I won't be paying money every month, that's insanity for me and it's not because i live in trash country where we survive each month pay check by pay check. I'd buy a game and purchase cosmetics from the shop, but not pay monthly,because if i pay monthy i feel obliged and forced to play and i may not have time to play then i'll feel bad that i paid money and not used what i paid for.
Tell me, are you using HBO, Netflix or any other subscription based streaming service? If your answer is yes, I'd like an answer from you why you feel that is "ok" while a sub model for games is not.
People fixate on the 15$ dollar subscription as well. I think there can be room for variations in the sub model. Lower the 15$ dollars to 10-12$ dollars? Pay per week? Pay 2 months in advance and you'll get the next expansion for free? Pay 2 months in advance and you'll skip the base game cost? Pay for 30 days of gaming? If you don't play, that playtime wont count, so you'd always get 30 days of actual play.
Nothing in this world is free. And feeding off of people with your f2p model feels more dishonest (to me) than just saying, pay us 10$ dollars a month and you will get this, this and this. Honest, upfront to the players. Now the problem that many of you raise with a subscription model is: what if those 10$ dollars a month + the base game that I bought is not worth my money, because the game sucks? So be it. Do your research, just like you probably did your research before going to the cinemas. Just like you probably did your research before buying the new assassins creed game.
I won't be paying money every month, that's insanity for me and it's not because i live in trash country where we survive each month pay check by pay check. I'd buy a game and purchase cosmetics from the shop, but not pay monthly,because if i pay monthy i feel obliged and forced to play and i may not have time to play then i'll feel bad that i paid money and not used what i paid for.
Tell me, are you using HBO, Netflix or any other subscription based streaming service? If your answer is yes, I'd like an answer from you why you feel that is "ok" while a sub model for games is not.
I will tell you. I do not use HBO, Netflix or any other subscription based streaming service. I assume i should not read the rest of your comment.
People paying a subscription generally expect it to pay off. As in regular content patches. WoW is really messing up in this department. Why should people pay constantly just to access their game? There's nothing too special about it. I think Legion may be the last xpack I play if they don't change their content release habits.
It's just not worth it to pay the sub fee plus xpack prices. I think an expansion can be depleted in less than a few days of /played. After that there's really no reason to keep playing.
But let me ask you this if you were able to pay $10 and get everything a
game offered why would you say that it is better for you to pay $100
multiple times for the same thing? Only an idiot would support that.
Do you know what would be stupid? To rage about products you have no intention to "support".
Just because product is not priced/monetized to your liking does not make it a "nickel and diming", "milking" or any derogatory terms you used.
First off let me say I didn't read anything past the first post.
I am all for subscription games myself for this one reason, they have to make it a worthwhile experience to keep players coming back. It can't be a quick cash grab or it fails horribly with a sub model. With that said I am also a big backer in unlimited timed free trial, say letting a person play for 3 or 4 days with no limits on what they can or can't do. This allows players to judge if it is something they are willing to keep playing.
Most of the f2p which is a term I hate as it should really be free to try because sooner or later they put in some pay wall thru a cash shop that if you don't pay you can't stay on equal ground with other players. Example buying mats needed to upgrade weapons and armor, these should never be something you pay real world money for. And it is something you couldn't see in a true sub model because everyone would just quit.
Sub models must give away all content to the subbers, don't care about vanity customs, or vanity pets though. I am all for having some benefit that allows them to make fluff items like costumes for charity and stuff and sell them for extra cash. Kinda the way blizzard started its cash shop, for every item bought, a good portion of the money went to charities. They have kinda gone off the rails the last couple years just with that thought though.
All and all cash shops end up being the bane of f2p MMO's usually. Can't really do that with a true p2p model or your players revolt.
Pro tip, when you don't read other posts few will read yours, after all who really cares what the uniformed have to say?
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I wouldn't say there isn't games worth paying a sub for, I just think the benefits have diminished over time. While WoW is a standard setter and used to make sense to pay a monthly sub, it now is losing that appeal due to the long content draughts at the end of expansions. A lot of other MMO's seem to have smaller content patches which wouldn't justify a subscription model for many as well. Or at least that's my opinion. The other problem I think is that most people aren't as likely to pay for multiple monthly subs. So in the interest of growing a player base a lot of MMO's will benefit from a B2P or F2P option to draw in players who wouldn't have plaid had there been a subscription. I believe a lot of people would much rather stick with something they're comfortable with instead of picking up another monthly sub.
F2P did a lot of damage to P2P. To stay live many bad games went free and essentially drug down many games because the competition went free. Shallow themeparks really aren't worth long term payment.
I would still be playing FFIV if i didn't dislike the GCD's it was first sub game i tried and i must say i was overwhelmed with all the features.
I probably would of played WOW if i didn't keep thinking it was war game everytime i saw an advert of it and my ex partners place i remember seeing the advert with the dragon i didn't know it was a game with magic i think i missed out i didn't play games then i spent most of my 20's in nightclubs except from playing sims and rollercoaster tycoon. lol
If a game comes out that i like i would pay a sub again.
For me, its always a question of value, can I get more enjoyment out of playing a sub game than I could playing a f2p game at or less than $15 a month? The answer is usually no, in fact I will only drop $5-$10 every couple of months on a F2P game.
In addition, paying a sub, usually makes me feel obligated to play the game to exclusion, to not waste that $15. This leads to burnout pretty fast in my post WoW gaming life. Im sure there is psychology at work there, known reoccurring payments stick out in the mind of a consumer, whereas spontaneous purchases do not.
I do not care what the payment method is. It all depends on the game to me. That being said, most of my games are sub-based. To many games go F2P to cater to the whales. Plus, the community is usually of a higher standard in sub based games (just my opinion of course). Take that for what it is worth.
First off let me say I didn't read anything past the first post.
I am all for subscription games myself for this one reason, they have to make it a worthwhile experience to keep players coming back. It can't be a quick cash grab or it fails horribly with a sub model. With that said I am also a big backer in unlimited timed free trial, say letting a person play for 3 or 4 days with no limits on what they can or can't do. This allows players to judge if it is something they are willing to keep playing.
Most of the f2p which is a term I hate as it should really be free to try because sooner or later they put in some pay wall thru a cash shop that if you don't pay you can't stay on equal ground with other players. Example buying mats needed to upgrade weapons and armor, these should never be something you pay real world money for. And it is something you couldn't see in a true sub model because everyone would just quit.
Sub models must give away all content to the subbers, don't care about vanity customs, or vanity pets though. I am all for having some benefit that allows them to make fluff items like costumes for charity and stuff and sell them for extra cash. Kinda the way blizzard started its cash shop, for every item bought, a good portion of the money went to charities. They have kinda gone off the rails the last couple years just with that thought though.
All and all cash shops end up being the bane of f2p MMO's usually. Can't really do that with a true p2p model or your players revolt.
Pro tip, when you don't read other posts few will read yours, after all who really cares what the uniformed have to say?
Because I was responding to the first writer of the original post not you so take your uniformed where you have no real response and do something else. I made that statement because who knows how many others might have already made the same statement that I make and it already been argued over.
But let me ask you this if you were able to pay $10 and get everything a
game offered why would you say that it is better for you to pay $100
multiple times for the same thing? Only an idiot would support that.
Do you know what would be stupid? To rage about products you have no intention to "support".
Just because product is not priced/monetized to your liking does not make it a "nickel and diming", "milking" or any derogatory terms you used.
Nickel and diming is not a derogatory term for f2p games, it is a fact, it is the only way the games make any money. But instead of responding to my response you have just moved onto what looks like personal attacks instead. I have played many f2p so you have no idea what my liking is to be honest. The original writer asked why people or developers are going f2p over p2p and I gave my honest opinion about it. I have probably supporting the gaming industry before you were born and will continue to do it for the ones that deserve it, I have also worked in the gaming industry in the past. Also there has been no raging just responses, but how about actually write up a good response or do not respond at all.
Tell me point blank how much sense it makes to do actually what you quoted from my post. This is what developers are hoping for with cash shop free to play. It is the only way that the gamest will continue to make money. Without responding to that point you have made my point for me.
On top of that you have missed the point of the entire discussion, I don't hate f2p I prefer p2p. And that is my preference and I gave an opinion. Now I used the f2p cash shop money grab as an example of why that is. I will also say that if anything is introduced into a cash shop that is require to buy to stay competitive, ie: weapon upgrades, then the game is no longer f2p because you must spend to keep up. How have you defended against my position other than basically trying to personal attack my opinion, the answer you haven't.
Any RPG, be it a single player game or an MMO, that has a real cash shop for ANYTHING outside of new content or additional character slots shows that the developers don't have a clue about what an RPG is.
Progression within an RPG is purely from their interaction with the world, NPC's and other players (if an MMO). External influences are in essence Meta gaming which is in my books rule 1 in the "how to not suck at RP". How on earth you can play an RPG and explain away where you got a costume or a big sword from if they were purchased from a cash shop I have no idea.
Sure people can argue that it isn't important but to me is IS important and why I would prefer subs came back and cash shops disappear. To me it isn't a case of who has the most money but the fact that the CHARACTERS should be working with the same advantages/disadvantages no matter what the PLAYERS financial situation is.
If a game is free to play, it's F2P. The history of a game doesn't matter. If it's now F2P, it's F2P. And that's also where it becomes a lot more clear which model is stronger, because post-launch F2P really can't be beat. It's only at launch when you have a B2P component that you have any sort of chance to match F2P because for the right types of games with the right sort of advertising hype you can make a ton of money before the player has ever played your game.
We don't even call that B2P in most cases.
"Founders Packs" are the usual option for pre-game sales on F2P titles.
Though this again neglects the explanation of why F2P makes more money. As observed before, it's not through offering a better product which mostly just means the game content has just been broken down and sold alongside an intentional imbalance of content progression to push incentive onto boosters, subs, etc.
Really need to get back to observing ethics in the industry and remembering that the "financially strongest" does not make it the "strongest" choice for the players when it comes to treating them fairly and properly.
Certainly the money went to their heads, F2P is the poorest choice when it comes to fairness as a game, and fairness to players.
The history of the game does matter, P2P MMOs are designed better; even if just more gameplay, more content, bigger size. This was not just because they could generate more hype or spent more on their advertising budget. And there lies the conundrum for F2P, it is the former P2P MMOs that make the best F2P/hybrid cash shop games. Without those the F2P MMO market would look dire in terms of quality.
As was discussed in other threads new release AAA P2P is dying. I see only one such MMO being released maybe every three now if we are lucky. What is going to replace those top ten revenue MMOs in five years time? What about ten years time? MMOs are on borrowed time, the big revenue generating beasts will seem outdated in a few years.
F2P will be here in ten years time, but I question if the games it funds will even be MMOs by todays standards. F2P will have succeeded in turning a AAA genre into a tinyMMO genre.
If a game is free to play, it's F2P. The history of a game doesn't matter. If it's now F2P, it's F2P. And that's also where it becomes a lot more clear which model is stronger, because post-launch F2P really can't be beat. It's only at launch when you have a B2P component that you have any sort of chance to match F2P because for the right types of games with the right sort of advertising hype you can make a ton of money before the player has ever played your game.
We don't even call that B2P in most cases.
"Founders Packs" are the usual option for pre-game sales on F2P titles.
Though this again neglects the explanation of why F2P makes more money. As observed before, it's not through offering a better product which mostly just means the game content has just been broken down and sold alongside an intentional imbalance of content progression to push incentive onto boosters, subs, etc.
Really need to get back to observing ethics in the industry and remembering that the "financially strongest" does not make it the "strongest" choice for the players when it comes to treating them fairly and properly.
Certainly the money went to their heads, F2P is the poorest choice when it comes to fairness as a game, and fairness to players.
The history of the game does matter, P2P MMOs are designed better; even if just more gameplay, more content, bigger size. This was not just because they could generate more hype or spent more on their advertising budget. And there lies the conundrum for F2P, it is the former P2P MMOs that make the best F2P/hybrid cash shop games. Without those the F2P MMO market would look dire in terms of quality.
As was discussed in other threads new release AAA P2P is dying. I see only one such MMO being released maybe every three now if we are lucky. What is going to replace those top ten revenue MMOs in five years time? What about ten years time? MMOs are on borrowed time, the big revenue generating beasts will seem outdated in a few years.
F2P will be here in ten years time, but I question if the games it funds will even be MMOs by todays standards. F2P will have succeeded in turning a AAA genre into a tinyMMO genre.
Integrity: in both senses of the definition of the word.
I think competition for players is quite high. Companies adopt the strategy to retain as many as they can but sooner or later these companies need to learn to survive on smaller faithful numbers of either subscribers or people who support the company with small cash shop purchases.
By appealing to large numbers they are hoping to get some whales to support the rest but this is a very parasitic approach to profits. You should not make one section of your player base support the rest. Sooner of later resentment grows and it will breed into the game itself. An infection where those who pay continuously feel the other section is simply not contributing enough. You can argue their very presence is a contribution making the game busier but by using the resources they are also making them scarce and the bigger percentage of the population that are small contributors also feel a great deal resentment against those who do not make any monetary contribution at all and yet enjoy the same privileges.
It's no wonder that these games breed a very selfish atmosphere and perhaps an elitist one at that. I think it's about time companies stopped this unhealthy cycle but unfortunately as long as the whales continue to inflate the success of this business model it has little chance of evolving to a more equitable one.
because we are content whores and the last thing you want to do for 2 to 3 months after you finish up content is pay for 2 to 3 months of waiting for the next content patch to finally release. Even casuals can finish up most of the games content in a few weeks unless its gated behind some large gear grind. The perfect example of this is wow and blizzard taking months to release new content and you see the drop in subs in the millions only to be brought back up very very high in sub numbers on major patch days. Another thing is there is probably a handfull of actual good mmorpgs out there currently with 100s of free to play trash.
because we are content whores and the last thing you want to do for 2 to 3 months after you finish up content is pay for 2 to 3 months of waiting for the next content patch to finally release. Even casuals can finish up most of the games content in a few weeks unless its gated behind some large gear grind. The perfect example of this is wow and blizzard taking months to release new content and you see the drop in subs in the millions only to be brought back up very very high in sub numbers on major patch days. Another thing is there is probably a handfull of actual good mmorpgs out there currently with 100s of free to play trash.
So if you've played WoW since launch you've most likely paid over $2000....How is that smart for any consumer?
$2000 divided by 12 divided by 12 leaves you with $14 a month. Thats not a lot.... You'll probably spend more cash on f2p games than you think hence why each and everyone is going for that model. To make money. You think companies do it for lolz? They do it because it's financially good for them. You and the whales give them incentives to keep doing it.
So if you've played WoW since launch you've most likely paid over $2000....How is that smart for any consumer?
It all boils down to value. Most people who smoke spend more on cigarettes than that (by a lot). I'd imagine that the average person spends more on fast food than that (which ultimately just disappears down the toilet). My wife spends $15 a month on Apple Music. I spend $10 a month on Netflix. I spend $30 a month on a freakin' home phone! $70 a month on Internet. I spend over $100 a month on television service.
I think it's a value if you get use out of it. If I've played thousands of hours, it's great! If I've never launched the game, it's a waste. Then again, buying a new car would be a waste, too, if I didn't drive it.
I do find it funny people keep talking about whales. We are where we are right now because of whales. Games are getting worse and in some games (Star Citizen) companies are not in a hurry to make the game because they don't want to stop the whales from giving them more money.
At least to me the whales are exactly who have made our game worse. IMO!
I see no problem here. A lot of games offer subs and a lot of players pay subs.
There are over a thousand MMOs and less than 10 use a sub model exclusively how is that "alot" of games?
What's your source? And the title of the subject didn't say exclusively.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
If a game is free to play, it's F2P. The history of a game doesn't matter. If it's now F2P, it's F2P. And that's also where it becomes a lot more clear which model is stronger, because post-launch F2P really can't be beat. It's only at launch when you have a B2P component that you have any sort of chance to match F2P because for the right types of games with the right sort of advertising hype you can make a ton of money before the player has ever played your game.
We don't even call that B2P in most cases.
"Founders Packs" are the usual option for pre-game sales on F2P titles.
Though this again neglects the explanation of why F2P makes more money. As observed before, it's not through offering a better product which mostly just means the game content has just been broken down and sold alongside an intentional imbalance of content progression to push incentive onto boosters, subs, etc.
Really need to get back to observing ethics in the industry and remembering that the "financially strongest" does not make it the "strongest" choice for the players when it comes to treating them fairly and properly.
Certainly the money went to their heads, F2P is the poorest choice when it comes to fairness as a game, and fairness to players.
The history of the game does matter, P2P MMOs are designed better; even if just more gameplay, more content, bigger size. This was not just because they could generate more hype or spent more on their advertising budget. And there lies the conundrum for F2P, it is the former P2P MMOs that make the best F2P/hybrid cash shop games. Without those the F2P MMO market would look dire in terms of quality.
As was discussed in other threads new release AAA P2P is dying. I see only one such MMO being released maybe every three now if we are lucky. What is going to replace those top ten revenue MMOs in five years time? What about ten years time? MMOs are on borrowed time, the big revenue generating beasts will seem outdated in a few years.
F2P will be here in ten years time, but I question if the games it funds will even be MMOs by todays standards. F2P will have succeeded in turning a AAA genre into a tinyMMO genre.
Integrity: in both senses of the definition of the word.
Moralizng an amoral situation with your argument to appeal to an emotional false sense of right and wrong is a logical no no. Unless you just want to admit you don't have a logical argument and that you feel your subjective perspective put on everyone else whether they like it or not.
We're in this "situation" because a large majority of the player base wasn't satisfied with the previous situation and publishers weren't making the money they felt they needed to keep their games viable.
1. "The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness." I don't think many F2P games have this when it comes to how it sells their products. Its an opinion not a moral appeal. But I am certain in most circles gambling isn't viewed that way.
2. The state of being whole and undivided. F2P certainly can't state that the game is sold as is and whole. Its sold in pieces and in ways to inspire sales.
Comments
People fixate on the 15$ dollar subscription as well. I think there can be room for variations in the sub model. Lower the 15$ dollars to 10-12$ dollars? Pay per week? Pay 2 months in advance and you'll get the next expansion for free? Pay 2 months in advance and you'll skip the base game cost? Pay for 30 days of gaming? If you don't play, that playtime wont count, so you'd always get 30 days of actual play.
Nothing in this world is free. And feeding off of people with your f2p model feels more dishonest (to me) than just saying, pay us 10$ dollars a month and you will get this, this and this. Honest, upfront to the players. Now the problem that many of you raise with a subscription model is: what if those 10$ dollars a month + the base game that I bought is not worth my money, because the game sucks? So be it. Do your research, just like you probably did your research before going to the cinemas. Just like you probably did your research before buying the new assassins creed game.
It's just not worth it to pay the sub fee plus xpack prices. I think an expansion can be depleted in less than a few days of /played. After that there's really no reason to keep playing.
Just because product is not priced/monetized to your liking does not make it a "nickel and diming", "milking" or any derogatory terms you used.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I probably would of played WOW if i didn't keep thinking it was war game everytime i saw an advert of it and my ex partners place i remember seeing the advert with the dragon i didn't know it was a game with magic i think i missed out i didn't play games then i spent most of my 20's in nightclubs except from playing sims and rollercoaster tycoon. lol
If a game comes out that i like i would pay a sub again.
In addition, paying a sub, usually makes me feel obligated to play the game to exclusion, to not waste that $15. This leads to burnout pretty fast in my post WoW gaming life. Im sure there is psychology at work there, known reoccurring payments stick out in the mind of a consumer, whereas spontaneous purchases do not.
Tell me point blank how much sense it makes to do actually what you quoted from my post. This is what developers are hoping for with cash shop free to play. It is the only way that the gamest will continue to make money. Without responding to that point you have made my point for me.
On top of that you have missed the point of the entire discussion, I don't hate f2p I prefer p2p. And that is my preference and I gave an opinion. Now I used the f2p cash shop money grab as an example of why that is. I will also say that if anything is introduced into a cash shop that is require to buy to stay competitive, ie: weapon upgrades, then the game is no longer f2p because you must spend to keep up. How have you defended against my position other than basically trying to personal attack my opinion, the answer you haven't.
Progression within an RPG is purely from their interaction with the world, NPC's and other players (if an MMO). External influences are in essence Meta gaming which is in my books rule 1 in the "how to not suck at RP". How on earth you can play an RPG and explain away where you got a costume or a big sword from if they were purchased from a cash shop I have no idea.
Sure people can argue that it isn't important but to me is IS important and why I would prefer subs came back and cash shops disappear. To me it isn't a case of who has the most money but the fact that the CHARACTERS should be working with the same advantages/disadvantages no matter what the PLAYERS financial situation is.
Certainly the money went to their heads, F2P is the poorest choice when it comes to fairness as a game, and fairness to players.
The history of the game does matter, P2P MMOs are designed better; even if just more gameplay, more content, bigger size. This was not just because they could generate more hype or spent more on their advertising budget. And there lies the conundrum for F2P, it is the former P2P MMOs that make the best F2P/hybrid cash shop games. Without those the F2P MMO market would look dire in terms of quality.
As was discussed in other threads new release AAA P2P is dying. I see only one such MMO being released maybe every three now if we are lucky. What is going to replace those top ten revenue MMOs in five years time? What about ten years time? MMOs are on borrowed time, the big revenue generating beasts will seem outdated in a few years.
F2P will be here in ten years time, but I question if the games it funds will even be MMOs by todays standards. F2P will have succeeded in turning a AAA genre into a tinyMMO genre.
By appealing to large numbers they are hoping to get some whales to support the rest but this is a very parasitic approach to profits. You should not make one section of your player base support the rest. Sooner of later resentment grows and it will breed into the game itself. An infection where those who pay continuously feel the other section is simply not contributing enough. You can argue their very presence is a contribution making the game busier but by using the resources they are also making them scarce and the bigger percentage of the population that are small contributors also feel a great deal resentment against those who do not make any monetary contribution at all and yet enjoy the same privileges.
It's no wonder that these games breed a very selfish atmosphere and perhaps an elitist one at that. I think it's about time companies stopped this unhealthy cycle but unfortunately as long as the whales continue to inflate the success of this business model it has little chance of evolving to a more equitable one.
It all boils down to value. Most people who smoke spend more on cigarettes than that (by a lot). I'd imagine that the average person spends more on fast food than that (which ultimately just disappears down the toilet). My wife spends $15 a month on Apple Music. I spend $10 a month on Netflix. I spend $30 a month on a freakin' home phone! $70 a month on Internet. I spend over $100 a month on television service.
I think it's a value if you get use out of it. If I've played thousands of hours, it's great! If I've never launched the game, it's a waste. Then again, buying a new car would be a waste, too, if I didn't drive it.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
At least to me the whales are exactly who have made our game worse. IMO!
Star Citizen – The Extinction Level Event
4/13/15 > ELE has been updated look for 16-04-13.
http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/04/star-citizen-the-ele/
Enjoy and know the truth always comes to light!
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
2. The state of being whole and undivided. F2P certainly can't state that the game is sold as is and whole. Its sold in pieces and in ways to inspire sales.