Rift has set the standard on WHT you can get for free, which is everything, at least content wise. Nothing it blocked off you access to every dungeon, all PvP, and anything they create. They just had a new zone open up a little while ago totally free. Now did they g too far? Semantics maybe. But their subscription perks are just not good enough to justify spending money on.
A developer has to figure out the happy medium between free to play and buy to play and subscriber. There should also be a in game currency method to buy subscription time. Which Rift has. But it gives the same thing as what a RL CASH player receives. IMO that is the disconnect. Developers want the money to be spent as a 'convenience' not because or WORTH or VALUE. It isnt 'convenient' to pay cash to sub. The perks you get can be almost alleviated by buying in game store currency that is 'cheaper'. So that ultimately gives more 'value' and is 'worth' more.
Anyone who pays real life cash out of pocket should be top shelf. They should get everything for free. They should also get a stipend of in game currency every month they sub. That is the easiest and most obviously seen 'perk' someone spending money on a game will see. I gave they gave. Guy who buy sub time with in game currency should probably get everything a real life cash subscriber gets except the stipends. And if people need more reasons to spend real life cash whatever those might be, but I think a stipend would be enough for most. Assuming that is the in game store had items people wanted. The basic player, buy to play or free to play people should get ALL content, as in maps, quests, abilities, etc. But they should also have a reduced amount of some things, like mount speed, minimal storage, minimal AH access and use, minimal caps on reputation, skills, stats, those are 'bonus' factors I should say. Example; In a 'themepark" game where every 'class' has the same exact stats those all are equal regardless, but stuff that can be equipped like Lotro Virtues for example would be reduced. So if a Subscriber had a cap of 15, a non sub would have a cap of 10 or 12. There are of course other ares of 'fluff' where limits could be applied.
But it would be a two tiered process also. Thats where developers miss out. A free to play player spending money can get to the exact level as a subcriber by buying in game currency and spending real life cash that way. BUT they would NEED to e subscribed to get eh EXTRA stuff. There would be a 'soft' cap and a 'hard' cap of upgrades. for example, storage, a mainstay in games and something everyone gets extra. So the 'standard' subcriber number is 100 spaces in your bank. Non subs would have 50 or 75, but could buy in the store for currency they bought with cash up to the subscriber cap. BUT subscribers could also open up more storage. So a subscriber might be able to get up to 150 or 200 sure they also have to 'pay' for it (thats where that free stipend currency comes in). But it still 'makes' subscribing have a perks. There are of course other obvious examples but anything that can be 'earned' can be bought by non subs to 'sub' levels' BUT that same stuff can also be enhanced beyond that level by subscribers who 'pay' for it.
Its basically all the same thing, it is just how it is presented. But the first thing you have to do is make a game people want to play in the first place. Then they have to decide if they want to spend money on it.
But in the end it has to be a game that can hold a persons interest for a long long period of time, that doesnt have to mean subtle grinds or slowing down progression. It just means giving a plethora of things to do within the game that dont necessarily have to be developed by the studio.
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.
Considering ANet has grown to 350 people (from 300) and the "falling profits" are falling from a record sales pace on launch I'd say B2P with a non-invasive cash shop has been shown so far to have the potential to be a very successful and feasible option. Constant influxes of new content (people vary as to whether or not they like each one) for no extra charge every couple weeks? Hell yeah.
Frankly, if a game isn't worth spending $15 for a month's worth of play then it isn't worth my TIME to play. Anything that provides so little entertainment value that it isn't worth forking over less then the price of a movie with popcorn (and that's by myself, not even counting taking the family) isn't going to stack up well against all the other fun things, including other types of games that I could spend my entertainment time on.
Lets be real. Most working adults don't have the time, let alone the inclination to play 5-10 MMO's in a month where the price of subbing to all might start to be felt in the monthly entertainment budget. The only real advantage to F2P over subs for me is the "try before you buy" aspect but sub based games can achieve that with limited free trials. On the flip side, a F2P game has the disadvantage that it can wreck the fun of my play time by interrupting my play and forcing me to make a purchase in the store or by placing annoying, immersion breaking adds in the game or by becoming Pay 2 Win.
So the payment model of a game, unless it ends up detracting from the fun of play (see examples above), ends up becoming completely irrelevent to me. The only real question is whether the game is more fun then something else I could be doing with my time. So a fun F2P game.....and yes there are a few and I've played a few.... essentialy just ends up losing the $15 that I would have paid it were it a sub but didn't because it didn't require it of me.
Whethe ESO and Wildstar succeed or fail.....just as with TOR and every other game before them.....has very, very little to do with the payment model. It has everything to do with whether they are fun enough games to attract the audience they want.
For Wildstar... I know I'm not going to be playing it. It sounds like it's well put together and has some interesting features, but it's just not my style/taste of games.
For ESO... The jury is very much out. I'm a big Elder Scrolls fan, but it sounds very questionable at this point as to whether the game will be able to capture those play elements that made the ES games fun. We'll wait and see.
One thing is almost certain though. Whether either of those games are successfull or flop, some thick headed pundit here will come along and blame the choice of payment model....rather then the real issue, the quality of the game itself.
I think subs will live on as long as they start working towards being fair. FF14 lets you play one char with access too all content for 12.99. SoE will be giving an all access pass to all 10 MMOs for 14.99 a month. I would like to see companies start to walk down this line of giving back. Even things like family billing. 1 account 14.99 on the same bill, 2 accounts on the same bill 13.99 a month, 3 accounts or more 12.99 a month. This going rate of 15 bucks a month is getting old. Most MMOers play 1-3 MMOs now days.
"This brings us to a fairly common misconception about MMO players. We like to think we're keen to see changes and innovations in the genre. This isn't completely inaccurate, but in general, we're more comfortable with evolution than revolution, albeit to different degrees."
This statement is nuts.
Most WoW players were NEW to the MMORPG genre. The change for them was REVOLUTIONARY not EVOLUTIONARY. Most of them were die hard Blizzard fans, players of Warcraft and StarCraft.
And for older MMORPG players its even more so.
Those that started out with the first generation of MMOs, Meridian 59/the realm/uo/eq1/ao and ac1 played games vastly different than the second generation of Daoc/SWG/EQ2/AC2/GW1 and WOW. Go on, compare the two generations of MMOs, they are vastly different from each other.
What have we seen since WoW? The same crap over and over. We need the 3rd generation to start, its WAY past time. That is the reason why so many MMO players are jaded. Stagnant crap that's for some reason being pushed even by the gaming media.
Can you imagine if this train of thought was applied to any other genre of games? I guess GTA never should have left its roots and just evolved from the first game........right? Or perhaps Fallout never should have gone with full open world and stayed with the "level" shooter design frame....same with turn based RPGs, real time combat is just too revolutional.
Stagnancy, why would anyone promote it unless they are being paid to do it?
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
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!
So, you are arguing against my point that most games are hybrids by listing successful hybrids? How many people actually argue against including the option to sub? The argument is whether it is a good idea to rely *solely* on subs. When only one large population game that has been out more than six months is managing to do it, while everybody else moves to a hybrid model, signs point to "bad idea."
And no, if a 10 year old game can do it, a 10 year old game can do it. In the online space, having ten years of history in your corner results in increased loyalty from long term customers. Saying that a game that has only had a few months to build customer loyalty has the potential to retain subscribers as well when it runs out of content as a game that has been building that loyalty for ten years? Now that is a "big load of nonsense."
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 a 10 year old game can do it, any game can do it!
And no, if a 10 year old game can do it, a 10 year old game can do it.
They leave out the reason why a 10 year old game can do it.
The hardware required to keep such a game going costs very little. The overhead is laughable.
That is the reason why Asherons Call 1 is still going as a sub, with around 3k people playing. At $9.99 a month, that's $29,970 a month. $359k a year. And it still gets MONTHLY updates. Hell, the game gets more new content than SWTOR........
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
I think both games will be very successful. it offers two totally different experiences for the most part. I really hope subs stay around. Ive seen more quality come out of them in the long run and jt keeps me to one interesting game instead of f2p hoppi.g and burning me out.
Monster Hunter since '04! Currently playing: MHW & MHGU
SWTOR and TSW are launching and both publishers have announced that they will be charging a sub ..... and with the marketing clout of EA, the SW IP and WoW subscription numbers shrinking ...
Whoops its 2014. For SWTOR read TESO. For TSW read Wildstar. For WoW read ... well WoW only the name of the next expansion will have changed.
Games need to establish a clear link between price and product.
It used to exist with UO and EQ1. Network costs were high - a sub was introduced to cover them. New content was via paid expansion.
Asheron's Call blurred the line a little. CoH and L2 stirred the water up totally and WoW cemented the change that the sub was for new content.
But when a "decent" amount of new content failed to appear the question: what is the sub for reared its head once more. Any pretence that a significant element went on providing the service was blown out of the water by Guild Wars, pay once - play forever. Note: GW new content was via paid expansions - as it used to be.
Since then? Well people used to believe that mmos would never close. The list of failed mmos however is legion. Some offered a f2p option alongside the sub e.g. Anarchy Online - still going; some have closed MXO, CoH; WAR etc. - would CoH still be here if it had kept its sub; some have moved to full f2p. Although it has to be said that the conversions to f2p have created bad f2p models.
There have, however, been exceptions outside the world of "traditional" mmos.
Two examples - different tales and, I think, a clear message.
EA offered a premium membership option for BF3 @ $50 a year. For that people got a fixed number of DLC drops. Nothing else just the drops. EA booked over $100M against the annual membership. Which works out at between 2M and 3M annual members. How many "subscription" games have that many subscribers? For a full 12 months?
Activision offered CoD Elite. Yet despite all of Activision/BKs talk about how it would all be OK CoD Elite was pulled. What did CoD Elite offer? Well people would get DLC in advance, they would be able to access special content, special member services .. for all intents and purposes Activision were offering a WoW type sub.
Clear link between price and product: success. Fuzzy - pay us for "something" - fail.
TESO will get subs; Zenimax will keep it going come what may. Past evidence suggests they won't achieve what they might otherwise have done but if they have set their sights low they may not be bothered.
Wildstar's strength is in its beta. Nothing that makes me think it will get huge numbers however. And its style means that Skylanders and Infinity compete. And NCSoft won't, imo, keep it going if it doesn't meet whatever targets they have set for it. Think TR - another failed sub game (never went f2p!).
This discussion predates the popularity of monthly subscriptions, you know.
Back before monthly fees caught on, people were paying by the hour to play in their favorite virtual worlds. The hour. When a game with a monthly subscription rolled along, the "serious" players scoffed at the idea.
"Nobody who only pays once a month is going to take the game seriously." "The game will be full of casuals and bad players." "The devs won't be able to afford regular updates." "The quality of the game will be trash."
This is a repeat of the same thing. Guess what? Hourly fees for games are dead. Monthly fees are next. There is nothing you can do about it.
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Dr. Seuss
There is a required level of popularity (not quality, that is an entirely separate issue) attached to the "Freemium" revenue model, and the subscription only model has it's place at both the more *and* less popular sides of the spectrum. To be a candidate for a serious Freemium conversion, a game needs to be at least popular enough that if all of it's current subscribers were to spend ten dollars a month over the cost of their subscription, the game would be profitable, including covering the costs of the conversion. (I arrive at that number because the industry average income per player for freemium games has been stated to be $25.00/month.) Most games which add a free option and a cash shop while retaining the sub option end up not only keeping their current subscribers and increasing revenue, but actually gaining more subscribers relative to their subscription only offering.
The only major game that meets the "more popular" test is WoW. Nobody else, just WoW. They have so many subscribers giving them a guaranteed $15 a month that they actually worry (whether justifiably or not) that they would lose enough subscribers to any free option they added that even with the increased revenue per subscriber they would end up making less money. But they are in a unique position in the market, and that problem is theirs alone.
Most games that remain sub only don't do so because they are ringing successes, they do so because their number of players has dropped so far that even if ten more dollars a month were squeezed out of all the players, it likely wouldn't provide enough additional revenue to justify the cost of the freemium conversion.
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.
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.
Considering ANet has grown to 350 people (from 300) and the "falling profits" are falling from a record sales pace on launch I'd say B2P with a non-invasive cash shop has been shown so far to have the potential to be a very successful and feasible option. Constant influxes of new content (people vary as to whether or not they like each one) for no extra charge every couple weeks? Hell yeah.
Problem is as you pointed out almost everyone agrees GW2 new content is poor, No new races, classes, or land masses. The content is for the most part temporary, if your not playing during that part of the living story you miss it and its gone.
Its good that Anet has grown over the last 2 years but GW2 over that time frame is a best a cautionary tale that you get what you pay for. (ie you don't pay for new content don't be surprised when what they add is poor, grindy, and uninspired.)
Originally posted by winter Problem is as you pointed out almost everyone agrees GW2 new content is poor, No new races, classes, or land masses. The content is for the most part temporary, if your not playing during that part of the living story you miss it and its gone. Its good that Anet has grown over the last 2 years but GW2 over that time frame is a best a cautionary tale that you get what you pay for. (ie you don't pay for new content don't be surprised when what they add is poor, grindy, and uninspired.)
While I agree that they need to add more permanent content, Super Adventure Box is easily the best update they've ever had and possibly the best content update any game has had. I pretty much only play GW2 two months out of the year just for that.
Things like new races and classes almost never get added to a game without an expansion or DLC pack, subscription or otherwise. Claiming that as lacking in GW2's updates is irrelevant when we're discussing whether content updates require (or even benefit from) subscription fees. I feel that the frequency of updates in GW2 shows that you can easily support updates without a sub. Besides, they've certainly made far more money with the gem store than they would have with a monthly fee.
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Dr. Seuss
Yeah, you can't keep paying 4-5 subscriptions monthly, and have the time to play the games, either you have the money or the time, you don't usually have both.
Personally, I'll always keep SoE All Access and WoW, leaving me only cancellation rotational with Star Wars: ToR and Wildstar/TESO/FF14.
Oh yeah, and my Lifetime Subscription to Star Trek Online and Lord of the Rings Online...
I can keep Rift, Tera, Perfect World International, Rappelz, and all Free to Play games available however, if only SW:ToR would fix their extremely limited punishing free to play model, that doesn't encourage me to log in and actually pushes me away to other mmos !
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.
Considering ANet has grown to 350 people (from 300) and the "falling profits" are falling from a record sales pace on launch I'd say B2P with a non-invasive cash shop has been shown so far to have the potential to be a very successful and feasible option. Constant influxes of new content (people vary as to whether or not they like each one) for no extra charge every couple weeks? Hell yeah.
Problem is as you pointed out almost everyone agrees GW2 new content is poor, No new races, classes, or land masses. The content is for the most part temporary, if your not playing during that part of the living story you miss it and its gone.
Its good that Anet has grown over the last 2 years but GW2 over that time frame is a best a cautionary tale that you get what you pay for. (ie you don't pay for new content don't be surprised when what they add is poor, grindy, and uninspired.)
"Almost everyone"?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by gigiboss98 Wildstar will raise!Its a great MMO with new features,features that they made themselves not copied...i mean WoW is the basic MMORPG and nobody can change it. WIldstar adds new thing to it like the new combat style,classes and events.Looking forward to PvP
Okay first of all let me correct you on a few things. 1. Wow is infact not the basic of MMORPGs at all. What do you think we were doing before 2004? Play legos? No we were playing such MMORPGS such as UO, Shadowbane,EQ, and DAoC. These are your basic MMORPGs dude not Wow. World of Warcraft copied the basic of these games and the only reason the game is even well known is because of the marketing surrounded christmas each year that pulled alot of kids into the whole gaming community.
Wildstar adding new classes,combat styles, and event? Well hate to tell you this but there is really nothing new to any of this. It is only the same type of characters with a bit of a twist to it. To be frank with ya there is no such thing as a "new" of anything at all.
Comments
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Itsa little bit of everything.
Rift has set the standard on WHT you can get for free, which is everything, at least content wise. Nothing it blocked off you access to every dungeon, all PvP, and anything they create. They just had a new zone open up a little while ago totally free. Now did they g too far? Semantics maybe. But their subscription perks are just not good enough to justify spending money on.
A developer has to figure out the happy medium between free to play and buy to play and subscriber. There should also be a in game currency method to buy subscription time. Which Rift has. But it gives the same thing as what a RL CASH player receives. IMO that is the disconnect. Developers want the money to be spent as a 'convenience' not because or WORTH or VALUE. It isnt 'convenient' to pay cash to sub. The perks you get can be almost alleviated by buying in game store currency that is 'cheaper'. So that ultimately gives more 'value' and is 'worth' more.
Anyone who pays real life cash out of pocket should be top shelf. They should get everything for free. They should also get a stipend of in game currency every month they sub. That is the easiest and most obviously seen 'perk' someone spending money on a game will see. I gave they gave. Guy who buy sub time with in game currency should probably get everything a real life cash subscriber gets except the stipends. And if people need more reasons to spend real life cash whatever those might be, but I think a stipend would be enough for most. Assuming that is the in game store had items people wanted. The basic player, buy to play or free to play people should get ALL content, as in maps, quests, abilities, etc. But they should also have a reduced amount of some things, like mount speed, minimal storage, minimal AH access and use, minimal caps on reputation, skills, stats, those are 'bonus' factors I should say. Example; In a 'themepark" game where every 'class' has the same exact stats those all are equal regardless, but stuff that can be equipped like Lotro Virtues for example would be reduced. So if a Subscriber had a cap of 15, a non sub would have a cap of 10 or 12. There are of course other ares of 'fluff' where limits could be applied.
But it would be a two tiered process also. Thats where developers miss out. A free to play player spending money can get to the exact level as a subcriber by buying in game currency and spending real life cash that way. BUT they would NEED to e subscribed to get eh EXTRA stuff. There would be a 'soft' cap and a 'hard' cap of upgrades. for example, storage, a mainstay in games and something everyone gets extra. So the 'standard' subcriber number is 100 spaces in your bank. Non subs would have 50 or 75, but could buy in the store for currency they bought with cash up to the subscriber cap. BUT subscribers could also open up more storage. So a subscriber might be able to get up to 150 or 200 sure they also have to 'pay' for it (thats where that free stipend currency comes in). But it still 'makes' subscribing have a perks. There are of course other obvious examples but anything that can be 'earned' can be bought by non subs to 'sub' levels' BUT that same stuff can also be enhanced beyond that level by subscribers who 'pay' for it.
Its basically all the same thing, it is just how it is presented. But the first thing you have to do is make a game people want to play in the first place. Then they have to decide if they want to spend money on it.
But in the end it has to be a game that can hold a persons interest for a long long period of time, that doesnt have to mean subtle grinds or slowing down progression. It just means giving a plethora of things to do within the game that dont necessarily have to be developed by the studio.
Considering ANet has grown to 350 people (from 300) and the "falling profits" are falling from a record sales pace on launch I'd say B2P with a non-invasive cash shop has been shown so far to have the potential to be a very successful and feasible option. Constant influxes of new content (people vary as to whether or not they like each one) for no extra charge every couple weeks? Hell yeah.
Oderint, dum metuant.
Frankly, if a game isn't worth spending $15 for a month's worth of play then it isn't worth my TIME to play. Anything that provides so little entertainment value that it isn't worth forking over less then the price of a movie with popcorn (and that's by myself, not even counting taking the family) isn't going to stack up well against all the other fun things, including other types of games that I could spend my entertainment time on.
Lets be real. Most working adults don't have the time, let alone the inclination to play 5-10 MMO's in a month where the price of subbing to all might start to be felt in the monthly entertainment budget. The only real advantage to F2P over subs for me is the "try before you buy" aspect but sub based games can achieve that with limited free trials. On the flip side, a F2P game has the disadvantage that it can wreck the fun of my play time by interrupting my play and forcing me to make a purchase in the store or by placing annoying, immersion breaking adds in the game or by becoming Pay 2 Win.
So the payment model of a game, unless it ends up detracting from the fun of play (see examples above), ends up becoming completely irrelevent to me. The only real question is whether the game is more fun then something else I could be doing with my time. So a fun F2P game.....and yes there are a few and I've played a few.... essentialy just ends up losing the $15 that I would have paid it were it a sub but didn't because it didn't require it of me.
Whethe ESO and Wildstar succeed or fail.....just as with TOR and every other game before them.....has very, very little to do with the payment model. It has everything to do with whether they are fun enough games to attract the audience they want.
For Wildstar... I know I'm not going to be playing it. It sounds like it's well put together and has some interesting features, but it's just not my style/taste of games.
For ESO... The jury is very much out. I'm a big Elder Scrolls fan, but it sounds very questionable at this point as to whether the game will be able to capture those play elements that made the ES games fun. We'll wait and see.
One thing is almost certain though. Whether either of those games are successfull or flop, some thick headed pundit here will come along and blame the choice of payment model....rather then the real issue, the quality of the game itself.
"This brings us to a fairly common misconception about MMO players. We like to think we're keen to see changes and innovations in the genre. This isn't completely inaccurate, but in general, we're more comfortable with evolution than revolution, albeit to different degrees."
This statement is nuts.
Most WoW players were NEW to the MMORPG genre. The change for them was REVOLUTIONARY not EVOLUTIONARY. Most of them were die hard Blizzard fans, players of Warcraft and StarCraft.
And for older MMORPG players its even more so.
Those that started out with the first generation of MMOs, Meridian 59/the realm/uo/eq1/ao and ac1 played games vastly different than the second generation of Daoc/SWG/EQ2/AC2/GW1 and WOW. Go on, compare the two generations of MMOs, they are vastly different from each other.
What have we seen since WoW? The same crap over and over. We need the 3rd generation to start, its WAY past time. That is the reason why so many MMO players are jaded. Stagnant crap that's for some reason being pushed even by the gaming media.
Can you imagine if this train of thought was applied to any other genre of games? I guess GTA never should have left its roots and just evolved from the first game........right? Or perhaps Fallout never should have gone with full open world and stayed with the "level" shooter design frame....same with turn based RPGs, real time combat is just too revolutional.
Stagnancy, why would anyone promote it unless they are being paid to do it?
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
So, you are arguing against my point that most games are hybrids by listing successful hybrids? How many people actually argue against including the option to sub? The argument is whether it is a good idea to rely *solely* on subs. When only one large population game that has been out more than six months is managing to do it, while everybody else moves to a hybrid model, signs point to "bad idea."
And no, if a 10 year old game can do it, a 10 year old game can do it. In the online space, having ten years of history in your corner results in increased loyalty from long term customers. Saying that a game that has only had a few months to build customer loyalty has the potential to retain subscribers as well when it runs out of content as a game that has been building that loyalty for ten years? Now that is a "big load of nonsense."
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.
They leave out the reason why a 10 year old game can do it.
The hardware required to keep such a game going costs very little. The overhead is laughable.
That is the reason why Asherons Call 1 is still going as a sub, with around 3k people playing. At $9.99 a month, that's $29,970 a month. $359k a year. And it still gets MONTHLY updates. Hell, the game gets more new content than SWTOR........
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
Monster Hunter since '04!
Currently playing: MHW & MHGU
Is it 2011?
SWTOR and TSW are launching and both publishers have announced that they will be charging a sub ..... and with the marketing clout of EA, the SW IP and WoW subscription numbers shrinking ...
Whoops its 2014. For SWTOR read TESO. For TSW read Wildstar. For WoW read ... well WoW only the name of the next expansion will have changed.
Games need to establish a clear link between price and product.
It used to exist with UO and EQ1. Network costs were high - a sub was introduced to cover them. New content was via paid expansion.
Asheron's Call blurred the line a little. CoH and L2 stirred the water up totally and WoW cemented the change that the sub was for new content.
But when a "decent" amount of new content failed to appear the question: what is the sub for reared its head once more. Any pretence that a significant element went on providing the service was blown out of the water by Guild Wars, pay once - play forever. Note: GW new content was via paid expansions - as it used to be.
Since then? Well people used to believe that mmos would never close. The list of failed mmos however is legion. Some offered a f2p option alongside the sub e.g. Anarchy Online - still going; some have closed MXO, CoH; WAR etc. - would CoH still be here if it had kept its sub; some have moved to full f2p. Although it has to be said that the conversions to f2p have created bad f2p models.
There have, however, been exceptions outside the world of "traditional" mmos.
Two examples - different tales and, I think, a clear message.
EA offered a premium membership option for BF3 @ $50 a year. For that people got a fixed number of DLC drops. Nothing else just the drops. EA booked over $100M against the annual membership. Which works out at between 2M and 3M annual members. How many "subscription" games have that many subscribers? For a full 12 months?
Activision offered CoD Elite. Yet despite all of Activision/BKs talk about how it would all be OK CoD Elite was pulled. What did CoD Elite offer? Well people would get DLC in advance, they would be able to access special content, special member services .. for all intents and purposes Activision were offering a WoW type sub.
Clear link between price and product: success. Fuzzy - pay us for "something" - fail.
TESO will get subs; Zenimax will keep it going come what may. Past evidence suggests they won't achieve what they might otherwise have done but if they have set their sights low they may not be bothered.
Wildstar's strength is in its beta. Nothing that makes me think it will get huge numbers however. And its style means that Skylanders and Infinity compete. And NCSoft won't, imo, keep it going if it doesn't meet whatever targets they have set for it. Think TR - another failed sub game (never went f2p!).
This discussion predates the popularity of monthly subscriptions, you know.
Back before monthly fees caught on, people were paying by the hour to play in their favorite virtual worlds. The hour. When a game with a monthly subscription rolled along, the "serious" players scoffed at the idea.
"Nobody who only pays once a month is going to take the game seriously."
"The game will be full of casuals and bad players."
"The devs won't be able to afford regular updates."
"The quality of the game will be trash."
This is a repeat of the same thing. Guess what? Hourly fees for games are dead. Monthly fees are next. There is nothing you can do about it.
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Dr. Seuss
There is a required level of popularity (not quality, that is an entirely separate issue) attached to the "Freemium" revenue model, and the subscription only model has it's place at both the more *and* less popular sides of the spectrum. To be a candidate for a serious Freemium conversion, a game needs to be at least popular enough that if all of it's current subscribers were to spend ten dollars a month over the cost of their subscription, the game would be profitable, including covering the costs of the conversion. (I arrive at that number because the industry average income per player for freemium games has been stated to be $25.00/month.) Most games which add a free option and a cash shop while retaining the sub option end up not only keeping their current subscribers and increasing revenue, but actually gaining more subscribers relative to their subscription only offering.
The only major game that meets the "more popular" test is WoW. Nobody else, just WoW. They have so many subscribers giving them a guaranteed $15 a month that they actually worry (whether justifiably or not) that they would lose enough subscribers to any free option they added that even with the increased revenue per subscriber they would end up making less money. But they are in a unique position in the market, and that problem is theirs alone.
Most games that remain sub only don't do so because they are ringing successes, they do so because their number of players has dropped so far that even if ten more dollars a month were squeezed out of all the players, it likely wouldn't provide enough additional revenue to justify the cost of the freemium conversion.
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.
Problem is as you pointed out almost everyone agrees GW2 new content is poor, No new races, classes, or land masses. The content is for the most part temporary, if your not playing during that part of the living story you miss it and its gone.
Its good that Anet has grown over the last 2 years but GW2 over that time frame is a best a cautionary tale that you get what you pay for. (ie you don't pay for new content don't be surprised when what they add is poor, grindy, and uninspired.)
While I agree that they need to add more permanent content, Super Adventure Box is easily the best update they've ever had and possibly the best content update any game has had. I pretty much only play GW2 two months out of the year just for that.
Things like new races and classes almost never get added to a game without an expansion or DLC pack, subscription or otherwise. Claiming that as lacking in GW2's updates is irrelevant when we're discussing whether content updates require (or even benefit from) subscription fees. I feel that the frequency of updates in GW2 shows that you can easily support updates without a sub. Besides, they've certainly made far more money with the gem store than they would have with a monthly fee.
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Dr. Seuss
Yeah, you can't keep paying 4-5 subscriptions monthly, and have the time to play the games, either you have the money or the time, you don't usually have both.
Personally, I'll always keep SoE All Access and WoW, leaving me only cancellation rotational with Star Wars: ToR and Wildstar/TESO/FF14.
Oh yeah, and my Lifetime Subscription to Star Trek Online and Lord of the Rings Online...
I can keep Rift, Tera, Perfect World International, Rappelz, and all Free to Play games available however, if only SW:ToR would fix their extremely limited punishing free to play model, that doesn't encourage me to log in and actually pushes me away to other mmos !
"Almost everyone"?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Okay first of all let me correct you on a few things. 1. Wow is infact not the basic of MMORPGs at all. What do you think we were doing before 2004? Play legos? No we were playing such MMORPGS such as UO, Shadowbane,EQ, and DAoC. These are your basic MMORPGs dude not Wow. World of Warcraft copied the basic of these games and the only reason the game is even well known is because of the marketing surrounded christmas each year that pulled alot of kids into the whole gaming community.
Wildstar adding new classes,combat styles, and event? Well hate to tell you this but there is really nothing new to any of this. It is only the same type of characters with a bit of a twist to it. To be frank with ya there is no such thing as a "new" of anything at all.