If anyone thinks here that they need to spend $200 a year to enjoy one MMO then by all means please continue to pay that. I would gladly pay $200, $300, even $500 a year too, only problem is I like not to be milked and ripped. I have personal pleasure when I'm spending the right $ for what I'm receiving and in the same process improving the genre with better quality products in near future.
F2P will remain the future because it is in the best interest for you, the player since you know exactly in what you are getting yourself involved. If you enjoy the game and like the direction its headed you are welcome to pay for its development and future content. I see some poster above claim they've spent $1800 on WOW over the many years and that's his choice.
Bottom line and point on this whole thread is the fact that F2P can do somehing B2P + P2P can never and that is allowing the player to test the product on launch rather than waiting months or year for players feedback and vids. By the time that year has passed that player can also be persuaded to get himself involved in another game that is more "serious" and savvy in luring the player toward their product for FREE and earning $ at the end from him if he was happy with their product.
Just imagine, the AVERAGE costt of AAA MMORPG today is $20,000,000. If the game does not have any cash shop, box fee, just monthly fee of $15 they would earn all of their investment (development cost) within a single month! from 1.3 mil subscribers.
So, all those who argue that P2P=>F2P just do your homework/math and before you get milked out there think first how much $ was invested in the game and how many subs it managed to lure then see if you either are paying reasonable price for what you are getting or if Mr. Greg is "milkin your tittes".
And your entire argument is rendered pointless with the fact that most MMO's offer some kind of free trial period shortly after they get released. You know, so that people can test the waters without committing to it up front.
You keep complaining about not being able to test the game, did you miss the 500,000 beta keys that curse was giving out over a span of a few days? I was able to get TWO keys, one for me, and one for my fiance' and they had over 250,000 left and I waited two days to try to get one....and don't tell me that you did not know about it, it was ALL OVER this website and the forums.
Sub games keep the whiners out and the people from logging in game just to constantly complain about how much they don't like the game. Sub games enhance the communities and bring together people who are actually interested in playing,and are willing to pay the whole .50 a day to support the paychecks of the devs and the company of a whole so that they can bring you quality expansions and better customer support.
FTP games are full of spammers, and immature whiners that bring the community farther apart, just because they don't have to pay to get access to the servers so they login bored and grief people and the chat and in general act like jerks.
If it keeps out the "the graphics suck, the quests suck,the gameplay sucks, LOLanal" people off of my game server and makes my play time more enjoyable then I am all for it.
Besides, if you can not make an entire $15 in an entire month then perhaps you should not be spending time playing games. I have lots of bills just like everyone else, but i'll forgo my breakfast at the diner one time a month to be able to play a game that I actually enjoy.
3 days to TRY a game that I'm suppose to spend $225 a year (11 months + $60 for box fee), no thx. Yes, you are welcome to be milked and choose to go on blind and pay the box fees on every new game that is going to get released and it is how poor quality MMO's started on first place without any bright future ahead, but the last decade has proven the opposite.
As long as Mr. X knows that there are players like you out there willing to fork whatever he releases with a popular name (IP) behind it, he will continue to do just the same. It's not how much $ we have compared to how much the product costs, it's how much the product asking for what it offers that matters. Asking $ in front and hoping on players trust is a bad way of doing business and is in my opinion damaging to the future of that product itself.
you missed my point entirely.....read it again. Do not complain about a company "refusing to let you try a product" when in reality, they gave you every chance to try it.
Three days is a long time these days with players just racing to end-game. My sis raised her latest toon to level 90 in WoW in 6 days flat, and she likes questing.
So in WoW, a P2P game, they offer new players a chance to level to 20 for free. The content they'll see to level 20 isn't the good stuff that comes later -- like the whole WotLK expansion -- but gives a taste of what they'll be missing if they don't subscribe.
Originally posted by Appok Make a great MMORPG then you wont need to go to F2P... look at WoW.....
And hopefully ESO (or Wildstar play to pay)
You don't think either of those will turn F2P sometime in the future?
If they end up being good games, then there's no reason to expect they would. Look... if a game is good, people will play it, and it can sustain with a Subscription alone. Why would a company suddenly change payment methods if the one they have is already performing very well?
Assuming the game is good and is able to sustain a paying player base with a Subscription, I'm sure at some point down the road it will go F2P. I mean, sure... it's possible. But even 2 years worth of Subscription with a quality game is plenty of time to get what you would want out of it. At that point, one would probably be tired of playing it anyway. Two years with the same game is a long time, man. At that point... sure... you can have the left-overs when it goes F2P, and the updates stop because you aren't paying anything, and everything about it turns into a Pay to Advance system, because if you won't willingly pay, they'll have to force you, or shut it down. Meanwhile, I'll be subscribing to the next piece of prime rib, and you're still stuck with my left overs.
Look - it's real simple. F2P is the last defense a game has before it shuts down. It shuts down only when people stop playing it. People stop playing games when they start to suck. Thus, F2P games suck. If a game is good... why would it need to be F2P?
Originally posted by Appok Make a great MMORPG then you wont need to go to F2P... look at WoW.....
And hopefully ESO (or Wildstar play to pay)
You don't think either of those will turn F2P sometime in the future?
Look - it's real simple. F2P is the last defense a game has before it shuts down. It shuts down only when people stop playing it. People stop playing games when they start to suck. Thus, F2P games suck. If a game is good... why would it need to be F2P?
This has been shown to just be completely false. Games are now launching as f2p. Many games (lotro, eq2 to name 2) switched to f2p when they had stable populations and were in no danger at all of losing subscribers, nor were they starting to suck.
Look - It's real simple. F2P is done when companies believe they can make even more money than they did by subs, regardless of the number of subs they have. By and large f2p has been shown to make more money than subs alone.
The only question is will a f2p make more than a game with millions? I don't know.
I do know that sub alone will not make more.
The choice is simple. Do you want to play a f2p game with a cs, or a p2p game with a cs.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
F2P is the future. It is why we've seen increased F2P over P2P MMO's and other type of games over the last ....
Actually I agree with you. It is the future. But grim future. People all over the world switching to junk food instead enjoying healthy food. Sad.
F2P makes much less money.
Example: With 40 million active players in LoL (more accounts but not active) they declared they had a 600 million non gaap revenue (helas not controlllable since it is not stock related)
With 7.8 million players,Blizzard declared a 900 million non Gaap revenue in 2013.
So to have approx. the same revevue WoW would need to climb to 60 million players which is not very likely.
And taken the same ratio, a f2p WoW with the same number of active 7.8 million players, WoW would be reduced from 900 million to 120 million dollars yearly revenue.
---- Also ----
F2P is terrible for MMORPG's since these games are extremely costly to develop and maintain.
F2P is perfect in the latest Blizzard card game, Hearthstone though as it is easier to develop ( no open worlds etc) and supported.
I would never say or agree with the title of your thread. I actually got a clue about gaming and techniques on what is best for subscription options. Free is not one of them...
"The King and the Pawn return to the same box at the end of the game"
F2P is just one pricing model of many. I don't understand why everything has to be black or white. It may be popular now, but we'll see how new pricing models develop.
Originally posted by Kopogero Originally posted by AriesTigerOriginally posted by HolophonistOriginally posted by KopogeroOriginally posted by ViduusI'd rather not play with Russian and Brazillian 12-year-olds.
But that's the thing. No one is forcing you to. Us the players decide with what type of community to be involved. It has nothing to do with the model of the game. The Russian/Brazillian 12 year olds would add additional revenue to the game, which would make that game better experience for you at the end.And those of us who prefer P2P over F2P feel that F2P attracts an unwanted type of community. You say it has nothing to do with the model of the game, but it does. And that's one of the reasons we prefer P2P.Amen my brotha.(lol)The "unwanted" reputation is only gained because of the type of community not because of their "economic background". It is exactly why 3rd world countries need the chance and opportunity to mix with the world. There are so many languages out there, but some 3rd world countries are still unaware of the damages their doing to themself and their reputation by segragating and separating themself with purposely not willing to use the universal language.
I withnessed this not longer than a week when I was playing Aura Kingdom. I was looking for a level 5 guild for the EXP bonus and someone whispered me "Do you speak Spanish?". He clearly proved afterwards how well his English was, but would not invite me simply because I did not speak Spanish. Of course it's his own guild and choice and I have no problem with that, but its just making yourself a negative view to the public and the world.
its starting to sound to me like u have some kind of other issue going on thats non game related.
Originally posted by Kopogero Paying 15 dollars a month is not a big deal for a game sorry there is nothing you can do to convince me otherwise. Why should I not want the company to succeed? If they are making something I truly love then I want the developers, producers artists, game managers, directors and customer support people to all make a great wage. Let me guess when you go out to eat you don't tip because if everyone else tips 10 dollars they will make 400 dollars in a night and you won't be milked right?
You are welcome to pay thousands for a single game over the years, while I'll go out there and buy myself a car insteed. The other problem is that there are more than one games out there. So, if I followed your policy I would never bought a house if I decided to enjoy many games over the years. i have a house, 2 cars and 2 kids and my wife and i both sub to an mmo.
Both kickstarters and B2P+P2P models got one thing in common. They both trying to cash in on hype and players hope. When it comes to business and competition time plays a big factor. The longer you delay your product from being offered to the public the more opportunity you give to someone else to do the same and in the process take a share of your market.
The biggest mistake that the B2P+P2P model does is that they believe they can make more $ from far less players on the start over making far more $ from a lot more players in the long run if they went with F2P (aka, try our product on launch and pay afterwards if you like it). I also bet the B2P model would not be there unless the company knew the value of their product in the long run.
One of the many reasons why I got myself in the genre was for the character progression, that RTS, FPS, MOBA, etc genres could not offer. When I do get myself involved in a MMORPG I like to see myself enjoy it for years, not months. I've saved tons of $ over the last 3+ years because I've not bought any B2P MMO P2P or not and so far and it payed off for me big time.
I've done so many costly mistakes buying MMORPG's on launch over the last 12 years.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar And it's not about the cost it is about the perceived value.
That's it. Nothing more. Is it worth the required price to you or not.
This .. it has nothing to do with houses, affordability, or anything like that.
I would gladly spend hundreds of dollars on a michelin star restaurant meal with my wife (in fact, I am going on Sat to celebrate valentine's day ... we opt to go to the day after to avoid the crowds), or $60 on a bottle of wine that i like, but i don't see a need to pay for MMOs when i can get the same, or more fun for free.
If anyone thinks here that they need to spend $200 a year to enjoy one MMO then by all means please continue to pay that. I would gladly pay $200, $300, even $500 a year too, only problem is I like not to be milked and ripped. I have personal pleasure when I'm spending the right $ for what I'm receiving and in the same process improving the genre with better quality products in near future.
F2P will remain the future because it is in the best interest for you, the player since you know exactly in what you are getting yourself involved. If you enjoy the game and like the direction its headed you are welcome to pay for its development and future content. I see some poster above claim they've spent $1800 on WOW over the many years and that's his choice.
Bottom line and point on this whole thread is the fact that F2P can do somehing B2P + P2P can never and that is allowing the player to test the product on launch rather than waiting months or year for players feedback and vids. By the time that year has passed that player can also be persuaded to get himself involved in another game that is more "serious" and savvy in luring the player toward their product for FREE and earning $ at the end from him if he was happy with their product.
Just imagine, the AVERAGE development of AAA MMORPG today is $20,000,000. If the game does not have any cash shop, box fee, just monthly fee of $15 they would earn all of their investment (development cost) within a single month! from 1.3 mil subscribers.
So, all those who argue that P2P=>F2P just do your homework/math and before you get milked out there think first how much $ was invested in the game and how many subs it managed to lure then see if you either are paying reasonable price for what you are getting or you are being "MILKED" by Mr. Greg.
Paying 15 dollars a month is not a big deal for a game sorry there is nothing you can do to convince me otherwise. Why should I not want the company to succeed? If they are making something I truly love then I want the developers, producers artists, game managers, directors and customer support people to all make a great wage. Let me guess when you go out to eat you don't tip because if everyone else tips 10 dollars they will make 400 dollars in a night and you won't be milked right?
CoD and Battlefield host much more people then most MMOs and they don't force people to pay more then box price. Why should another game get the money just cause they call themselves an MMO? Also, paying for services to your face ie. tipping is not the same as a sub fee. Tips are not always forced on your bill nor do they have a set price.
Are you really going to try and compare an MMO world to a shooter? The costs to run an fps and build them are far lower. Then add in the fact that they are constantly updating, paying in game mangers. It is also way more expensive to build them. It is a completely different animal. Oh and tipping should not be considered an option unless the food or service was bad. If you are not tipping for good for and service you are a terrible person and should be wary about ever eating in the same place after you stiff.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar And it's not about the cost it is about the perceived value.
That's it. Nothing more. Is it worth the required price to you or not.
Your right. There are F2P games that I would spend money in because they are worth playing and there are sub games not worth paying a sub for. I sub in TSW and EQ2 not because I have to but because I feel I get enough value out of it to make it worth doing. I rail on F2P games because I feel like in general they are asking people who want to really play them and not just dip in for a quick jaunt to pay more than a average sub game does. But even so if I find one I like and is worth the cost to me I'll play it regardless of pay model.
Paying 15 dollars a month is not a big deal for a game sorry there is nothing you can do to convince me otherwise. Why should I not want the company to succeed? If they are making something I truly love then I want the developers, producers artists, game managers, directors and customer support people to all make a great wage. Let me guess when you go out to eat you don't tip because if everyone else tips 10 dollars they will make 400 dollars in a night and you won't be milked right?
You are welcome to pay thousands for a single game over the years, while I'll go out there and buy myself a car insteed. The other problem is that there are more than one games out there. So, if I followed your policy I would never bought a house if I decided to enjoy many games over the years.
B.S. you are just saying that entertainment doesn't get payed for. If you do anything outside of the house on even a weekly basis it is going to cost more than 15 dollars a month. If you are buying a car because you saved a couple hundred dollars a year for you. Good job! You could also pick up an extra shift or two at work and do both, shocking I know. Back to topic, you can feel free to mooch off of other gamers by not paying a penny, good for you. Don't try to argue that it is better for everyone else though, you just want more people to demand them so better games are F2P from the start. Its worth the 15 dollars a month to not be spammed with non stop garbage from gold sellers and such. Now before you tell me that Star Wars makes more money now than before I will say that is because of the whales out there with compulsion problems. Gambling on boxes, buying potions to get effects. That does not make the game better. Overall revenue of company doesn't equal best quality of in game content.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar And it's not about the cost it is about the perceived value.
That's it. Nothing more. Is it worth the required price to you or not.
Your right. There are F2P games that I would spend money in because they are worth playing and there are sub games not worth paying a sub for. I sub in TSW and EQ2 not because I have to but because I feel I get enough value out of it to make it worth doing. I rail on F2P games because I feel like in general they are asking people who want to really play them and not just dip in for a quick jaunt to pay more than a average sub game does. But even so if I find one I like and is worth the cost to me I'll play it regardless of pay model.
I'm the same way as I'm sure are most people. These conversations always seem to be dominated by people who fit out side the....95% of all gamers though.
No ones attitude is being changed though. It's just the same circle over and over. These people could probably save a lot of time by skipping the long posts about whatever nonsense they just typed and stick to I hate ( payment model ) because it's all they're really saying and no one is really reading it anyway.
You had to pay for your seat, i.e. there is nothing to sit on unless you pay for it.
You had to pay for a drink holder (even if you brought your own drink)
The top/side/bottom edge of the screen had noticeable constantly changing adverts in it?
Now some people might be happy to stand through their movies, hold their drinks and be able to ignore the adverts.
Personally I prefer the old fashioned movie experience.
You're right , it's not the best comparison. You're comparing actual physical discomfort to a debate on virtual entertainment which , doesn't matter what payment model it is , you're renting.
You had to pay for your seat, i.e. there is nothing to sit on unless you pay for it.
You had to pay for a drink holder (even if you brought your own drink)
The top/side/bottom edge of the screen had noticeable constantly changing adverts in it?
Now some people might be happy to stand through their movies, hold their drinks and be able to ignore the adverts.
Personally I prefer the old fashioned movie experience.
Movies are not video games. On the other hand, people are perfectly happy to sit through television shows that are interupted by advertisements, and they are willing to pay for additional features by having cable and satellite subscriptions. Even so, television isn't the same thing as video games either.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
But the whole point, and the television example also show this, is that different people are prepared to accept different levels of service for different price points.
So please can we stop the endless debate of which payment model is best for MMOs. Each developer will make that decision based on their target audience and may over the life of the service change this as they see fit. End of story.
Forum Post count does not = Game Intelligence or Knowledge it just shows how often people like to talk.
Comments
And your entire argument is rendered pointless with the fact that most MMO's offer some kind of free trial period shortly after they get released. You know, so that people can test the waters without committing to it up front.
You make me like charity
Three days is a long time these days with players just racing to end-game. My sis raised her latest toon to level 90 in WoW in 6 days flat, and she likes questing.
So in WoW, a P2P game, they offer new players a chance to level to 20 for free. The content they'll see to level 20 isn't the good stuff that comes later -- like the whole WotLK expansion -- but gives a taste of what they'll be missing if they don't subscribe.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
And hopefully ESO (or Wildstar play to pay)
Ryoshi1 as Rikimaru
You don't think either of those will turn F2P sometime in the future?
If they end up being good games, then there's no reason to expect they would. Look... if a game is good, people will play it, and it can sustain with a Subscription alone. Why would a company suddenly change payment methods if the one they have is already performing very well?
Assuming the game is good and is able to sustain a paying player base with a Subscription, I'm sure at some point down the road it will go F2P. I mean, sure... it's possible. But even 2 years worth of Subscription with a quality game is plenty of time to get what you would want out of it. At that point, one would probably be tired of playing it anyway. Two years with the same game is a long time, man. At that point... sure... you can have the left-overs when it goes F2P, and the updates stop because you aren't paying anything, and everything about it turns into a Pay to Advance system, because if you won't willingly pay, they'll have to force you, or shut it down. Meanwhile, I'll be subscribing to the next piece of prime rib, and you're still stuck with my left overs.
Look - it's real simple. F2P is the last defense a game has before it shuts down. It shuts down only when people stop playing it. People stop playing games when they start to suck. Thus, F2P games suck. If a game is good... why would it need to be F2P?
This has been shown to just be completely false. Games are now launching as f2p. Many games (lotro, eq2 to name 2) switched to f2p when they had stable populations and were in no danger at all of losing subscribers, nor were they starting to suck.
Look - It's real simple. F2P is done when companies believe they can make even more money than they did by subs, regardless of the number of subs they have. By and large f2p has been shown to make more money than subs alone.
The only question is will a f2p make more than a game with millions? I don't know.
I do know that sub alone will not make more.
The choice is simple. Do you want to play a f2p game with a cs, or a p2p game with a cs.
Actually I agree with you. It is the future. But grim future. People all over the world switching to junk food instead enjoying healthy food. Sad.
F2P makes much less money.
Example: With 40 million active players in LoL (more accounts but not active) they declared they had a 600 million non gaap revenue (helas not controlllable since it is not stock related)
With 7.8 million players,Blizzard declared a 900 million non Gaap revenue in 2013.
So to have approx. the same revevue WoW would need to climb to 60 million players which is not very likely.
And taken the same ratio, a f2p WoW with the same number of active 7.8 million players, WoW would be reduced from 900 million to 120 million dollars yearly revenue.
---- Also ----
F2P is terrible for MMORPG's since these games are extremely costly to develop and maintain.
F2P is perfect in the latest Blizzard card game, Hearthstone though as it is easier to develop ( no open worlds etc) and supported.
The idea that f2p makes less money is proven false by the games that switched and ended up making more money.
And those of us who prefer P2P over F2P feel that F2P attracts an unwanted type of community. You say it has nothing to do with the model of the game, but it does. And that's one of the reasons we prefer P2P.
Amen my brotha. (lol)
The "unwanted" reputation is only gained because of the type of community not because of their "economic background". It is exactly why 3rd world countries need the chance and opportunity to mix with the world. There are so many languages out there, but some 3rd world countries are still unaware of the damages their doing to themself and their reputation by segragating and separating themself with purposely not willing to use the universal language.
I withnessed this not longer than a week when I was playing Aura Kingdom. I was looking for a level 5 guild for the EXP bonus and someone whispered me "Do you speak Spanish?". He clearly proved afterwards how well his English was, but would not invite me simply because I did not speak Spanish. Of course it's his own guild and choice and I have no problem with that, but its just making yourself a negative view to the public and the world.
its starting to sound to me like u have some kind of other issue going on thats non game related.
You are welcome to pay thousands for a single game over the years, while I'll go out there and buy myself a car insteed. The other problem is that there are more than one games out there. So, if I followed your policy I would never bought a house if I decided to enjoy many games over the years.
i have a house, 2 cars and 2 kids and my wife and i both sub to an mmo.
Just like those that believe p2p is necessary to deliver a quality game are a fraction of a fraction and not representative of the p2p community.
That's it. Nothing more. Is it worth the required price to you or not.
Both kickstarters and B2P+P2P models got one thing in common. They both trying to cash in on hype and players hope. When it comes to business and competition time plays a big factor. The longer you delay your product from being offered to the public the more opportunity you give to someone else to do the same and in the process take a share of your market.
The biggest mistake that the B2P+P2P model does is that they believe they can make more $ from far less players on the start over making far more $ from a lot more players in the long run if they went with F2P (aka, try our product on launch and pay afterwards if you like it). I also bet the B2P model would not be there unless the company knew the value of their product in the long run.
One of the many reasons why I got myself in the genre was for the character progression, that RTS, FPS, MOBA, etc genres could not offer. When I do get myself involved in a MMORPG I like to see myself enjoy it for years, not months. I've saved tons of $ over the last 3+ years because I've not bought any B2P MMO P2P or not and so far and it payed off for me big time.
I've done so many costly mistakes buying MMORPG's on launch over the last 12 years.
#1 Everquest 2001 - Walmart gave me invalid key.
#2 FFXI - Might've been a great MMORPG but I only played it for a month.
#3 Sims Online - I don't recall how long I played it but was a short lived MMO.
#4 Aion - Exactly 3 months.
#5 Star Craft II (I know not a MMO, but I just like to put it here cuz I forked $70 with taxes for playing it for 10-15 days)
And I'm sure there other MMO's in between that I've been burned buying on launch.
This .. it has nothing to do with houses, affordability, or anything like that.
I would gladly spend hundreds of dollars on a michelin star restaurant meal with my wife (in fact, I am going on Sat to celebrate valentine's day ... we opt to go to the day after to avoid the crowds), or $60 on a bottle of wine that i like, but i don't see a need to pay for MMOs when i can get the same, or more fun for free.
Are you really going to try and compare an MMO world to a shooter? The costs to run an fps and build them are far lower. Then add in the fact that they are constantly updating, paying in game mangers. It is also way more expensive to build them. It is a completely different animal. Oh and tipping should not be considered an option unless the food or service was bad. If you are not tipping for good for and service you are a terrible person and should be wary about ever eating in the same place after you stiff.
Your right. There are F2P games that I would spend money in because they are worth playing and there are sub games not worth paying a sub for. I sub in TSW and EQ2 not because I have to but because I feel I get enough value out of it to make it worth doing. I rail on F2P games because I feel like in general they are asking people who want to really play them and not just dip in for a quick jaunt to pay more than a average sub game does. But even so if I find one I like and is worth the cost to me I'll play it regardless of pay model.
B.S. you are just saying that entertainment doesn't get payed for. If you do anything outside of the house on even a weekly basis it is going to cost more than 15 dollars a month. If you are buying a car because you saved a couple hundred dollars a year for you. Good job! You could also pick up an extra shift or two at work and do both, shocking I know. Back to topic, you can feel free to mooch off of other gamers by not paying a penny, good for you. Don't try to argue that it is better for everyone else though, you just want more people to demand them so better games are F2P from the start. Its worth the 15 dollars a month to not be spammed with non stop garbage from gold sellers and such. Now before you tell me that Star Wars makes more money now than before I will say that is because of the whales out there with compulsion problems. Gambling on boxes, buying potions to get effects. That does not make the game better. Overall revenue of company doesn't equal best quality of in game content.
I'm the same way as I'm sure are most people. These conversations always seem to be dominated by people who fit out side the....95% of all gamers though.
No ones attitude is being changed though. It's just the same circle over and over. These people could probably save a lot of time by skipping the long posts about whatever nonsense they just typed and stick to I hate ( payment model ) because it's all they're really saying and no one is really reading it anyway.
Perhaps not the best comparison, but still....
Would you go to a movie theater that was free if:
You're right , it's not the best comparison. You're comparing actual physical discomfort to a debate on virtual entertainment which , doesn't matter what payment model it is , you're renting.
This could end up being very interesting.
Movies are not video games. On the other hand, people are perfectly happy to sit through television shows that are interupted by advertisements, and they are willing to pay for additional features by having cable and satellite subscriptions. Even so, television isn't the same thing as video games either.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
But the whole point, and the television example also show this, is that different people are prepared to accept different levels of service for different price points.
So please can we stop the endless debate of which payment model is best for MMOs. Each developer will make that decision based on their target audience and may over the life of the service change this as they see fit. End of story.