The inability to stay profitable under a subscription is the result of casual game design and choosing to emulate rather than innovate. When games were unique, this was not an issue.
It wasn't just about there being less competition, there were still 10+ big name games 10 years ago, yet all of them found success in the subscription because they all offered something a little different. People argue that today theres "soo many options" but in reality there isn't for most people. Anyone that takes an objective look at the long list of games on this site knows there might be 10 games that are relevant and still have something to offer the average player today. Its really no different than it was 10 years ago. The vast majority of people are still playing 5-10 major titles and then maybe a small fraction are outliers playing something you've probably never heard of and wouldn't want to if you did.
The second problem is casual design. When you choose to make your game casual friendly by offering convenience and accessibility, you generally eliminate the need for players to commit to a long term investment in your game. Its the classic case of fast food gaming where players come and go after devouring the shallow content you had to offer. Maybe you can keep producing enough to keep them coming back down the line, but maybe you can't.
If a game comes along that using an older design model, I believe the subscription will work just fine as it once did. For instance, if a traditional mmorpg was released today with virtually no competition, people who enjoyed the game would pay the sub because theres simply nothing else remotely like it. People interested in that type of game are not easily tempted by modern mmos.
I would argue that games today launch with more to do then 10 years ago, well for me 14 years ago, is that the nature of a "casual" game? Granted that isn't necessarly innovative and I'd rather not get into an argument over what is and isn't innovative. Been there on this site, nobody will agree. I'll just leave it at that things have changed such that there is more to do then there was 14 years ago. The content does seem to be consumed faster then ever purhaps the casual design is too throw away and doesn't repeat. But in the older games there wasn't really that many options so you repeated because you had to.
For older games, the leveling curve was longer but that didn't result in greater game play just tedium. I can appreciate what kind of social environment of shared pain that created, that certainly has been missing in the newer mmos. I don't think anyone has captured that with what you call "casual game design".
A larger variety, yes. However, much of that variety is used to craft a net they cast to garner mass appeal. In reality most of those different features are shallow and half-baked. Making the process slower doesn't make them any better. Contrary to popular propaganda, classic MMORPGs weren't slow just for the sake of being slow. It was a different experience from the word 'Go' and it was integral to the larger design. Instead of the end game focus, the focus was offering engaging content and challenge in the form of an epic journey from start to finish. Even with the limited number of activities in traditional mmorpgs I found more to enjoy than the plethora of shallow forms of gameplay that modern games have to offer.
Originally posted by scorpex-x Originally posted by sagewisdomOriginally posted by scorpex-xThe only subscription I accept is one that either has no cash shop or one that is optional.FFXIV has a pay to win cash shop so I'm an completely against that one.Okay, what the hell is pay to win in FFXIV's cash shop? They have items players sell for large amounts of gil, pretty much the company partaking in RMT. I posted this in another thread but I'll put it here too. A lot of us quit over this p2w cash shop practice. All items on the cash shop are not tradeable, except wedding rings (which are really overpriced). The only way to get these wedding rings is by paying real money for them or trading gil to someone else that will.Weddings are really popular on FFXIV due to the kind of players the game attracts. Having lots of gil means merc groups will clear whatever you want and let you lot whatever you want. So if you're rich irl you can just buy anything you want in FFXIV, when a pay to play title lets you pay your way to the top that is pay to win.Here is another thread about how p2w FFXIV is form it's own players. http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/threads/208586-FFXIV-A-Step-to-P2W-(My-2.45-Feedback) Originally posted by Vejjiegirl A Friend of mine was walking around in a full Arachne Set Arachne Robe (goes for 1mil) Arachne Culottes Of Healing (goes for 1.4mil) Kirimu Gloves Of Healing (goes for 800k-1mil) Kirimu Boots Of Healing (goes for 1mil) Platinum Circlet Of Healing (goes for about 500k->1mil) Thats around 4700000-> 5400000 gil. For a player that just got to level 50 it was a pretty big jump to go from i50->i110(HQ) in just a few minutes. I asked them how they did it, guess what they did. Bought $40.00 Platinum Plan, and sold the Promise of Devotion for about 5mil each. Its not mandatory but if you have the money to spend it can get you a huge boost. Think of it as an "Optional" Power boost.
Also again, as I said before. Lots of cash bought gil means the games large merc population will get you whatever you want.
Players stopped complaining or quit over this after a while because Square don't care and love the extra $$
That was addressed months ago. Notice that thread is from last December? Yoshi P did not intended for that to happen and the issue was resolved. He even said so in the next Dev journal. I don't know what FFXIV did to you, but it must've been pretty traumatic. You go through great lengths to trash this game. You did the same thing on your old account with gw2. Not sure what else to say. Just kind of feel bad for you.
The inability to stay profitable under a subscription is the result of casual game design and choosing to emulate rather than innovate. When games were unique, this was not an issue.
This is at the heart of the issue.
Themeparks cannot stay profitable as subs. Especially WoW clone ones.
The inability to stay profitable under a subscription is the result of casual game design and choosing to emulate rather than innovate. When games were unique, this was not an issue.
This is at the heart of the issue.
Themeparks cannot stay profitable as subs. Especially WoW clone ones.
That's assuming the "pre-casual" era was profitable. People saw MMO's as too time-consuming, so they avoided them like the plague. It wasn't until casual gameplay that made MMO's mainstream, and even more profitable.
It's debatable whether themeparks and clones are responsible for the current state of the genre right now.
Games did innovate, in other ways, and turned away from the wow clone gameplay, but still failed to stay subscription. (TSW, ESO, Tera, and now possibly WS, are just a few examples.)
If anything WS proved that hardcore gameplay isn't profitable.
The inability to stay profitable under a subscription is the result of casual game design and choosing to emulate rather than innovate. When games were unique, this was not an issue.
This is at the heart of the issue.
Themeparks cannot stay profitable as subs. Especially WoW clone ones.
That's assuming the "pre-casual" era was profitable. People saw MMO's as too time-consuming, so they avoided them like the plague. It wasn't until casual gameplay that made MMO's mainstream, and even more profitable.
It's debatable whether themeparks and clones are responsible for the current state of the genre right now.
Games did innovate, in other ways, and turned away from the wow clone gameplay, but still failed to stay subscription. (TSW, ESO, Tera, and now possibly WS, are just a few examples.)
If anything WS proved that hardcore gameplay isn't profitable.
They were very profitable. Most of the early MMOs cost less than 10 million to make. EQ for instance was said to have spent around 2 million and they had over 200k subscriptions before the first expansion. They didn't get popular over night, but with box sales and a few months in subs ($9.99 @ the time) they had already made back the cost of creating the game.
Other things to consider was the number of people on the internet then versus now. We are talking about a time when there was less than 10% of the current number of people on the internet, so considerably less potential players at a time when it still was not common place to subscribe for internet services, let alone games.
Originally posted by Viper482 I will take a good sub game over a game built around a cash shop any day.
I understand the sentiment.
In the grand context of MMO's is ESO a good game? Not great but good. I understand everyone will not agree but objectively I think it is good. It could not stand as a subscription game. I'm saying it couldn't buy enough time with the subscriptions to evolve into a game where enough people felt it merited a subscription.
Look at the past, the turd that AO was at release had much more time to evolve as a game. The developer could ride the subscription money while they did so. That luxury does not exist today.
I think to survive as a sub game from release today a game would have to be great out of the box. Further, I think it is close to impossible for that to happen.
This is subjective, when I say a "good" game it means good to me. ESO is not a good game imo, I own it and still don't play it even though it is free. Yet for plenty of people it was good enough for a sub.
I don't think the release matters, what matters is staying power. The problem with today's MMO's is they are built around a wham-bam-thank you ma'am model...and you are off to the next game. You might come back and play here and there, but you don't "live" in that world.
Like others, I'd say only the top tier ones like EVE Online, or games with small populations and small development teams, would merit a monthly subscription.
That of course, is an entirely separate question from, "Which games GET subscribers."
Originally posted by Muntz The games of the past I played all had subscriptions that was what was done in those times. So, a bad release or even a decent release with a smaller then expected amount of content wasn't the death knell of the subscription. There simple was only one payment model. It seemed like companies had years to fix everything and add the appropreate level of content. Not true now a days. I don't wonder if the standard required for a game to merit a subscription is too high for a newly released game to meet. Even if your supported by deep pockets as time goes on there will be a great deal of pressure to release. For such a complex piece of software your done basically when you need cash flow. That isn't going to be a fully completed game.
The quality of a game is largely unrelated to whether it has a sub, and GW1 and 2 have proven that a great mmo can be released and sustained with a B2P model. Several f2p mmos are also quite good, and some of the games that transitioned to b2p or f2p from a sub seem to be doing fine.
Times have changed, it isn't necessary anymore to have a sub, and indeed it could well be worse for a game to start off with a sub. Of course if a game can maintain a sub model with a healthily population, and at the same time charge for expansions, and have a cash shop then from a business perspective they are onto a good thing.
Some people claim that non-sub games are cash grabs, but these days actually the reverse is closer to the truth. In an era where it is perfectly possible to maintain a successful mmo with a b2p or f2p business model, companies that charge a sub (which also usually comes with cash shop and paid expansions) are just using whatever brand name leverage they have to extract as much money as possible from players.
Note I say "closer to the truth", because ultimately all game devs probably just want to make an awesome game- the pricing of the game is a business decision which should be made on the basis of how to get the highest sustained profit from the project, at least if it is run by a listed company. A smaller company which isn't constrained by a duty to shareholders to squeeze out as much profit as possible could be more altruistic about it- which is probably the case for Path of Exile.
The inability to stay profitable under a subscription is the result of casual game design and choosing to emulate rather than innovate. When games were unique, this was not an issue.
This is at the heart of the issue.
Themeparks cannot stay profitable as subs. Especially WoW clone ones.
That's assuming the "pre-casual" era was profitable. People saw MMO's as too time-consuming, so they avoided them like the plague.
Except, you know, the millions of players that were playing them before WoW, raising huge companies out of small developers...
And no, there has been almost zero innovation in 10 years. And what's more important, the games, at their heart, are designed to quickly burn through linear content and quit.
For me, it's not whether a game is worth a subscription. I'm paying a sub for LotRO and ESO right now.
The point is that I'm not going to play a game that has a mandatory sub. I'm not going to rent my games anymore, at least not as a standard practice. I just hate doing that.
Let's be real here, you would not be paying a sub for these games unless you thought it was worth it. You are trying to convince us that you would quit paying them tomorrow if they started requiring the same sub you already pay today?
The inability to stay profitable under a subscription is the result of casual game design and choosing to emulate rather than innovate. When games were unique, this was not an issue.
This is at the heart of the issue.
Themeparks cannot stay profitable as subs. Especially WoW clone ones.
That's assuming the "pre-casual" era was profitable. People saw MMO's as too time-consuming, so they avoided them like the plague.
Except, you know, the millions of players that were playing them before WoW, raising huge companies out of small developers...
And no, there has been almost zero innovation in 10 years. And what's more important, the games, at their heart, are designed to quickly burn through linear content and quit.
You can't be serious. There has been a lot of innovation.
Combat
Constructing/Building
Phasing
Vehicles
Siege weaponry
Housing
Traveling
Crafting (Archeage and Black Desert crop farming)
Story formats
Event systems (warhammer/gw2/rift/etc)
and yes, even Questing has evolved.
etc.
This is just off the top of my head, and there's many other features that are new to MMO's. Granted, not all of them are innovated as something new, but they have either evolved or been improved upon.
You're basically dismissing 10 years of innovation because of your hatred for linear questing, which is funny, because almost all MMO's out right now do not have linear questing or content. They have multiple paths for leveling.
After those games I have to actually use my brain.
so maybe.....
ESO
Warframe
PS2
I can not really think of games worth paying a sub for after these.
I could maybe see people paying for wizard 101
Originally posted by laokoko "if you want to be a game designer, you should sell your house and fund your game. Since if you won't even fund your own game, no one will".
Paying is paying. How much you pay seems to be of more importance to how you pay. By this logic I'm against paying for food. It only ends up going down the toilet... That shit should be free.
Originally posted by Muntz The games of the past I played all had subscriptions that was what was done in those times. So, a bad release or even a decent release with a smaller then expected amount of content wasn't the death knell of the subscription. There simple was only one payment model. It seemed like companies had years to fix everything and add the appropreate level of content. Not true now a days. I don't wonder if the standard required for a game to merit a subscription is too high for a newly released game to meet. Even if your supported by deep pockets as time goes on there will be a great deal of pressure to release. For such a complex piece of software your done basically when you need cash flow. That isn't going to be a fully completed game.
Any game that I'm willing to play merits a sub. I will not be playing a game just because it's free to play simply because my time is far more important than the pittance they charge for sub.
I do agree with those who say that sub games require a lot of content and that the game companies have to be very engaged with updating as well as events. Games that wait a year or more and don't really come out with a substantial amount of content might be fooling themselves in thinking that they are doing a good job.
Then again, I subbed to vanguard even though it rarely had any updates. why? I wanted to show support for the type of game it was and it was one of the few games that I really enjoyed and that was closer to what I thought mmo's should be.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Originally posted by Cyrael The only three games that I feel release enough contents and updates to merit a description are Final Fantasy XIV, Eve Online, and Guild Wars 2. Everyone else, not even close.
Guild Wars 2? I don't personally know anyone who would even bother with that game if it had a subscription. The description you give to it is certainly not what the real world sees.
The issue with games like GW2 that release small DLC updates is that once the content is literally blown through in like a day or so by the user base you need more to keep them subscribed, and that game doesn't have nearly enough content at end game to merit that unless you like running the same instances over and over again - which is something people are now starting to complain about in Subscription games like WoW.
WoW's 6.2 update will have more content in it than the entire GW2 expansion that's upcoming, and it probably took Blizzard 1/2 the time to develop it.
Subscription isn't just about releasing content, which any game can do. They can release 1 hour of content every week and make it look like the game is just brimming with things to do. It isn't that easy, and that's why games with way more content than GW2 have had to go from Subscription to B2P or F2P.
It's also about community relations, expectations that the developers will be on the ball with dealing with balance issues, bugs, etc. In a F2P game, given the relatively volatile income stream that can be forgiven to an extend. In a subscription game, especially one with a decent amount of players... People are likely to just pack up and leave entirely than deal with it.
Originally posted by Muntz The games of the past I played all had subscriptions that was what was done in those times. So, a bad release or even a decent release with a smaller then expected amount of content wasn't the death knell of the subscription. There simple was only one payment model. It seemed like companies had years to fix everything and add the appropreate level of content. Not true now a days. I don't wonder if the standard required for a game to merit a subscription is too high for a newly released game to meet. Even if your supported by deep pockets as time goes on there will be a great deal of pressure to release. For such a complex piece of software your done basically when you need cash flow. That isn't going to be a fully completed game.
Any game that I'm willing to play merits a sub. I will not be playing a game just because it's free to play simply because my time is far more important than the pittance they charge for sub.
I do agree with those who say that sub games require a lot of content and that the game companies have to be very engaged with updating as well as events. Games that wait a year or more and don't really come out with a substantial amount of content might be fooling themselves in thinking that they are doing a good job.
Then again, I subbed to vanguard even though it rarely had any updates. why? I wanted to show support for the type of game it was and it was one of the few games that I really enjoyed and that was closer to what I thought mmo's should be.
For me, it's not whether a game is worth a subscription. I'm paying a sub for LotRO and ESO right now.
The point is that I'm not going to play a game that has a mandatory sub. I'm not going to rent my games anymore, at least not as a standard practice. I just hate doing that.
In the larger picture, again from my perspective, it's not whether a game merits a subscription, but that I don't think most games benefit from locking themselves behind a sub service. They can do better financially and engage more players by dropping the subscription requirement and either selling access to their game (B2P) or just going straight F2P. Nearly every game on the market, and certainly any major title has multiple revenue streams (cash shop, subscription, rmt conversion, DLC, etc). I just don't see the overall benefit for a company to require a sub.
More like 5 cents?
You're almost acting like MMORPGs aren't high budget online games with ongoing costs. An MMORPG isn't like Halo, which is completely playable without an internet connection offline. You don't develop an online game, sell a copy, and put the money in the bank after development costs are made up with boxed sales. These games have ongoing cost. They are designed to be expanded over time, so the development costs are ongoing. They require constant maintenance, mores than an offline game. They require servers, the staff to manage them, bandwidth, etc.
You also can't give an MMORPG server cluster to someone for $59 just because they "bought" a game and don't want to rent it. Here's a bit of common sense for you: MMORPGs are *services*. You don't buy an MMORPG game. You pay for access to the service the company running the game is running. It's no different than paying Microsoft for Azure Cloud Services, or Paying Amazon for AWS. Companies don't complain that they don't want to "rent" server space and pull their contracts. They pay for it because it offers something tangible to them, which they feel is worth their money. If you don't feel Subscription games are offering a service worth your money, that's a completely different issue than this bullshit about not wanting to "rent" games, which makes literally no sense.
F2P doesn't work for every game, and at some point F2P either stagnates for a game or it becomes P2W. The reason why GW2 is constantly having sales is because their cash shop is horrible and they need more people to buy the game, even at a huge discount, to keep making decent money (and to try to sell as many expansions as they could... I'll pass, though, ANet).
XP Potions don't work well in games with super fast leveling and hard level caps.
Cosmetic Options don't work that well in most games, especially those with male-dominated demographics.
People who are too cheap to pay for a subscription game (not you, speaking in general) are often also too cheap to pay for anything in a cash shop that doesn't have a noticeable impact on their character power.
F2P Cash Shops tend to only do really well in games that are PvP oriented, because people in those games are more willing to buy power than those in PvE games, who generally want to earn it (by defeating the bosses/raids/doing the epic quests/etc.) - which is why most "good" examples of F2P are PvP games or games with a heavy PvP focus (GW2, AA, NW, etc).
Also, it's tiresome to read these long tirades that make no sense and then see them ended with something that basically translates to "that's my opinion," which basically translates to "can't be wrong, it's just an opinion and you have one too." Seriously...
I don't think any game released in the last 5 years is worth a subscription. And that's saying something after I defended SWTOR using a subscription model.
The reason is because these games are offering less now than they were ten years ago, just nicer graphics and a few gimmicks. I have no objection to a monthly sub model at all and would much rather that than the f2p model because of the nasty behavior that f2p brings on the part of the players (it keeps out the riff raff) PROVIDED its a quality game that offers more than single click crafting, pve theme park, and pvp and nothing more.
SWG, EQ, and EQ2 offered more on release than most modern games offer five years after release. And that's seriously disappointing as they aren't great games anyway. Developers can do better. They just won't. And the fact that we've actually seen developers complaining about not being able to wow people with good graphics anymore is seriously disturbing.
The only game I have any hope for right now is Citadel of Sorcery (and yes, that's even above and beyond EQN, considering what Landmark currently is) and its 10 years into development and counting with NO sign of beta even remotely in the distance.
Of course they can. There is definitely room in the market, but not if you are offering the same fare as everyone else. The failure to differentiate your new game from games that came before means you aren't giving players any reason to play your game. With no reason to play your game over the ones you copied, the only way to get people to play is to give it away. F2P is a symptom of the obsession with following the model presented by the most popular games. It was always a poor strategy as far back as the field of EQ clones.
What we need are niche games that differentiate by identifying and catering to a market that is too small or specialized to be profitable for the big players to chase. Create a clear and compelling difference between your game and the rest and you can carve out a fan base that will pay a subscription to get what they can only get from your game. This is the model Pantheon is following and it is really their best and possibly only chance for success. If they can get the players who loved EQ or Vanguard but aren't fond of Wow, then they have captive audience and can charge a subscription because it's either pay or play something you don't like as much.
Honestly, the question is like asking can Amazon charge $2 a show for TV you can get for free via the networks. Of course the can and they are.
I think the question, is there a game on the market that deserves a subscription? Yes, but I don't intend to list them. Can a game be made that people will spend a subscription on? I also say yes, in time. The real question, when will the economy improve enough to support subscriptions again.
Pardon any spelling errors
Konfess your cyns and some maybe forgiven Boy: Why can't I talk to Him? Mom: We don't talk to Priests. As if it could exist, without being payed for. F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing. Even telemarketers wouldn't think that. It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
The point is that I'm not going to play a game that has a mandatory sub. I'm not going to rent my games anymore, at least not as a standard practice. I just hate doing that.
In the larger picture, again from my perspective, it's not whether a game merits a subscription, but that I don't think most games benefit from locking themselves behind a sub service. They can do better financially and engage more players by dropping the subscription requirement and either selling access to their game (B2P) or just going straight F2P.
F2P doesn't work for every game, and at some point F2P either stagnates for a game or it becomes P2W. The reason why GW2 is constantly having sales is because their cash shop is horrible and they need more people to buy the game, even at a huge discount, to keep making decent money (and to try to sell as many expansions as they could... I'll pass, though, ANet).
Cosmetic Options don't work that well in most games, especially those with male-dominated demographics.
People who are too cheap to pay for a subscription game (not you, speaking in general) are often also too cheap to pay for anything in a cash shop that doesn't have a noticeable impact on their character power.
F2P Cash Shops tend to only do really well in games that are PvP oriented, because people in those games are more willing to buy power than those in PvE games, who generally want to earn it (by defeating the bosses/raids/doing the epic quests/etc.) - which is why most "good" examples of F2P are PvP games or games with a heavy PvP focus (GW2, AA, NW, etc).
Also, it's tiresome to read these long tirades that make no sense and then see them ended with something that basically translates to "that's my opinion," which basically translates to "can't be wrong, it's just an opinion and you have one too." Seriously...
Amen! "Cosmetic and Vanity" are just another way of saying "Stuff I don't want to buy." For Play for Free (P4F) gamers F2P is all about not spending money. So long as this mentality is allowed to continue, F2P's days are numbered. By this I mean that dev's will respond with heavy P2W. And will respond with cries of P2W with "So What!"
Pardon any spelling errors
Konfess your cyns and some maybe forgiven Boy: Why can't I talk to Him? Mom: We don't talk to Priests. As if it could exist, without being payed for. F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing. Even telemarketers wouldn't think that. It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
I don't think any game released in the last 5 years is worth a subscription. And that's saying something after I defended SWTOR using a subscription model.
The reason is because these games are offering less now than they were ten years ago, just nicer graphics and a few gimmicks. I have no objection to a monthly sub model at all and would much rather that than the f2p model because of the nasty behavior that f2p brings on the part of the players (it keeps out the riff raff) PROVIDED its a quality game that offers more than single click crafting, pve theme park, and pvp and nothing more.
SWG, EQ, and EQ2 offered more on release than most modern games offer five years after release. And that's seriously disappointing as they aren't great games anyway. Developers can do better. They just won't. And the fact that we've actually seen developers complaining about not being able to wow people with good graphics anymore is seriously disturbing.
The only game I have any hope for right now is Citadel of Sorcery (and yes, that's even above and beyond EQN, considering what Landmark currently is) and its 10 years into development and counting with NO sign of beta even remotely in the distance.
Originally posted by Malabooga B2P with non intrusive cash shop and paid DLCs/expansions is fairest system, to player and devloper.
I agree. 100%.
Developer is motivated to make the best game possible - not to waste as much of the players time as possible or extort them in some way. If you do a good enough job, people will buy your DLC's, expansions and sequels. That's how it should be.
There is a downside to this system as well - player fragmentation - if you don't buy the DLC - you can't play the content, so your friend buys DLC 1,2 and 3 - you buy none, your other friend only buys DLC 1 - most of the time you can't play together - so as more DLCs get released, there's more player fragmentation.
IMO - it's far better to let players play all content for free (like Rift for example) and make money off cash shop
Just my 2c
It depends on the game as well. If the game can be divided into different sectors that players have to pay for without intruding on gameplay for others such as story as one section, pve as another, raids as another and pvp.
Pvp and pve can be free while story and raids are b2p/sub. If the game was more horizontal progression it would be more fitting, but to depend on only a cash shop also means development is strained to developing more cash shop items with a f2p model rather than a b2p model with more content.
At the end of the day, I want more actual content, not fluff such as cash shop items or mediocre filler content such as side quests etc
And there are people that enjoy rift, but I am not one of those people. The mmo stnadard is now that development is geared towards less actual social content and more filler content. And maybe a game like rift can afford to develop their content differently even as a f2p, but it hasnt happened yet, so we base this status quo on precedent.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
Comments
A larger variety, yes. However, much of that variety is used to craft a net they cast to garner mass appeal. In reality most of those different features are shallow and half-baked. Making the process slower doesn't make them any better. Contrary to popular propaganda, classic MMORPGs weren't slow just for the sake of being slow. It was a different experience from the word 'Go' and it was integral to the larger design. Instead of the end game focus, the focus was offering engaging content and challenge in the form of an epic journey from start to finish. Even with the limited number of activities in traditional mmorpgs I found more to enjoy than the plethora of shallow forms of gameplay that modern games have to offer.
Thats the difference.
Also again, as I said before. Lots of cash bought gil means the games large merc population will get you whatever you want.
Players stopped complaining or quit over this after a while because Square don't care and love the extra $$
That was addressed months ago. Notice that thread is from last December? Yoshi P did not intended for that to happen and the issue was resolved. He even said so in the next Dev journal. I don't know what FFXIV did to you, but it must've been pretty traumatic. You go through great lengths to trash this game. You did the same thing on your old account with gw2. Not sure what else to say. Just kind of feel bad for you.
This is at the heart of the issue.
Themeparks cannot stay profitable as subs. Especially WoW clone ones.
That's assuming the "pre-casual" era was profitable. People saw MMO's as too time-consuming, so they avoided them like the plague. It wasn't until casual gameplay that made MMO's mainstream, and even more profitable.
It's debatable whether themeparks and clones are responsible for the current state of the genre right now.
Games did innovate, in other ways, and turned away from the wow clone gameplay, but still failed to stay subscription. (TSW, ESO, Tera, and now possibly WS, are just a few examples.)
If anything WS proved that hardcore gameplay isn't profitable.
They were very profitable. Most of the early MMOs cost less than 10 million to make. EQ for instance was said to have spent around 2 million and they had over 200k subscriptions before the first expansion. They didn't get popular over night, but with box sales and a few months in subs ($9.99 @ the time) they had already made back the cost of creating the game.
Other things to consider was the number of people on the internet then versus now. We are talking about a time when there was less than 10% of the current number of people on the internet, so considerably less potential players at a time when it still was not common place to subscribe for internet services, let alone games.
This is subjective, when I say a "good" game it means good to me. ESO is not a good game imo, I own it and still don't play it even though it is free. Yet for plenty of people it was good enough for a sub.
I don't think the release matters, what matters is staying power. The problem with today's MMO's is they are built around a wham-bam-thank you ma'am model...and you are off to the next game. You might come back and play here and there, but you don't "live" in that world.
An interesting question.
Like others, I'd say only the top tier ones like EVE Online, or games with small populations and small development teams, would merit a monthly subscription.
That of course, is an entirely separate question from, "Which games GET subscribers."
The quality of a game is largely unrelated to whether it has a sub, and GW1 and 2 have proven that a great mmo can be released and sustained with a B2P model. Several f2p mmos are also quite good, and some of the games that transitioned to b2p or f2p from a sub seem to be doing fine.
Times have changed, it isn't necessary anymore to have a sub, and indeed it could well be worse for a game to start off with a sub. Of course if a game can maintain a sub model with a healthily population, and at the same time charge for expansions, and have a cash shop then from a business perspective they are onto a good thing.
Some people claim that non-sub games are cash grabs, but these days actually the reverse is closer to the truth. In an era where it is perfectly possible to maintain a successful mmo with a b2p or f2p business model, companies that charge a sub (which also usually comes with cash shop and paid expansions) are just using whatever brand name leverage they have to extract as much money as possible from players.
Note I say "closer to the truth", because ultimately all game devs probably just want to make an awesome game- the pricing of the game is a business decision which should be made on the basis of how to get the highest sustained profit from the project, at least if it is run by a listed company. A smaller company which isn't constrained by a duty to shareholders to squeeze out as much profit as possible could be more altruistic about it- which is probably the case for Path of Exile.
Whatever the market will bear. Games are a bit like TV that way.
Up until 30 years ago, you bought a TV, attached an antenna to it and paid nothing past that.
Then cable TV came along and people started paying like $12/month for basic cable, because it had better content.
A bit later HBO came along and people paid another $12/month for just that, because it had even better content.
Fast forward to today and the average basic cable bill is $75-100. Some people pay dozens or hundreds of dollars more per month for premium services.
Now lots of people are switching to internet only TV, either completely for free or for $8/month for NetFlix or Hulu.
These are all things that tried different payment models and they worked at various times, the gaming industry is doing the same.
Except, you know, the millions of players that were playing them before WoW, raising huge companies out of small developers...
And no, there has been almost zero innovation in 10 years. And what's more important, the games, at their heart, are designed to quickly burn through linear content and quit.
Let's be real here, you would not be paying a sub for these games unless you thought it was worth it. You are trying to convince us that you would quit paying them tomorrow if they started requiring the same sub you already pay today?
You can't be serious. There has been a lot of innovation.
This is just off the top of my head, and there's many other features that are new to MMO's. Granted, not all of them are innovated as something new, but they have either evolved or been improved upon.
You're basically dismissing 10 years of innovation because of your hatred for linear questing, which is funny, because almost all MMO's out right now do not have linear questing or content. They have multiple paths for leveling.
Live games worth paying a sub, in no order.
EvE
FFXIV
WOW
After those games I have to actually use my brain.
so maybe.....
ESO
Warframe
PS2
I can not really think of games worth paying a sub for after these.
I could maybe see people paying for wizard 101
Originally posted by laokoko
"if you want to be a game designer, you should sell your house and fund your game. Since if you won't even fund your own game, no one will".
Any game that I'm willing to play merits a sub. I will not be playing a game just because it's free to play simply because my time is far more important than the pittance they charge for sub.
I do agree with those who say that sub games require a lot of content and that the game companies have to be very engaged with updating as well as events. Games that wait a year or more and don't really come out with a substantial amount of content might be fooling themselves in thinking that they are doing a good job.
Then again, I subbed to vanguard even though it rarely had any updates. why? I wanted to show support for the type of game it was and it was one of the few games that I really enjoyed and that was closer to what I thought mmo's should be.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Guild Wars 2? I don't personally know anyone who would even bother with that game if it had a subscription. The description you give to it is certainly not what the real world sees.
The issue with games like GW2 that release small DLC updates is that once the content is literally blown through in like a day or so by the user base you need more to keep them subscribed, and that game doesn't have nearly enough content at end game to merit that unless you like running the same instances over and over again - which is something people are now starting to complain about in Subscription games like WoW.
WoW's 6.2 update will have more content in it than the entire GW2 expansion that's upcoming, and it probably took Blizzard 1/2 the time to develop it.
Subscription isn't just about releasing content, which any game can do. They can release 1 hour of content every week and make it look like the game is just brimming with things to do. It isn't that easy, and that's why games with way more content than GW2 have had to go from Subscription to B2P or F2P.
It's also about community relations, expectations that the developers will be on the ball with dealing with balance issues, bugs, etc. In a F2P game, given the relatively volatile income stream that can be forgiven to an extend. In a subscription game, especially one with a decent amount of players... People are likely to just pack up and leave entirely than deal with it.
Totally agree with your second paragraph.
More like 5 cents?
You're almost acting like MMORPGs aren't high budget online games with ongoing costs. An MMORPG isn't like Halo, which is completely playable without an internet connection offline. You don't develop an online game, sell a copy, and put the money in the bank after development costs are made up with boxed sales. These games have ongoing cost. They are designed to be expanded over time, so the development costs are ongoing. They require constant maintenance, mores than an offline game. They require servers, the staff to manage them, bandwidth, etc.
You also can't give an MMORPG server cluster to someone for $59 just because they "bought" a game and don't want to rent it. Here's a bit of common sense for you: MMORPGs are *services*. You don't buy an MMORPG game. You pay for access to the service the company running the game is running. It's no different than paying Microsoft for Azure Cloud Services, or Paying Amazon for AWS. Companies don't complain that they don't want to "rent" server space and pull their contracts. They pay for it because it offers something tangible to them, which they feel is worth their money. If you don't feel Subscription games are offering a service worth your money, that's a completely different issue than this bullshit about not wanting to "rent" games, which makes literally no sense.
F2P doesn't work for every game, and at some point F2P either stagnates for a game or it becomes P2W. The reason why GW2 is constantly having sales is because their cash shop is horrible and they need more people to buy the game, even at a huge discount, to keep making decent money (and to try to sell as many expansions as they could... I'll pass, though, ANet).
XP Potions don't work well in games with super fast leveling and hard level caps.
Cosmetic Options don't work that well in most games, especially those with male-dominated demographics.
People who are too cheap to pay for a subscription game (not you, speaking in general) are often also too cheap to pay for anything in a cash shop that doesn't have a noticeable impact on their character power.
F2P Cash Shops tend to only do really well in games that are PvP oriented, because people in those games are more willing to buy power than those in PvE games, who generally want to earn it (by defeating the bosses/raids/doing the epic quests/etc.) - which is why most "good" examples of F2P are PvP games or games with a heavy PvP focus (GW2, AA, NW, etc).
Also, it's tiresome to read these long tirades that make no sense and then see them ended with something that basically translates to "that's my opinion," which basically translates to "can't be wrong, it's just an opinion and you have one too." Seriously...
I don't think any game released in the last 5 years is worth a subscription. And that's saying something after I defended SWTOR using a subscription model.
The reason is because these games are offering less now than they were ten years ago, just nicer graphics and a few gimmicks. I have no objection to a monthly sub model at all and would much rather that than the f2p model because of the nasty behavior that f2p brings on the part of the players (it keeps out the riff raff) PROVIDED its a quality game that offers more than single click crafting, pve theme park, and pvp and nothing more.
SWG, EQ, and EQ2 offered more on release than most modern games offer five years after release. And that's seriously disappointing as they aren't great games anyway. Developers can do better. They just won't. And the fact that we've actually seen developers complaining about not being able to wow people with good graphics anymore is seriously disturbing.
The only game I have any hope for right now is Citadel of Sorcery (and yes, that's even above and beyond EQN, considering what Landmark currently is) and its 10 years into development and counting with NO sign of beta even remotely in the distance.
Of course they can. There is definitely room in the market, but not if you are offering the same fare as everyone else. The failure to differentiate your new game from games that came before means you aren't giving players any reason to play your game. With no reason to play your game over the ones you copied, the only way to get people to play is to give it away. F2P is a symptom of the obsession with following the model presented by the most popular games. It was always a poor strategy as far back as the field of EQ clones.
What we need are niche games that differentiate by identifying and catering to a market that is too small or specialized to be profitable for the big players to chase. Create a clear and compelling difference between your game and the rest and you can carve out a fan base that will pay a subscription to get what they can only get from your game. This is the model Pantheon is following and it is really their best and possibly only chance for success. If they can get the players who loved EQ or Vanguard but aren't fond of Wow, then they have captive audience and can charge a subscription because it's either pay or play something you don't like as much.
Honestly, the question is like asking can Amazon charge $2 a show for TV you can get for free via the networks. Of course the can and they are.
Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
Amen! "Cosmetic and Vanity" are just another way of saying "Stuff I don't want to buy." For Play for Free (P4F) gamers F2P is all about not spending money. So long as this mentality is allowed to continue, F2P's days are numbered. By this I mean that dev's will respond with heavy P2W. And will respond with cries of P2W with "So What!"
Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
...Have you seen FFXIV's crafting?
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
It depends on the game as well. If the game can be divided into different sectors that players have to pay for without intruding on gameplay for others such as story as one section, pve as another, raids as another and pvp.
Pvp and pve can be free while story and raids are b2p/sub. If the game was more horizontal progression it would be more fitting, but to depend on only a cash shop also means development is strained to developing more cash shop items with a f2p model rather than a b2p model with more content.
At the end of the day, I want more actual content, not fluff such as cash shop items or mediocre filler content such as side quests etc
And there are people that enjoy rift, but I am not one of those people. The mmo stnadard is now that development is geared towards less actual social content and more filler content. And maybe a game like rift can afford to develop their content differently even as a f2p, but it hasnt happened yet, so we base this status quo on precedent.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble