Originally posted by SnaKey I'm so freaking mad!WHY DO THEY MAKE ME PAY FOR MY 2006 HONDA CIVIC! THOSE BASTARDS! $300/mo for what? A nice shiny ride? F' that! THat's BS! ARGG IT MAKES ME SO ANGRY! Oh, and what's this insurance crap? another $300/mo for what? just in case!?!? F' THAT TOO! Seriously though. Most of guild wars is spidered through the computers it plays on w/ VERY little actual server interaction. It's called the wonder of instances. And I still can't remember ever seeing that "NOTIFY A GM" button. Those cost money too. Then there are programmers who have to program ingame events.... wich GW doesn't have. Then there is Customer Service.If you think about it. $15/mo for a game like WoW is pretty cheap. I'm willing to bet that's only a $1 or $0.50 net gain for the long term cheap subscriptions. I'm not sure if WoW has those, it's been awhile since I played. But, WoW does have alot of events and alot of customer service(including GMs) to deal with. Think about it this way. Each GM probably makes about $1500 - $2000/mo.
$15 a month in EVE is getting you a lot more though. Your character information is active on the server and being updated while you are offline, remember being able to check your character from the website? there is your proof. Now include the expansions and updates, you are saving a good $3 a month over WoW counting those.
WoW has more staff but fewer employees per customer, so the cost per customer isn't as much either. The only real additional cost in WoW is replacing the servers that they regularilyspill coffee on...
Things don't scale linearly and all these $.50 a day arguments and such are looking on the small scale. You buy in bulk you save and when you are talking business size bulk you save a lot, and the base business prices are far lower than most consumer prices. Every game seems to have Nvidia or ATI logos and all thqat on startup anyway, why not add some ads while waiting in queue and lower the fee? They have ads all over their official sites for official guides, accessories and computer hardware so they are taking extra profit just because of their success, don't forget to include that income when you discuss fees to maintain a game.
I don't get most MMORPGs... I mean, we should only pay for the service, not for the "upgrades". Guild Wars and Eve are both unique in that they don't charge players for the game/upgrades _and_ a monthly fee. More games should follow these in their model instead of further gouging players, especially in the vent of, say WoW. I might be tempted to try in the game in a few more versions, but by that point there will be a new expansion and getting back into the game will cost a bit more than a $15 purchase of a month of game time.
Originally posted by AgentMolder Pay to play is really stupid. companies give us that bs that they need money for maintenence and to create an "expanding world" and more items, monsters, ect... How does GW keep their servers up 24/7 and add new areas every month? Does anyone think pay to play will stop?
I think your missing a major point here . GW is more or less like a battlefield game ,With a big chat room . It is not an MMO .
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by fmaalex Honestly there are bad games that require monthly subscription that really doesnt justify the new contents, however there are many games, such as L2, Eve Online that offers very very solid expansions for the price of well...$0. I mean take L2 for example, 15 US a month, seems like a lot for having probably the worst GM service EVER (Whenever u contact a GM, they ALWAYS, ALWAYS forwards u to the "upper tier" and that usually takes 2 days before u get a reply, back when i still played that game whenever i talk to a GM: "Just forward me to the upper tier, this saves us both time" ) Anyways, the month fee DOES justify the content they add, from C1-4 and soon 5, they basically double the map size (which was huge to begin with), added subclass and hero system, added third class change, tons of new weapons, new armor, improve graphics, continues to fix bugs (still a lot left), new endgame bosses, continues to improve in pvp balance.(somewat....mages r too overpower now after they nerfed daggers). But the company really puts in an effort to improve the game, and its evident in their expansions.
GW doesnt really count, instances r so much easier to run and by selling their game for 50 bucks a piece they definitely cover cost plus some more. Not to mention they r charging more money for their so-called "stand-alone" expansion.
well i think that they should just charge for the game and expansions OR charge only monthly. I mean i buy the game (which is usually like$50) and then i pay for the monthly fee. It should be one or the other.
Let me give you the single biggest reason for the mmorpgs that we play charging $15 per month...
It's a very little thing in basic economics called "SUPPLY AND DEMAND"
As long as the demand is great enough for mmo servers and mmo worlds in which we can all play on at the same time (ie, not Guild Wars where every thing is instanced)... and as long as we are willing to pay $15 per month to play in those virtual worlds, then they will continue to supply us those virtual worlds for the $15 per month or whatever we are willing to pay per month.
If they figure out that they can raise the monthly rates to $19.95 per month (a 25% increase) and lose only about 12% of their subscriber base because of this rate hike... ummm what do you think they will do? OFCOURSE they will raise the rates to $19.95 per month, because in the end they would be making tons more money..especially in an mmo like World of Warcraft!
I've seen the profit margins on mmo's in a recent computer magazine, and basically about 60 or 65% of all the revenue brought in to a typical mmorpg right now is PURE PROFIT. The rest pays for the servers, the upkeep, the employees, and the other bills. If you take that percentage of pure profit and apply it to a mega-hit mmo like WoW, then you can quickly figure out how much damn profit they are making. Lets say 5 million subscribers worldwide... multiply that by $15 per month... thats $75 million per month in monthy fees. 60% of that would be about $45 MILLION PER MONTH IN PURE PROFIT!
Ya think Blizzard isn't getting mega rich off this game? Ofcourse they are! But with that money, they can still sit back and say "hmmm, how many subscribers would we lose if we jumped the monthly cost up to $19.95?" and perhaps their experts tell them "Whoa, dude... our predictions are that right now with a hike to $19.95 per month, you'd lose 40% of your subscriber base".. so they go "Hmmm, well what about a hike to $17.95 per month?" and perhaps the expert tells them "We predict with a hike to that price, you'd lose about 20% of your subsriber base to other games" This is all just an example. But trust me when Blizzard or any other mmo company thinks that they can get away with hiking the monthly price a few dollars per month, well then our monthly fee will rise once again. This has basically already happened twice in the past 8 years or so of mmos. Ultima Online started out in 1997 at $9.95 per month. Then a few years later, the typical price for most mmos jumped to $12.95 a month. Then just a few years ago, the typical monthly fee for an mmo jumped to $14.95 per month. The companies ofcourse use the "As costs rise, we must rise the cost of your monthly fee" excuse.. but as I showed above, Blizzard is certainly making a small fortune at $14.95 per month.
Likewise, if the mmo companies think that because of supply and demand that they would make more profit by dropping the monthly cost, then trust me they would do just that. It's all about maximizing their profits with the least cost to them. Thats how economics works, and that's how businesses succeed and stay in business.
You think you are paying so that you can "play". Hehe. It's probably a lot more true to say that you pay so they can "play".
Part of the problem with "pay to play" is that a large chunk of the population that has never done so sees games in a way that the rest of us have gotten around. We know the costs and that the game one plays as an MMORPG is a lot different than the usual game you'd play if you just bought the game and played on your own. We know about continuous maintenance and content increases.
Those who don't know this, such as the example of the survey of people who criticize the payment process of Star Trek Online have ONLY ever seen games as something you pay for and then play once you get home. What is happening is something significant that few people seem to acknowledge, and that is that newer MMORPG players are coming to these games with the belief that these games are very short term games, almost like single player games are today. That's caused because of two reasons: One, they don't know the genre that well, and two, they HAVE followed the genre and noticed that most games being released these days are not like the old UO and EQ where people expected to play those games for 3+ years, but see that most people don't last more than six months in these games today, and thus aren't really of an advantage on a pay for play paradigm.
If these new players learned how to think like we do, they wouldn't think of these games as short term games.
Then again, perhaps they are right, and we are the ones who are unwilling to see the genre for what it is.
How many players are playing Asheron's Call 2? None. But I don't think it has much to do with whether there are people who desire to play Asheron's Call 2. The fact of the matter is, even if they wanted to, they couldn't. Because the software itself that they bought on the shelf is inadequate to play.
The real fact is that it is not the single player game that is short lived. Its the MMO that is short lived, and temporary. I still have Decent Freespace, I played it back when it was released, I still play it today, and I will always be able to play it, whenever I choose.
But I can't say that with Asheron's Call 2. In fact, I can't say that with any MMO. The game will "disappear" whether I personally want it to, or not.
In fact, I can think of no more reasonable response from a smart consumer of computer entertainment than to treat these MMOs like temporary, very short term games. For the fact of the matter is, they may very well be, and for reasons wholly unrelated to our own enjoyment of them. If the provider of our favorite MMO calls it quits, and gives us our notice, what do I really have to show for all that box money and subscription money? Nothing but a pack of screenshots I couldn't recreate if I tried.
Twenty years from now, I'll still have the pleasure of conquering Gaul in Rome: Total War. I'll still be able to run covert operations in Rainbow Six. But will I be able to roam the streets of Freeport, or defend the Gallente Federation from the tyrannical Amarr?
Who knows, but one thing is for certain. I would have paid a whole lot more, for something that gives me nothing but regret after its done, when I was not.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Pay to play is not essential as most pay to play games have to be bought from shops to begin with, There theory on using it to expand the game is a lie. The money they make is huge compared to what they use to "Expand" the game. pay to play games are usually high priced but some are reasonable, you are still paying hundreds a year for a few hours of gaming fun a day there are many free to play games that are just as good as the pay to plays
Originally posted by Nadril you [b]DO[/b] realize how much it costs to keep an efficient server up, right? I'll tell you this, a lot.
P2P is very reasonable, I mean think about it, $15 for a months worth of entertainment. Now, lets say you play roughly 2 hours a day. Thats 30 hours of entertainment for $15.
a movie that lasts 2hours or so will cost $15-20 you could get about 2 movie tickets (no food or anything) for $15. (lasts a few hours) .... ect.
Until you realise that for the same £30 I bought Ghost Recon and Diablo both of which I played for 10 hours a day for 2 years each. That works out as 5 pence a day.
£30 for 2 years or £390 for 2 years.
Ghost Recon had no DRM nonsense, so not only could I play online as often as I wanted, but when my friends were visiting, they all could too.
In the case of Ghost Recon this seems like an unfair comparison because over those 2 years I also spent about £100 on server hire. (A one man slot in a clan server can be found for around £3 a month).
With Diablo and Diablo 2 I did not. The price for 2 years of online (and off) fun was £30 and £15 for the expansion. A tenth of the price of subsciption MMO's.
Is WoW ten times more fun than Diablo 2?
Answer, no it isn't.
Is it ten times more fun than Guild wars?
Answer, no it isn't.
.
.
I really don't see the point of comparing the price of computer games with cars or nightclubs or restaurents. Of course I can spend more money on other pursuits. but lets compare like with like.
If I played Guild Wars for two years instead of WOW, I would be able to buy substantially more $15-20 movies and go out to substantially more cinemas and restaurents.
As long as you feel you are getting good value, who cares? I don't think MMO's are bad value, I think they are bad value compared to other computer games.
Sometimes I even like paying extra to cut out the school kids, although I feel that those days are over and school kids parents are now used to paying also.
Originally posted by Beatnik59 Good point Sarbonn. If these new players learned how to think like we do, they wouldn't think of these games as short term games. Then again, perhaps they are right, and we are the ones who are unwilling to see the genre for what it is. How many players are playing Asheron's Call 2? None. But I don't think it has much to do with whether there are people who desire to play Asheron's Call 2. The fact of the matter is, even if they wanted to, they couldn't. Because the software itself that they bought on the shelf is inadequate to play. The real fact is that it is not the single player game that is short lived. Its the MMO that is short lived, and temporary. I still have Decent Freespace, I played it back when it was released, I still play it today, and I will always be able to play it, whenever I choose. But I can't say that with Asheron's Call 2. In fact, I can't say that with any MMO. The game will "disappear" whether I personally want it to, or not. In fact, I can think of no more reasonable response from a smart consumer of computer entertainment than to treat these MMOs like temporary, very short term games. For the fact of the matter is, they may very well be, and for reasons wholly unrelated to our own enjoyment of them. If the provider of our favorite MMO calls it quits, and gives us our notice, what do I really have to show for all that box money and subscription money? Nothing but a pack of screenshots I couldn't recreate if I tried. Twenty years from now, I'll still have the pleasure of conquering Gaul in Rome: Total War. I'll still be able to run covert operations in Rainbow Six. But will I be able to roam the streets of Freeport, or defend the Gallente Federation from the tyrannical Amarr? Who knows, but one thing is for certain. I would have paid a whole lot more, for something that gives me nothing but regret after its done, when I was not.
It's as short term as you make it.
Yes, in theory you can play those single player games way into the future, but in reality they won't work on your new operating system that is 2-3 generations beyond this one, most likely. They'll be old trash like everything else.
I enjoy my time in EVE. Do I know EVE will end one day? Of course. Does that mean I will regret the time I've spent there and the people I've made friends with there? No. Does it mean I will regret the $15/month I've spent on the game? No. The key for my $15 is whether I am having fun when I am spending it. I don't expect to "take anything away" from any game I buy, whether it's an online game or an offline game ... eventually they all get thrown away in any case. The key is whether I enjoyed the time I devoted to the game ... at least for me that is the key as to whether it is worth my $15.
As for comparative value with other computer games, again that is a very subjective thing. I like virtual worlds, and I'll pay $15 to play in one if I find it interesting and compelling, because that is more fun for me personally than playing in the static world of a single-player game. I like virtual worlds with other players, they have a value for me. Other people do not value them in the same way, and I would agree that if you don't place a value in that you may get more bang for your buck in a single player game than in an MMO.
Originally posted by Novaseeker As for comparative value with other computer games, again that is a very subjective thing. I like virtual worlds, and I'll pay $15 to play in one if I find it interesting and compelling, because that is more fun for me personally than playing in the static world of a single-player game. I like virtual worlds with other players, they have a value for me. Other people do not value them in the same way, and I would agree that if you don't place a value in that you may get more bang for your buck in a single player game than in an MMO.
All the games I mentioned for price comparison are multiplayer games. I don't view this as a single player = cheap, multiplayer = expensive scenario. I don't buy a lot of single player games as they end too quickly to be cost effective.
Being in a game with thousands of other players has been done by Guild Wars. For a tenth of the price of Eve.
I can't fault people who feel that the enjoyment they get from their subscription is worth the price. I often feel the same way.
But it's not good value. There are other similar products on the market for a tenth of the price.
The price a game sells at or subscribes at is not often the price it costs to manufacture or maintain, it is quite simply the highest price the market is willing to pay.
Over the last 5 years server hire and bandwidth costs have greatly reduced. These reduced costs have not been passed back to the customers of Eve online, they have been absorbed into the profits.
The price you pay has very little to do with the value of the product. That's not how it works in capitalism.
i think beatnik made good points in his argument...but personally i don't go back and play too many games that are ten years old...if i beat a game like Diablo 2 for example...even though i had a great time...i'd rarely go back to visit it...unless some friends said lets play it for old times sake (we did that with C and C generals not long ago)...so although it might seem comforting to be able to go back and play something old...with all the new games coming out...do you really want to go back?...i loved Zelda and Super Mario Bros when i was younger...but honestly i feel no urge to ever play them again
the way i look at it...playing a good mmorpg is no different than going on a nice long vacation...
you know it's gonna end of course, and all you will have to show for is indeed memories and screenies if you took them and backed them up somewhere...but if you had a good time for those two years...well then the game designers did their job...i don't think you really want an mmorpg that lasts much longer than that or you might as well be playing one in real time
All the games I mentioned for price comparison are multiplayer games. I don't view this as a single player = cheap, multiplayer = expensive scenario. I don't buy a lot of single player games as they end too quickly to be cost effective.
Being in a game with thousands of other players has been done by Guild Wars. For a tenth of the price of Eve.
I can't fault people who feel that the enjoyment they get from their subscription is worth the price. I often feel the same way.
But it's not good value. There are other similar products on the market for a tenth of the price.
The price a game sells at or subscribes at is not often the price it costs to manufacture or maintain, it is quite simply the highest price the market is willing to pay.
Over the last 5 years server hire and bandwidth costs have greatly reduced. These reduced costs have not been passed back to the customers of Eve online, they have been absorbed into the profits.
The price you pay has very little to do with the value of the product. That's not how it works in capitalism.
The way I view it is even simpler: if I enjoy the world, I will pay to play in it.
Economics 101 informs us that we all have our individual preference curves. Those preference curves infer that we have individual values that we place on goods and services, and of course these are subjective. For me, I place a higher value than, say, you do on playing in a virtual world that I enjoy such that I am happy to pay for one. And if I find one that I enjoy, like EVE, I'll gladly pay the $15 because for me there is value in that, and I don't see spending the $15 as bad value due to my own preference curves.
For me to find value, it's not about being in a game with thousands of other players, it's about a virtual world I find compelling. Guild Wars did not at all feel like a virtual world for a number of reasons.. I did not find it immersive or compelling and therefore I would have never paid $15 a month to play GW if it were a pay-to-play game. Again, different preference curves for different people lead to subjective calculations of value. But just because I wouldn't have paid a monthly sub to play GW doesn't make me conclude that all games that have monthly subs are bad value. Whether they are good value or not depends on whether I enjoy playing them, because at the end of the day that is how I value my entertainment spending.
Someone made a good point about the expansions... What I really expect from games I subscribe to is content, not server costs so much. Employees are usually the biggest cost in businesses. To some extent, I suspect it also amortizes the cost of producing the game over and above selling CDs, because the worlds are usually bigger and there is more content (good or bad) than a single player or non-MMO game.
I don't like the idea that my dollars would be going to supporting the developers while they make expansions which I'd have to pay for anyway...
No.. there will always be P2P especially considering when things technologically advance prices will only go up and even more up conisidering over time currency just gets worth less and less. what I mean by that is like $100 now will be worth alot less in like 50 so years..
EDITED: and in terms of guildwars... they have expansion paks ever like 6 months which most players will buy so they might make more money per person. Also they hardly pay for servers and running t hem is not a prob cuz they only got one and towns are only people staked places..
Originally posted by gab2580 No.. there will always be P2P especially considering when things technologically advance prices will only go up and even more up conisidering over time currency just gets worth less and less. what I mean by that is like $100 now will be worth alot less in like 50 so years..EDITED: and in terms of guildwars... they have expansion paks ever like 6 months which most players will buy so they might make more money per person. Also they hardly pay for servers and running t hem is not a prob cuz they only got one and towns are only people staked places..
Not really. Except for major innovations that require entire new production processes the technology to create and run a game has gone down consistently.
SGIs to model the graphics are now available for almsot 1/4 what they were 10 years ago (linux stations) and the actual rendering systems are faster every year with the street cost also lowering. Servers are becoming more and more modulated and beowulf and beuwolf (yes there is a difference) setups increase stability and efficiency while lowering the costs to build and maintain.
The tools are getting cheaper, comsumers just have this mind set that everything is worth a %50 box and then $15 after that. Of course part of the issue is that the people generally overseeing what server company is used and such generally only see projected profits and dont' understand that a slight more initial setup cost may create better long term profits since they don't understand the difference in technology.
Prices go up because people will pay it, and the game market keeps going up because as a whole it attracts the teens to mid 20s the most who generally have the highest % of disposable income, or their parents just pay for it. But the increase is way beyond inflation.
Originally posted by Xpheyel Someone made a good point about the expansions... What I really expect from games I subscribe to is content, not server costs so much. Employees are usually the biggest cost in businesses. To some extent, I suspect it also amortizes the cost of producing the game over and above selling CDs, because the worlds are usually bigger and there is more content (good or bad) than a single player or non-MMO game.I don't like the idea that my dollars would be going to supporting the developers while they make expansions which I'd have to pay for anyway...
A lot of people say you are paying for the next expansion when you buy the just released one. Problem is there isn't always another one, so eventually you are just really buying the same expansion twice.
Originally posted by Novaseeker It's as short term as you make it.
I don't understand this thought. How did the player who bought and subscribed to Asheron's Call 2 have any say in how short or long of a term he or she had?
I'm sure there were a few who wish they had a few more months to experience the things they always thought they'd have the time to do someday. The wonderful thing about non-online games, is that it truly is "as short of a term as you make it." And also, as long of a term as you make it too.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Originally posted by Beatnik59 Originally posted by Novaseeker It's as short term as you make it.
I don't understand this thought. How did the player who bought and subscribed to Asheron's Call 2 have any say in how short or long of a term he or she had?
I'm sure there were a few who wish they had a few more months to experience the things they always thought they'd have the time to do someday. The wonderful thing about non-online games, is that it truly is "as short of a term as you make it." And also, as long of a term as you make it too.
Well I agree that game companies who don't keep their MMOs active for very long are bad. People shouldn't buy games from them.
Every MMO has a half-life that noone knows. Unless you get very unlucky, or the game company is schmuck-like (which happens from time to time), the game probably won't get shut down within a few months of when you start to play it. Hence the importance of finding a game with a company behind it that is dedicated to the game. EVE fits that bill nicely, which is one reason why I've remained so loyal to the game. A bigger gaming company would have ditched EVE long ago, as EA did when it ditched EnB. So when you decide to invest your time in an MMO in part it should be based on assessment of the company who runs it as well and how devoted they are to the game. EVE will end some day, no doubt, but I will have had plenty of fun in it by the time that day comes, no doubt.
hey i dont know about everyone else here but i would rather not pay then pay, but that is just my opinion.... i mean suit yourself. I know that someone will argue that they would rather pay for an awome game then not pay and have it be not as good but hey some games have managed to pull off the no monthly fee i think the others could manage too.
Its good see some people get how Marketting and capatalism work.
The only people telling us that we need to pay more are usually the developers and publishers themselves because it means more $$ for them.
I am iffi on the issue of paying for expansions, some companies do take advantage of its subscriber base and abuse suck money from them at every corner (SOE comes to mind). Some companies are better then others, lets look at CCP(Eve Online) vs Blizzard (WoW). As i and others have pointed out in our previous posts the more subcribers, the more overall profit of a company and the less need to even charge high monthly fees. So why is it that CCP with 1/50th the number of subscribers is able to offer free expansions and Blizzard still charges...of course for profit....though when WoW is concerned its pure profit....its large subscriber base more then covers any development costs.
But like i've posted before more companies like CCP or other ambitious indi companies will pop up with mmos and sacrifice some greed for a chance at any profit. Eventually more and more people will ask themselves why are we paying more for less?
Oh and for the purposes of this discussion it doesn't really matter if either DDO or GW are 'true' mmorpgs, just that they both use instances and one charges monthly fees ( and possibly expansions) and one just charges for expansions.
Originally posted by farahot Not aslong as money rules the mankind it won't....
Well personally as a first time comp RPG addict... I have found that prior to playing online games... I was completely ANTI p2p venues. I felt that buying the game was enough and thus I refused to get involved in the online gaming world with RPGS.
However now I have played a FREEmmorpg.. and I spent WELL over the yearly 14 to 19 dolars a month the p2p offer.
So I think that P2P is safer and at least you should get better service than these trads on the game I have sunk MAJOR cash this past year into.
Originally posted by Novaseeker So when you decide to invest your time in an MMO in part it should be based on assessment of the company who runs it as well and how devoted they are to the game.
Too much work, and I don't have ESP.
I've seen CCP too. I trust Oveur just a tad more than I trust SOE. But I still don't trust them to do the right thing. All they seem to care about is ensuring that the old customers have a steady supply of new customers that kowtow to them.
If you are a three year veteran, they'll look the other way when you grief, skew the system so that you'll always have the advantage, and give new players no retreat from the twinks who try to run things.
If you are new, they'll make sure they squeeze some money out of you training skills, give you no hope of an endgame without a vet's permission, and give you no server to retreat to if the players make the game unbearable. EVE is a "members only" club to those on the outside. But to those on the inside, it seems great. No wonder it is, when the entire game is geared around making the vets feel important, at the expense of the n00bs.
When was the last time you saw a new EVE chronicle? Its been awhile for me, and I can tell you why. They want to sell you EON. Its just an expansion in a different way. The stuff I usually get for free, like interviews, sneak peaks, player content, and lore is stuff I have to pay for in EVE today.
If I want to do research into a company, it will probably not be so I can spend money, but rather, make money.
If I am expected to do research, invest, and take risks, then they can at least treat me like an investor, and give me money, rather than have me give it out.
You see man, in that one statement of, "investing your time in an MMO requires an assessment of the company," shows right there why 80% of the people Perpetual surveyed are weary about subs, and MMOs. Its too uncertain, and requires too much of a "leap of faith," when all they want is to have a little fun for their money.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Comments
$15 a month in EVE is getting you a lot more though. Your character information is active on the server and being updated while you are offline, remember being able to check your character from the website? there is your proof. Now include the expansions and updates, you are saving a good $3 a month over WoW counting those.
WoW has more staff but fewer employees per customer, so the cost per customer isn't as much either. The only real additional cost in WoW is replacing the servers that they regularilyspill coffee on...
Things don't scale linearly and all these $.50 a day arguments and such are looking on the small scale. You buy in bulk you save and when you are talking business size bulk you save a lot, and the base business prices are far lower than most consumer prices. Every game seems to have Nvidia or ATI logos and all thqat on startup anyway, why not add some ads while waiting in queue and lower the fee? They have ads all over their official sites for official guides, accessories and computer hardware so they are taking extra profit just because of their success, don't forget to include that income when you discuss fees to maintain a game.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Let me give you the single biggest reason for the mmorpgs that we play charging $15 per month...
It's a very little thing in basic economics called "SUPPLY AND DEMAND"
As long as the demand is great enough for mmo servers and mmo worlds in which we can all play on at the same time (ie, not Guild Wars where every thing is instanced)... and as long as we are willing to pay $15 per month to play in those virtual worlds, then they will continue to supply us those virtual worlds for the $15 per month or whatever we are willing to pay per month.
If they figure out that they can raise the monthly rates to $19.95 per month (a 25% increase) and lose only about 12% of their subscriber base because of this rate hike... ummm what do you think they will do? OFCOURSE they will raise the rates to $19.95 per month, because in the end they would be making tons more money..especially in an mmo like World of Warcraft!
I've seen the profit margins on mmo's in a recent computer magazine, and basically about 60 or 65% of all the revenue brought in to a typical mmorpg right now is PURE PROFIT. The rest pays for the servers, the upkeep, the employees, and the other bills. If you take that percentage of pure profit and apply it to a mega-hit mmo like WoW, then you can quickly figure out how much damn profit they are making. Lets say 5 million subscribers worldwide... multiply that by $15 per month... thats $75 million per month in monthy fees. 60% of that would be about $45 MILLION PER MONTH IN PURE PROFIT!
Ya think Blizzard isn't getting mega rich off this game? Ofcourse they are! But with that money, they can still sit back and say "hmmm, how many subscribers would we lose if we jumped the monthly cost up to $19.95?" and perhaps their experts tell them "Whoa, dude... our predictions are that right now with a hike to $19.95 per month, you'd lose 40% of your subscriber base".. so they go "Hmmm, well what about a hike to $17.95 per month?" and perhaps the expert tells them "We predict with a hike to that price, you'd lose about 20% of your subsriber base to other games" This is all just an example. But trust me when Blizzard or any other mmo company thinks that they can get away with hiking the monthly price a few dollars per month, well then our monthly fee will rise once again. This has basically already happened twice in the past 8 years or so of mmos. Ultima Online started out in 1997 at $9.95 per month. Then a few years later, the typical price for most mmos jumped to $12.95 a month. Then just a few years ago, the typical monthly fee for an mmo jumped to $14.95 per month. The companies ofcourse use the "As costs rise, we must rise the cost of your monthly fee" excuse.. but as I showed above, Blizzard is certainly making a small fortune at $14.95 per month.
Likewise, if the mmo companies think that because of supply and demand that they would make more profit by dropping the monthly cost, then trust me they would do just that. It's all about maximizing their profits with the least cost to them. Thats how economics works, and that's how businesses succeed and stay in business.
You think you are paying so that you can "play". Hehe. It's probably a lot more true to say that you pay so they can "play".
- Zaxx
Part of the problem with "pay to play" is that a large chunk of the population that has never done so sees games in a way that the rest of us have gotten around. We know the costs and that the game one plays as an MMORPG is a lot different than the usual game you'd play if you just bought the game and played on your own. We know about continuous maintenance and content increases.
Those who don't know this, such as the example of the survey of people who criticize the payment process of Star Trek Online have ONLY ever seen games as something you pay for and then play once you get home. What is happening is something significant that few people seem to acknowledge, and that is that newer MMORPG players are coming to these games with the belief that these games are very short term games, almost like single player games are today. That's caused because of two reasons: One, they don't know the genre that well, and two, they HAVE followed the genre and noticed that most games being released these days are not like the old UO and EQ where people expected to play those games for 3+ years, but see that most people don't last more than six months in these games today, and thus aren't really of an advantage on a pay for play paradigm.
My blog:
http://www.littlesarbonn.com
Good point Sarbonn.
If these new players learned how to think like we do, they wouldn't think of these games as short term games.
Then again, perhaps they are right, and we are the ones who are unwilling to see the genre for what it is.
How many players are playing Asheron's Call 2? None. But I don't think it has much to do with whether there are people who desire to play Asheron's Call 2. The fact of the matter is, even if they wanted to, they couldn't. Because the software itself that they bought on the shelf is inadequate to play.
The real fact is that it is not the single player game that is short lived. Its the MMO that is short lived, and temporary. I still have Decent Freespace, I played it back when it was released, I still play it today, and I will always be able to play it, whenever I choose.
But I can't say that with Asheron's Call 2. In fact, I can't say that with any MMO. The game will "disappear" whether I personally want it to, or not.
In fact, I can think of no more reasonable response from a smart consumer of computer entertainment than to treat these MMOs like temporary, very short term games. For the fact of the matter is, they may very well be, and for reasons wholly unrelated to our own enjoyment of them. If the provider of our favorite MMO calls it quits, and gives us our notice, what do I really have to show for all that box money and subscription money? Nothing but a pack of screenshots I couldn't recreate if I tried.
Twenty years from now, I'll still have the pleasure of conquering Gaul in Rome: Total War. I'll still be able to run covert operations in Rainbow Six. But will I be able to roam the streets of Freeport, or defend the Gallente Federation from the tyrannical Amarr?
Who knows, but one thing is for certain. I would have paid a whole lot more, for something that gives me nothing but regret after its done, when I was not.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Until you realise that for the same £30 I bought Ghost Recon and Diablo both of which I played for 10 hours a day for 2 years each. That works out as 5 pence a day.
£30 for 2 years or £390 for 2 years.
Ghost Recon had no DRM nonsense, so not only could I play online as often as I wanted, but when my friends were visiting, they all could too.
In the case of Ghost Recon this seems like an unfair comparison because over those 2 years I also spent about £100 on server hire. (A one man slot in a clan server can be found for around £3 a month).
With Diablo and Diablo 2 I did not. The price for 2 years of online (and off) fun was £30 and £15 for the expansion. A tenth of the price of subsciption MMO's.
Is WoW ten times more fun than Diablo 2?
Answer, no it isn't.
Is it ten times more fun than Guild wars?
Answer, no it isn't.
.
.
I really don't see the point of comparing the price of computer games with cars or nightclubs or restaurents. Of course I can spend more money on other pursuits. but lets compare like with like.
If I played Guild Wars for two years instead of WOW, I would be able to buy substantially more $15-20 movies and go out to substantially more cinemas and restaurents.
As long as you feel you are getting good value, who cares? I don't think MMO's are bad value, I think they are bad value compared to other computer games.
Sometimes I even like paying extra to cut out the school kids, although I feel that those days are over and school kids parents are now used to paying also.
Yes, in theory you can play those single player games way into the future, but in reality they won't work on your new operating system that is 2-3 generations beyond this one, most likely. They'll be old trash like everything else.
I enjoy my time in EVE. Do I know EVE will end one day? Of course. Does that mean I will regret the time I've spent there and the people I've made friends with there? No. Does it mean I will regret the $15/month I've spent on the game? No. The key for my $15 is whether I am having fun when I am spending it. I don't expect to "take anything away" from any game I buy, whether it's an online game or an offline game ... eventually they all get thrown away in any case. The key is whether I enjoyed the time I devoted to the game ... at least for me that is the key as to whether it is worth my $15.
As for comparative value with other computer games, again that is a very subjective thing. I like virtual worlds, and I'll pay $15 to play in one if I find it interesting and compelling, because that is more fun for me personally than playing in the static world of a single-player game. I like virtual worlds with other players, they have a value for me. Other people do not value them in the same way, and I would agree that if you don't place a value in that you may get more bang for your buck in a single player game than in an MMO.
All the games I mentioned for price comparison are multiplayer games. I don't view this as a single player = cheap, multiplayer = expensive scenario. I don't buy a lot of single player games as they end too quickly to be cost effective.
Being in a game with thousands of other players has been done by Guild Wars. For a tenth of the price of Eve.
I can't fault people who feel that the enjoyment they get from their subscription is worth the price. I often feel the same way.
But it's not good value. There are other similar products on the market for a tenth of the price.
The price a game sells at or subscribes at is not often the price it costs to manufacture or maintain, it is quite simply the highest price the market is willing to pay.
Over the last 5 years server hire and bandwidth costs have greatly reduced. These reduced costs have not been passed back to the customers of Eve online, they have been absorbed into the profits.
The price you pay has very little to do with the value of the product. That's not how it works in capitalism.
i think beatnik made good points in his argument...but personally i don't go back and play too many games that are ten years old...if i beat a game like Diablo 2 for example...even though i had a great time...i'd rarely go back to visit it...unless some friends said lets play it for old times sake (we did that with C and C generals not long ago)...so although it might seem comforting to be able to go back and play something old...with all the new games coming out...do you really want to go back?...i loved Zelda and Super Mario Bros when i was younger...but honestly i feel no urge to ever play them again
the way i look at it...playing a good mmorpg is no different than going on a nice long vacation...
you know it's gonna end of course, and all you will have to show for is indeed memories and screenies if you took them and backed them up somewhere...but if you had a good time for those two years...well then the game designers did their job...i don't think you really want an mmorpg that lasts much longer than that or you might as well be playing one in real time
All the games I mentioned for price comparison are multiplayer games. I don't view this as a single player = cheap, multiplayer = expensive scenario. I don't buy a lot of single player games as they end too quickly to be cost effective.
Being in a game with thousands of other players has been done by Guild Wars. For a tenth of the price of Eve.
I can't fault people who feel that the enjoyment they get from their subscription is worth the price. I often feel the same way.
But it's not good value. There are other similar products on the market for a tenth of the price.
The price a game sells at or subscribes at is not often the price it costs to manufacture or maintain, it is quite simply the highest price the market is willing to pay.
Over the last 5 years server hire and bandwidth costs have greatly reduced. These reduced costs have not been passed back to the customers of Eve online, they have been absorbed into the profits.
The price you pay has very little to do with the value of the product. That's not how it works in capitalism.
The way I view it is even simpler: if I enjoy the world, I will pay to play in it.
Economics 101 informs us that we all have our individual preference curves. Those preference curves infer that we have individual values that we place on goods and services, and of course these are subjective. For me, I place a higher value than, say, you do on playing in a virtual world that I enjoy such that I am happy to pay for one. And if I find one that I enjoy, like EVE, I'll gladly pay the $15 because for me there is value in that, and I don't see spending the $15 as bad value due to my own preference curves.
For me to find value, it's not about being in a game with thousands of other players, it's about a virtual world I find compelling. Guild Wars did not at all feel like a virtual world for a number of reasons.. I did not find it immersive or compelling and therefore I would have never paid $15 a month to play GW if it were a pay-to-play game. Again, different preference curves for different people lead to subjective calculations of value. But just because I wouldn't have paid a monthly sub to play GW doesn't make me conclude that all games that have monthly subs are bad value. Whether they are good value or not depends on whether I enjoy playing them, because at the end of the day that is how I value my entertainment spending.
Someone made a good point about the expansions... What I really expect from games I subscribe to is content, not server costs so much. Employees are usually the biggest cost in businesses. To some extent, I suspect it also amortizes the cost of producing the game over and above selling CDs, because the worlds are usually bigger and there is more content (good or bad) than a single player or non-MMO game.
I don't like the idea that my dollars would be going to supporting the developers while they make expansions which I'd have to pay for anyway...
No.. there will always be P2P especially considering when things technologically advance prices will only go up and even more up conisidering over time currency just gets worth less and less. what I mean by that is like $100 now will be worth alot less in like 50 so years..
EDITED: and in terms of guildwars... they have expansion paks ever like 6 months which most players will buy so they might make more money per person. Also they hardly pay for servers and running t hem is not a prob cuz they only got one and towns are only people staked places..
^_^
Not really. Except for major innovations that require entire new production processes the technology to create and run a game has gone down consistently.
SGIs to model the graphics are now available for almsot 1/4 what they were 10 years ago (linux stations) and the actual rendering systems are faster every year with the street cost also lowering. Servers are becoming more and more modulated and beowulf and beuwolf (yes there is a difference) setups increase stability and efficiency while lowering the costs to build and maintain.
The tools are getting cheaper, comsumers just have this mind set that everything is worth a %50 box and then $15 after that. Of course part of the issue is that the people generally overseeing what server company is used and such generally only see projected profits and dont' understand that a slight more initial setup cost may create better long term profits since they don't understand the difference in technology.
Prices go up because people will pay it, and the game market keeps going up because as a whole it attracts the teens to mid 20s the most who generally have the highest % of disposable income, or their parents just pay for it. But the increase is way beyond inflation.
A lot of people say you are paying for the next expansion when you buy the just released one. Problem is there isn't always another one, so eventually you are just really buying the same expansion twice.
I don't understand this thought. How did the player who bought and subscribed to Asheron's Call 2 have any say in how short or long of a term he or she had?
I'm sure there were a few who wish they had a few more months to experience the things they always thought they'd have the time to do someday. The wonderful thing about non-online games, is that it truly is "as short of a term as you make it." And also, as long of a term as you make it too.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
I don't understand this thought. How did the player who bought and subscribed to Asheron's Call 2 have any say in how short or long of a term he or she had?
I'm sure there were a few who wish they had a few more months to experience the things they always thought they'd have the time to do someday. The wonderful thing about non-online games, is that it truly is "as short of a term as you make it." And also, as long of a term as you make it too.
Well I agree that game companies who don't keep their MMOs active for very long are bad. People shouldn't buy games from them.
Every MMO has a half-life that noone knows. Unless you get very unlucky, or the game company is schmuck-like (which happens from time to time), the game probably won't get shut down within a few months of when you start to play it. Hence the importance of finding a game with a company behind it that is dedicated to the game. EVE fits that bill nicely, which is one reason why I've remained so loyal to the game. A bigger gaming company would have ditched EVE long ago, as EA did when it ditched EnB. So when you decide to invest your time in an MMO in part it should be based on assessment of the company who runs it as well and how devoted they are to the game. EVE will end some day, no doubt, but I will have had plenty of fun in it by the time that day comes, no doubt.
The only people telling us that we need to pay more are usually the developers and publishers themselves because it means more $$ for them.
I am iffi on the issue of paying for expansions, some companies do take advantage of its subscriber base and abuse suck money from them at every corner (SOE comes to mind). Some companies are better then others, lets look at CCP(Eve Online) vs Blizzard (WoW). As i and others have pointed out in our previous posts the more subcribers, the more overall profit of a company and the less need to even charge high monthly fees. So why is it that CCP with 1/50th the number of subscribers is able to offer free expansions and Blizzard still charges...of course for profit....though when WoW is concerned its pure profit....its large subscriber base more then covers any development costs.
But like i've posted before more companies like CCP or other ambitious indi companies will pop up with mmos and sacrifice some greed for a chance at any profit. Eventually more and more people will ask themselves why are we paying more for less?
Oh and for the purposes of this discussion it doesn't really matter if either DDO or GW are 'true' mmorpgs, just that they both use instances and one charges monthly fees ( and possibly expansions) and one just charges for expansions.
Well personally as a first time comp RPG addict... I have found that prior to playing online games... I was completely ANTI p2p venues. I felt that buying the game was enough and thus I refused to get involved in the online gaming world with RPGS.
However now I have played a FREEmmorpg.. and I spent WELL over the yearly 14 to 19 dolars a month the p2p offer.
So I think that P2P is safer and at least you should get better service than these trads on the game I have sunk MAJOR cash this past year into.
P2P FTW!
Too much work, and I don't have ESP.
I've seen CCP too. I trust Oveur just a tad more than I trust SOE. But I still don't trust them to do the right thing. All they seem to care about is ensuring that the old customers have a steady supply of new customers that kowtow to them.
If you are a three year veteran, they'll look the other way when you grief, skew the system so that you'll always have the advantage, and give new players no retreat from the twinks who try to run things.
If you are new, they'll make sure they squeeze some money out of you training skills, give you no hope of an endgame without a vet's permission, and give you no server to retreat to if the players make the game unbearable. EVE is a "members only" club to those on the outside. But to those on the inside, it seems great. No wonder it is, when the entire game is geared around making the vets feel important, at the expense of the n00bs.
When was the last time you saw a new EVE chronicle? Its been awhile for me, and I can tell you why. They want to sell you EON. Its just an expansion in a different way. The stuff I usually get for free, like interviews, sneak peaks, player content, and lore is stuff I have to pay for in EVE today.
If I want to do research into a company, it will probably not be so I can spend money, but rather, make money.
If I am expected to do research, invest, and take risks, then they can at least treat me like an investor, and give me money, rather than have me give it out.
You see man, in that one statement of, "investing your time in an MMO requires an assessment of the company," shows right there why 80% of the people Perpetual surveyed are weary about subs, and MMOs. Its too uncertain, and requires too much of a "leap of faith," when all they want is to have a little fun for their money.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE