people pay, its probably the biggest indication of a successful game there is.
People forget that EVE is one of its kind and has no competition. Where as themepark MMOS are a different story.
I bet if more MMOS were made following EVE's success it would be a different story.
Moreover EVE isn't a pure P2P MMO since there is option to play for free by using in game resources.
FFXIV ARR is not funded by investors so it can manage to stay in business on itw own terms. But how many MMO creators you know who have deep pockets like SE?
So there are lots of points here to be noted and this is not just as simple as saying 'EVE and FFXIV did it so others can too'.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.' -Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid." -Luke McKinney
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the problem with the subscription model is that it doesn't scale. As mentioned earlier, subscription fees haven't increased over time with inflation, so we're actually paying less, plus we're expecting more, plus how many people WILL actually subscribe to a game? Plus, how many people will subscribe to multiple games, or leave their current game for a new one? So, basically, your only way to make more money is to have more subscribers. I know that sounds easy, but....
F2P models or hybrid systems allow you to monetize your existing user base over and over. I'm sure we'll also see innovative monetization strategies coming in the next year or so, which will probably get a lot of negative feedback at first but, ultimately, it's not forum users they want to appeal to anyway, it's core gamers, and they'll pay to play.
So, while I don't think that subscriptions are a bad idea, you need supplemental income in order to make them really successful. Otherwise you're, essentially, losing money from day one.
Comments
I would love a game like this. The thing is, in vanilla WoW it wasn't really difficult to solo, you just couldn't face pull everything and expect to live. You had to be aware of your surroundings. I think a balance needs to be struck with difficulty. You can't make it too frustrating for solo players, but you have to teach them that you need to pay attention and take your time if you want to live. Being in a group increases your chance at survival and increases the rate at which you can get through an area. Really where I think WoW screwed the pooch was they almost discourage grouping by making grouping less rewarding, placing artificial limits on group size, having queued for content with random people.
MMOs with a subscription revenue model can not work with that kind of design. They must be built for the long-term. They must keep people playing the game from month to month, not just day to day or week to week.
Cash Shop MMOs can get away with the faster pacing because they also happen to sell items in their cash shop that help faciliate that... and so they make their money.
A subscription-based game has got to focus on the long-term, and designing a game that can be "finished" - by even the hardcore - inside the first month or even first 3 months.. is just not going to work. Building a MMO with quick-burn content, and then implementing a "slow-burn" type of revenue model is just ridiculous. It's just shooting yourself in the foot.
If you want to see what makes a game last for years, look at the 1st and 2nd gen MMOs. Some are running for almost a decade - or more - and still have active paying player-bases. Look at what they did. Their content was built around long-term progression. And I don't just mean "long-term grinds". I mean goals that players would have to play and work toward for months..
They also have to do better in terms of building and nurturing community. Less "Me", more "We". I'm not talking "the people in your guild". I'm talking giving people a reason to interact, to socialize, to get involved. One way is to take off the training wheels and stop feeling compelled to spell every damn thing in the game out. Let the players solve things. Let the players figure things out, theory-craft and so-forth. An awesome meta situation builds around that, as guides go up, forums, and such... A MMO that builds and nurtures a strong, healthy and vibrant community remains strong and healthy far longer than one that treats everyone like a lone-wolf, which actually works against it.
Ding ding ding.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Pretty much (unfortunately)...I prefer sub but will play anything that I enjoy regardless of payment model. I'd probably pay $50 a month if the game was engaging enough. Games won't succeed or fail because they are sub or F2P. That's just a fiction stirred up by some around here and other forums.
Neither ESO or Wildstar is really a game I forsee myself playing long-term and I'm tired of subbing to a game for one month just to see if it's good although I still might do that with ESO. I do think games that want a $60 box price at launch + a sub have a higher burden of quality than they used to to justify that at least with me.
The first question itself is flawed in that it presumes a game has to see seven digit populations to prosper. Frankly it comes off as another Wildstar troll post. That said I don't think Wildstar will have trouble hitting 1 million subs. That is simply because I have played the game and it is the first time in a long time that I have played any game that felt like it had that magical special sauce that WoW used to have. The developers seem to have built the game from the ground up for fast updates. The developers have put out a lot of information on the game, and they seem to have considered a lot of the things that often cause MMOs to fail.
Concerning the second question, it doesn't necessarily have to alter the market much at all. Many people play more than one game, especially if we are talking about shallow F2P games that don't hold your interest for long. A game doesn't have to pull subs from an existing game, they can play more than one game. Also let us consider that over 100 million players have played WoW at one time or another. That is a fairly large number of players to draw on.
I think the "All access" approach is good for SoE because they have a large number of crap games that people wouldn't pay a sub for individually. It allows them to provide value with quantity instead of the quality they are lacking. I don't think it is a great approach for most companies as they generally don't have the same quantity of games to draw on. On the other hand I think a sub for one quality game can easily compete with "All access". It simply comes down to quality vs. quantity.
The reason I see a subscription based MMO not working out nowadays is because a lot of games have adopted the WoW style "release content that only takes a little time to devour and then expect people to quit until you release new content" ideal. People won't continue paying $15 a month if content isn't going to last them, they will stop paying monthly as soon as they run out of stuff to do that they deem worth paying for.
That is why I feel like the idea of F2P/B2P in recent MMOs works, because that is how MMOs nowadays tend to be structured, and frankly, that's generally how the MMO audience tends to be as well. I hope Wildstar's reasoning for wanting to be a subscription based game (in order to release more and better content) is true, and they actually live up to that, I'm tired of playing MMOs that are not the time sinks they once used to be and just feel like a waste of my money every month for a few hours of game play every week or so (due to lockouts and such).
I have a lot of free time, and in my free time I'd like to use it playing a game, but it seems like MMOs nowadays just don't have enough to offer to me for how much free time I have, there's always a brick wall in my way. It seems like the MMO audience nowadays doesn't have enough time to actually play a MMO (although I would argue what's their rush?), and so companies have to change the game to revolve around them. And then people who just want a fun time sink with friends are SOL.
Too many words to actually read? I gave my opinion why Wildstar will be fine. The only way to answer the question is with a subjective opinion unless you can see the future or time travel. That said it is pretty clear the OP was trolling.
Perhaps, but I get where he's coming from. Many of us still believe (with some evidence) that City of Heroes was still profitable and NCSoft shut it down to help hide how much Guild Wars 2 was really costing them. I'm not saying it's true but there's there's enough proof out there to keep the thought alive.
The only thing that would keep me away from Wildstar is the fact NCSoft is the publisher. I think the game itself has potential as a place where I can game for years and enjoy myself. If people want to stay away because of the game's publisher, I won't blame them.
Speaking just for myself if I buy Wildstar I would give up the ftp games on Perfect World (Neverwinter and Star Trek). Both have gotten a bit stale and I'm sick of the ways they try to get money out of you. I reached max level way too quickly for my tastes and I only play Neverwinter now because you get a reward for signing in daily and some busy work that's a distraction. It's not as much fun anymore and Wildstar seems to remember that games are about having fun.
prosper? perhaps not.
but i do believe a balance is coming. american's are not used to paying for bandwidth, they pay for cable service as a package. most do not buy minutes for their phone, they purchase a comprehensive plan that covers their needs.
this is an overall aspect of american consumer purchasing. first, there will always be options to 'purchase minutes', ie., to pay as you go a la carte. however, the predominant model for purchasing in the US is the comprehensive plan.
this is convenience for consumers here. i believe that most americans can be wearied by the constant trickle being extracted every time they turn a corner. this is one of the benefits of Rift's implementation: it provides convenience w/o requiring you to pay at every gameplay crossroad.
but this neither means the end of f2p, nor that subs will overwhelm f2p games. rather that the convenience of the sub model is beginning to exert itself.
i personally believe that many of the american complaints about this or that company's f2p model, attacked as 'greedy', is actually a reaction against the inconvenience of having to constantly flip a cash shop 'switch' in order to proceed further into the game.
thus saith the aspekx.
"There are at least two kinds of games.
One could be called finite, the other infinite.
A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
"Will Subscriptions Truly Prosper in 2014"
Lol, where have you been since 2004, WOW like every year is still the leading mmo and it's sub based.
A sub based mmo is leading the way, like it or not people will still pay a sub if the game is up to scratch.
Do i think ESO is worth a sub, nope as an average MMO it's not.
One game does not establish a pattern. New games do not manage to support high numbers of subs long term. It just doesn't happen, and it isn't because every single game that isn't WoW somehow "sucks." WoW is a fluke which was only possible because of the condition of the market at the time it launched. The market has changed. Hybrid models are the norm now, and every piece of available data suggests that will remain the case for the forseeable future.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
There just hasn't been a game that's worth subbing in awhile.
WoW & EvE are both easily worth their sub, if you play these games.
FFXIV at it's current state imho is not.
Then there are F2P games that would be worth the sub if they were P2P without cash shop.
Such as Neverwinter and League of Legends.
If you have a great game P2P works, if not then just F2P it.
People love to say this, but the available evidence is inconsistent with this theory. Many of the games which have added free options are at the very least good games, and depending on your tastes, some of them could even be considered great games. The only major (Eve is niche) game that is more than a few months old for which relying solely on subscriptions still "works" is WoW. A game which is, by definition, abnormal.
(Normal is a relative term. When nine games fit the same pattern, and one game does not fit that pattern, the exception isn't the "normal" game that you compare new products to, it is the outlier that you ignore.)
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Lol i can't figure out why so many is bashing ESO, saying it has no content, is not innuative etc.
It has an innuative crafting system. Craft anything, at anylvl with any look and any stat without having to overgrind your way in crafting (with some limitations). And not to say the special crafting skills u can apply...
Use any piece of armor, any type of weapon.
If you follow crafting, and explore, quest, do all dungeons and open public dungeons. Its takes around 50-60 hours to do the beginner zone alone. You dont even have to quest, u can reach 1-15 in beginner zone alone by doing the exploration, outdoor bosses etc.
The way skills work is a blessing, dont wanna stick to the usually class specified skill, well hell, join a guild and mnix with those, use racial, and all the other trees which can be unlocked.
Why do damage numbers have to be in K's.. uwee i did a 45k critical when it in the end means the same.
Landscaping. wow, see the world changing without having to load all the time.. Amazing.
Dungeons.. So wonderfull, now i can play a dungeon without having to trash my way through so much trash that a 1 hour run 10 minutes is bosses rest is trash.
No more spamming 1 2 3 4 5, most of the time its positioning and use left mouse button attacks.
And the P2P model makes it so we can espect new content every month or two.
If this game was F2P i wouldnt bother. Cause i know that the P2P have been proving more beneficial in the end for any game that could deliver what remotely reminds of a quality game with replayability. And therefor P2P tend to give more content over a span of time than F2P games do.
Wildstar actually is doesnt bring anything new other than ground warning from normal mods and a PROMISE to give the game a noend feeling.. It's a promise, well politicians promise stuff all the time without delivering.
I will try both, but the graphics in wildstar turns me off and ill probraly stay with ESO and gladly pay the P2P i now have 2 beta sessions in ESO and i still can't wait.
I already have over 25 mmo's behind me, and since the beginning of WoW and EQ yes i started in wow, and it was fun untill the 2nd expansion. But as i said, after that i tried and tried and never found an MMo i could play longer than a week or two, it was simply not new enough, I finally found a calling in ESO, and i actually feel i finally have found a game i can play for over a month
Not enough content? it has 3 times the content that wow had when it was launched.
Big load of nonsense if you ask me. People sub to a lot of games. Lotro, Swtor, Rift, etc. They could play them free, but the still sub. Get your head out of the sand and look around. People who ignore the obvious don't hold much weight around here. A subscription is still a legitimate funding mechanism, especially for new games. Now whether they can keep that up remains in the developer's hands to provide continued adequate gameplay
If a 10 year old game can do it, any game can do it!
Because this is an ongoing dvelopment and it won't be put to rest till it comes to its conclusion.
Anyways, back to topic. Will P2P prosper? i doubt it but it will continue to exist in minority.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
-Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."
-Luke McKinney
Nope.
Reason: 90% will leave after 2 months, as always.
Even CoD 's paid Elite service went free to play.
Also add FF XIV;ARR to that list, not to mention the still P2P FF XI which has been around for near enough a decade too, or how about CCP's Eve Online, also P2P for a decade or more, it really is a case of, the best games are either P2P or a P2P/F2P hybrid, that seems to be the most successful financial model, even B2P, is struggling, GW2 and Arenanet have seen a decline in numbers and falling profits. If a game is good enough, then people pay, its probably the biggest indication of a successful game there is.
People forget that EVE is one of its kind and has no competition. Where as themepark MMOS are a different story.
I bet if more MMOS were made following EVE's success it would be a different story.
Moreover EVE isn't a pure P2P MMO since there is option to play for free by using in game resources.
FFXIV ARR is not funded by investors so it can manage to stay in business on itw own terms. But how many MMO creators you know who have deep pockets like SE?
So there are lots of points here to be noted and this is not just as simple as saying 'EVE and FFXIV did it so others can too'.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
-Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."
-Luke McKinney
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the problem with the subscription model is that it doesn't scale. As mentioned earlier, subscription fees haven't increased over time with inflation, so we're actually paying less, plus we're expecting more, plus how many people WILL actually subscribe to a game? Plus, how many people will subscribe to multiple games, or leave their current game for a new one? So, basically, your only way to make more money is to have more subscribers. I know that sounds easy, but....
F2P models or hybrid systems allow you to monetize your existing user base over and over. I'm sure we'll also see innovative monetization strategies coming in the next year or so, which will probably get a lot of negative feedback at first but, ultimately, it's not forum users they want to appeal to anyway, it's core gamers, and they'll pay to play.
So, while I don't think that subscriptions are a bad idea, you need supplemental income in order to make them really successful. Otherwise you're, essentially, losing money from day one.
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
----------------