It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscriptions. From where we are right now, the topic is worth revisiting. The Elder Scrolls Online is set for release in just a couple of weeks, while WildStar will be debuting in early June. While both games will launch with subscriptions, there are some who feel that the subscription model is outmoded, with a contingent of players that agree that a free to play game attracts them more. Yet, despite some games launching with subscriptions and then converting to a hybrid model (or even buy to play in the case of The Secret World), a couple of studios are trying again. The MMO player community is divided into several types of players whose interest isn’t uniform, so while some might speak for one model or another, the truth is all models work for some people. So why, especially with the most successful game being a subscription-based game, does the idea of subscriptions seem to bother so many?
Read more of Christina Gonzalez's The Social Hub: The Subscription Model - A Matter of Expectations.
Comments
great article.
iam on board on these 2 new mmos coming out. WS & ESO.- they are both so different in side of the spectrum- theres no competition here.
I will pay my sub respectfully. i will give them a chance to see how often new content will be delivered after release- and the kind of content worth my sub fee...(i dont mean holiday events either!!!)
Ive had my share of B2P & F2P games -and havent been impressed. which have lead to dissapointment.
i agree with carbine comments- its really how solid the game is that makes it successful.!
Excellent observation that development takes years, and the climate of the genre was likely different when the development of a particular game started compared to when it launches.
Still, timing is everything. Right or wrong, games launch into whatever the current market is, and will need to compete based on now, not what was true 5 years ago.
I also think the change in the sub-model is an issue. In the past, the subscription got you everything. Now, every game, including subscription-based games, are the "hybrid model", in that almost all of them come with a cash shop as well.
Hell hath no fury like an MMORPG player scorned.
So why, especially with the most successful game being a subscription-based game, does the idea of subscriptions seem to bother so many?
Well, there are people who live by the saying "You get what you pay for." But, for every one person who thinks that way, there are about three dozen people who buy everything from Walmart.
the problem now with the subscription is that ESO is going to be so bugged at launch but the want you to still pay a full subscription.
But, that's how EVERY game launches. Also, it wouldn't be Elder Scrolls without a few bugs.
A subscription is more than warranted if the game is high enough quality to keep the player engaged and entertained on a monthly basis. But that requires that all focus and attention need to be on continuing to create high quality content and features.
While every players mileage may vary, mine has been that F2P or hybrid systems tend to focus to much on the cash shop and not enough on content. Every game in that model that I have played has left me wanting and made me feel as though I had to pay more than a sub price to get the things that were available and in some cases a sub plus more money to get things that are core parts of the game (STO & SWTOR are prime examples).
While Rift seems to pull off their model decently, even Patrons are left having to spend more cash to enjoy basic parts of the game such as the dimension system. Now I understand that some feel that player housing is not a core concept of an mmo, but there are many of us that do. It is this aspect alone that I think that Wildstar will find an audience to support it.
I am not sure that you are actually understanding the situation. Historically speaking, new MMORPG's have launched with a box price + a monthly sub. However, only one game has ever been 'sucessful' with this (and even that gets debated heavily), World of Warcraft.
In todays market, there is no expectation of sucess for a game to launch like this. Every game that has tried this has 'failed' (in the opinion of the masses). The proper question is; 'Why would X game succeed with this, when everyone else has failed?'
In todays market, there is no financial security in box + sub. There is no benefit to the game. There is only one underlying advantage... and not one that is good for the customer. If you launch as box + sub, you can cash in fast, then change course at a later date.
This is seen by the masses as a bait and switch. It is a setup from the start, with the companies planning to take advantage of the goodwill of thier customer base. This is why people are upset about the proposition... not because they dont like the payment method, but because they feel they are being lied too.
A good example of box + sub is Final Fantasy XIV. This is an HONEST attempt at a monthly sub, and one that players can respect. It may not be the 'sucess' that WoW is, but it is not the 'failure' that all the others are. It is an honest attempt to make a game that is based around a monthly sub. This is not what people are seeing with TES or WildStar. Both of these (for different reasons) are poised to change business models, but only after they have gotten as much money as possible from gullible customers.
Well-written article, certainly. I think that there are multiple camps and opinions when it comes to MMO subscriptions. And it seems the majority have a slight or large discomfort or disagreement with subscriptions being a requirement in the current MMO market. With so many other options out there, you're going to have to offer something TRULY different, ground-breaking, and amazing to get people to put down money every month in the expectation of continued value for their game. Currently, I don't think many people have faith that ESO is going to do that. Sure, some do, and it's easier for certain groups to throw cash monthly at a game (particularly if they are avid players who intent to put in several hours weekly). But for others, the new models have brought a freedom with them. A freedom to play what you want, when you want, and buy the new content if and when you want.
And the only "successful" MMO currently using the subscription model is World of Warcraft. I know people will point out Final Fantasy XIV, but that is so recent we have yet to see the impact of their subscription model in the longer-term. There are already groups of players complaining to have hit the level cap, run out of things to do, and not getting enough new content to justify their monthly fee. So, whether this will become an issue has yet to be determined. So, I think Zenimax is not listening to the players. They're not listening to the community and what they want or expect. I think they're banking on the novelty of their game at launch, the dedicated gamers who will buy and play it regardless of initial cost and subscriptions, and hoping to squeeze as much money out of that group as they can before needing to change directions.
It's uncertain what will happen, and I don't think the game is "doomed", but I think they've made several missteps and mistakes that will harm them in the medium-long term.
The payment method is a moot point. The point is, is the game worth it?
If the game is good enough, I'll pay upfront for the game, pay a subscription, and pay for DLC. But I cannot think of a single game on the market that's worth my time at the moment, let alone my money.
The only two games I will be buying in the next couple of years are Elite: Dangerous and Star Citizen. For these two games, I am willing to pay more than I need to.
thanks for this article, christina, as always i really enjoy your writing and your view on things.
why some games choose subscription as payment model for release seams to be coming hand in hand with the need to sell retail versions of the game to cover the initial development costs. as i tried to explain this for years ... a high budget game (rumors say 200 m $ for teso and 150 m $ for wildstar) can't generate a revenue within a short time with f2p to cover the development costs like a retail sell at launch can do. even if you go with a freemium model (monthly fee for premium account) you need a huge amount of players to get the same effect as a retail version does have.
what people don't get is that a pure f2p payment model (no premium account or monthly fee) can't cover such high development costs in years. the average revenue per paying user (arppu) in client based (!) mmogs (so no browser or mobile games, thats a whole other thing) with a pure f2p is around 5$ per month. f2p games who have a higer arppu tend to be typical p2w games like f.e. atlantica online, but their number of paying users ranges in a 5 digit number area. freemium games like dcuo, lotro or swtor have a way higher arppu (~ 12 $), thats because all the monthly paid premium accounts are going in the financial overview.
so lets say zenimax gets from every retail sell 25$ after taxes for teso. so they need to sell at least 8 million copies to cover the development costs. very unlikely in my eyes, but thats not the point at the moment. after the release they go at least a year with subscirptions. in average they can bind, lets say, 1 million subscribers (and thats a very nice guess) for a year. sure they will start with 2 or even maybe 3 million subscribers in the first months, but out of experience with other titles, this will drop very fast under a million, maybe even under 500k. but zenimax will make good money in this time. 7,5 $ (after taxes, budget for further development and administrative costs) x 1 million x 12 months. and then comes the change to f2p and very likely a freemium payment model. this happens, when the monthly revenue with subscribers only falls under the estimated point in which a freemium game generates more money per month.
this means, that zenimax first will milk the p2p crowd and the fanboys and then turns over to the f2p nomads. in 3 years the game has made a decent amount of profit and still have a loyal memberbase of 100-200k people who pay a monthly fee in a so called f2p game. 5 years after release the servers will go off, because the rest of paying customers won't generate enough money to keep a handfull developers and administrative workers around.My thoughts exactly. I actually like when a game, an MMO especially, comes out just to see some of the funny stuff that happens. I don't think people realize this as a fact. Even Rift, who by my recollection, had the smoothest launch probably in recent MMO history had bugs, like double stacking weapons to double your damage. They were fixed within like an hour with a patch, but still it was funny to see it. Skyrim, which most people will relate ESO to, had a multitude of bugs at launch. I remember the first time I bought a horse, and ran over a rock and flying through the air. I laughed so hard!
Even the "most-successful" MMO had launch problems. If you could look at my account billing history on WoW, you will see a bunch of 1-7 day extensions to my subscription, and this went on for like 3-4 months, but nobody remembers those days I suppose.
The main problem I have with the B2P and F2P models aren't really the models at all. It's the community. It's always made up of people who feel entitled to things for free. Such is the way things are in real life these days. My son asked me for money once, and I asked him why do you think you deserve MY money. Needless to say, he was outside mowing the lawn for the next hour or so, then he got his money Nothing in life is free, that's one of the first things you should learn in life.
THIS IS SO SIMPLE.
You people think its so cut and dry....well it is in a different sense.
If its worthy of a sub if it innovative and makes me want to play over and over ill sub.
I NOT; hell no i won't sub i won't buy the game i won't support such markets like this.
Do what you have to do co back to the drawing board try to better the industy positively instead of throwing a big name out there with the same crap and hoping people nibble for awhile before moving on.
I DO NOT LIKE WILDSTAR OR TESO. Both seem like failures to me.
I will not sub for the sake of being part of a group a niche or anything else.
I will support a game and company that deserves it.
FFXIV has had over 1.8 million people sign up (not all are current active subscribers) since its relaunch, and as recently as a couple weeks ago the Producer said that they still had around 500k unique logins per day. I think the amount of subscribers they have now falls in line with what they wanted to remain profitable. There's also the PS4 version of the game launching in the middle of April which will probably bolster the numbers some as well.
They have a pretty aggressive content update schedule, but the game is meant to be more casual in nature so it's not something that can satisfy hardcore folks, so I can see where these folks may not see the value of the subscription. But it's still cheaper than almost any other form of entertainment that you'd go out and do.
Yes but sadly one of those two upcoming sub games will contain a cash shop with a pay wall item. The Imperial race.
The ground has been laid for a subscription game, with a F2P cash shop. I will take no part in such a distorted mutation of the subscription model. To pay a sub and be nickel and dimed?!? no way.
The issue is the way you have to make money in a F2P game. You end up selling ridiculous costumes, pets, and other such rubbish to players to make a buck. That kind of thing reduces the immersion and grit of a world though.
Wildstar I think could pull it off alright, but it would ruin the immersion of ESO which IMO is the main draw point. You can't just take on bunny suit's and flying moogles that follow players around and maintain the same feeling of "reality". It works for some games but I don't think ESO would be one of them.
I don't feel any particular payment model is any better than any other. It's about picking one that matches the style and feel of the game. I think Sub will work for ESO(although i'm not sure for how long). I don't think it would last long as a FTP.
The argument that I have expressed here times before, is that when you pay a sub your getting a premium service game (all of the game), its seems to me that over the years, with then inclusion of microtransactions the marketing angle is to press a point that your still getting "all of the game" and paying for micro transactions "gives your more", when in fact your really getting a partial game, be it that the development team is wasting time and resources making items/content exculsive for the store. Bottom line the development companies are using improved technology to hire a smaller dev teams combined subs/microtransactions to increase revenue. Games are being released that really do not offer anything new...in a nut shell consumers overall pay more and get the same thing that was offered years ago.
One would hope that if tech has improved over the years, then the same number of devs could make more content at release, with innovative new features and better overall quality, but this is not the case.
Nowadays you buy a game lets say gives your 20 hours of content that took half the time to make now that it was 10 years ago for $60, then pay another $20 for 10 hours of extra content packs, and another $20 for another 10 hours. Used to be it was standard in the past that a lot of single player games at release offered 40 hours of gameplay, and probably took longer to make
MMORPGs are more like scams more and more, sub par games with high costs to the consumer, for the business, they can make less game with fewer devs and make more profit and they invest less back into the game. IMO the microtransactions started with gold spammers, and the business community said "hey lets get into that!"
I know this will appear old fashioned, but I've been in MMOs for over 10 years and I like the subscription model. The FTP means I'm not as invested in it. I go from being a customer to being a resource. Consider "free" services like FB or YouTube, they monitor what you do so they can send you advertising. I get the same feeling from FTP games, that I'm not there to play but to provide something the business can use to make money.
I want a business to earn a profit, the key word being EARN. A profit is not something they're entitled to. Nor does it give them a blank check to do what they want. A business has responsibilities to their customers and when you pay a subscription, you ARE the customer.
Sorry my friend gonna correct you here- Blizzard isnt the only company with a successful sub model. CCP with eveonline game is very successful.
and they dont have a cash shop and its pure pvp with no 'bells and whistles'..and a few others-they are out there...
In my opinion, long based games need to have a sub fee to maintain its longevity and quality.
and as for world of warcraft success is purely do that it has morphed into an AOL social media hub and less like an mmo.-and thats ok too if thats what you desire to get into.
First, comparing MMO subs to XBOX live or some other service that according to the writer doesn't offer as many perks as a MMO sub, is one (bad analogy though) thing. But then conveniently leaving out the other side of the story, like for example AAA MMO Guild Wars 2 that doesn't require a sub, is kind of convenient don't you think?
Stop acting as if it is the fault of gamers that subs are not that accepted anymore by everyone. Or to blame them for having sky high expectations. There is just one basic rule. The industry has to EARN the customers loyality. If for whatever reason they lose it, they have to earn it back. The customer is not required to purchase any service/product or. Or even required to rationalize why they think the price is not worth it. It is their money and they decide.
So if a game tanks because those 'silly' customers refuse for some reason (any reason is valid from a customer's point of view) to pay for a sub+box, then it will be only the fault of the company. Because they were not able to convince the potential customers. So please, MMORPG.com stop the apology articles about this.
As for my personal expectations for offered service set against payment. Blame Arenanet if you will.
First take WoW out of the comparison. It was a fluke. It was lightning in a bottle.
Second there are a ton of games on the market. How many mmo's where there when WoW hit the shelves?
Third AAA mmo's are taking a lot of money to make. No company wants to be in a huge hole for a long time.
Forth Cash shops make money.
Lastly Devs are focused on making themeparks with dev made content.
If you add it all up, people have so many choices they don't stay with games for long (taking about the market as a whole). Therefor you end up with a huge drop in subs at some point (another new game is released, content isn't released fast enough, to many bugs or not enough things to do because the game was forced to release early etc).
While the mmo will retain some people, because so much money was put into it and so much money was excepted from it there will be a strong desire to make more money off it.
How do you do that? Lower the entry bar so more people join your game then get them to pay. Maybe a cash shop or bonuses for subbing. If the game has a strong enough ip you might even be able to force people to sub rather than play the terrible ftp model you created.
Bottonline if a company wants to make the most amount of money it will make it easy for people to play their game and offer them reasons to spend their money.
The market is not endless. There are going to be 3 new AAA titles Wildstar, Teso and FF reborn that are sub only (but wildstar you could play for free..yeah good luck with that).
Its 100% one, some or all will lower its entry barrier before the end of this year.
Sorry. I like EVE, but it just isnt a qualified 'sucess'. It doesnt generate more games trying to re-produce its 'sucess'. It could be argued that EQ1 was a sucess (in its day) because it spawned games like WoW to emulate it. However, in todays MMORPG market, if you are not WoW.... you are not anything, and the public opinion of WoW is now also mixed.
link a site up where you read ESO is poised to change its business model down the road. I have been following this game since it was a rumor and i never read that anywhere.
This is the true slippery slope to me and the one that I feel will eventually run me out of the genre.
Even though SWTOR considers itself freemium now their model ran me away from a game I enjoyed...
I will not support any game that charges a sub and gates any type of content/fluff/cosmetics behind a paywall.
WTB a like button for this.
This, very succiently, summed up exactly why I won't be buying this game. In my honest opinion, Zenimax even went beyond "groundwork"... they flat out *are* nickel and diming you, in addition to a Sub model. If you want all the races and a mount before level 25... pay $80 rather than $60. That's the kind of stuff you can get away with when the whole damn base game is free.
It's like this company thinks I am an idiot.
Just for clarity, I have zero issues at all with a sub game having a cash shop with cosmetics and mounts.
The race is a pay wall item, something you only get with F2P games so there is nothing to stop them from creating new playable races that can only be used if bought via the cash shop. Beyond that, if that makes them a profit, there is nothing to stop XP buffs, armor, crafting materials and every other thing you find in F2P games from being placed in there also.