So, you're saying it costs me like $230 per year to play MMORPG's for an unlimited amount of time? Yep, sounds like a pretty bad deal to me. When will you learn that there isn't an amount of money that Blizzard 'deserves' to earn. (or not earn). They deserve to earn as much as they can milk out of their customer base. If they could double the rates tomorrow and have everyone still pay for it, they would deserve it. Its called free market capitalism and its how our economy works. Now, my game, EVE does not charge me for expansions, so I guess I get a better deal? But that's not why I play, nor would I care if they did charge, its just a nice perc. In fact, if I was so motivated, I could go out and sell time cards for ISK , and spend even more money on this game. Doesn't bother me a bit. MMO's are the best entertainment value out there today, (cost me more to take my wife and son to the movies (40 bucks) last night than almost all 3 of my EVE subs for the month.
Unregulated, free market capitalism is directly responsible for the U.S. mortgage scandal and recent global economic instability. Read about the Great Depression, and you'll get a better understanding perhaps of how capitalism requires monitoring and regulation to avoid exploitation and collapse. Look at the current efforts of world governments to address the problems, and you'll once again see the importance of legislation and regulation to avoid economic implosion due to greed and short-sightedness.
Actually this is false but it is great to see how people somehow think that the Government can fix their problems for them.
Lack of personal responsibility caused the current US Mortgage crisis. Sorry if you don't have a job or if you had a job that didn't make a lot of money yet you went to the Bank and got a loan for a house that you couldn't afford it wasn't the Bank's fault. They are trying to make money for their stockholders just like any Company. It is the individuals fault.
Not only was it a lack of Personal Responsisbility but it was the Government's intervention back in the 1990s that caused this crisis. The Government forced banks to take on riskier loans because their weren't enough "Minority Homeowners". Heck even the New York Times (A mecca of Liberlism) back in 1999 said that this current crisis would happen because of the Changes in Mortgage Loans that Bill Clinton put into place.
Government intervention prolonged the Great Depression (and only WW2 really got us out of it) and it will prolong this current crisis as well. The Market needs to be free and needs to adjust. If these banks and companies were allowed to fail then new ones would take their place.
That is how a free market works and it works well. See instead of propping up the Big 3 car companies they should let them fail. They gambled on how popular thier ideas would stay and they gambled wrong.
The banks as well should of been let to fail. Sure it would of been painful but in the long run it would of been the best thing to happen for our Country. Instead we mortgage our Children's future so we don't have to hurt as much now.
It is just Pathetic.
There's enough lack of personal responsibility to go around. People didn't have to take out two, three, or four mortgages in the hopes that they could "flip it" for cash out of thin air. Banks didn't have to give out shark loans that couldn't be repaid. Ultimately though, personal responsibility is something that can only be practiced by persons. Institutions have no capacity to take personal responsibility, because they are not human beings. We saw this clearly with Enron: the best thing about being in a corporation is that there's always someone else to blame, and we've seen a whole lot more of that from corporations lately, as you well know.
See, the problem is and always will be the relationship between doing an art well, and doing an art profitably. It's something Plato brings up in The Republic: one who practices their trade for the sake of money can never be a good artisan, because a good artisan practices their trade for the sake of the art itself, regardless of money. The problem with corporations like Sony is that they no longer (or never did) practice their trade for the sake of the consumer electronics art. They practice their trade for the sake of money, which means they have no business practicing their art.
You see, when SOE decides to bait and switch, redesign SWG into an unplayable mess right in the middle of active subscriptions, and undermine the integrity of the game through virtual lotteries, it doesn't make people want to respect Sony's intellectual property in Blu-Ray. In fact, it makes people not care about Sony's "rights" at all. Is Sony going to go after copiers? Perhaps, but every person they go after creates a new enemy and a new expense. Not only that, but I really don't think they want the law to get involved, because then they'd be opening themselves up to scrutiny about exploding batteries, Trials of Obi-Wan, etc.
The problem with markets these days has very little to do with not being able to make money. The problem with markets is that there's no mechanism in place to practice good arts, only profitable ones. Instead of doctors who practice medicine for the sake of good health, we have doctors who practice medicine for the sake of money. Instead of real-estate developers who practice development to make better homes, we have real-estate developers who practice development to make money, regardless of whether the homes are better or not.
Economics cannot model quality, only quantity. The problem with our current economy is that there's no incentive to practice quality arts, only an incentive to produce a greater quantity of money, regardless of whether it actually exists, or not.
Well said Beatnik, well said
Also regarding government regulation and lending policies. It's necessary to prevent those with power from contractually exploiting those with less power in a negotiation. Banks have money, homebuyers don't. They need money from the banks to purchase homes (i.e. a mortgage). Banks can offer mortgages with terms that either exploit the homeowners' dependence, or they can offer mortgages that do not exploit the homeowners' dependence. This is where regulation plays a role. By the way, most of the people affected by the mortgage crisis were not purchasing homes to flip them for a profit. They were purchasing homes for their families to live in.
Astute politicians raised concerns about some banks' lending policies years ago. They foresaw the current crisis and drafted regulatory recommendations. These recommendations were ignored in the interest of allowing the market to regulate itself. (Also, it's public knowledge that many politicians received financial contributions from the banks mainly responsible for the crisis.) Unfortunately, when the market regulates itself, it can do so in the form of recession or depression. In this kind of economic climate, everyone loses; every single person that is connected to the economy (from Washington to Moscow) is affected negatively. People that are only interested in the next quarter's earnings, or short-term financial gain, do not think globally, or long term it appears. The banks that were taking advantage of would-be home-owners' dependence were also committing finanicial suicide. To see this however, they would have to think globally and long-term. Greed, by definition, doesn't do this.
To see someone blame minority home-buyers for the global economic crisis would be laughable if the implications of the statement weren't so horrifying. Just imagine visible minorities being blamed for the global crisis and imagine the kind of appalling behaviour that might be a result--all of it completely misdirected. No, I'm afraid minorities can't be used as a scape-goat for this crisis, and if you consider the history of this behaviour, you'll want to stop before you go any further down that road.
Also, I don't actually think government can "fix" this, and this of course wasn't what I was saying. The main role of regulation is prevention, not complete re-stabilization. It's easier to prevent the dominoes from beginning to fall than it is to stop them and put them all upright once again. The best government can do at this point is attempt to mitigate damage. The dominoes are still falling, and a lot of people are going to be hit by the fallout still.
Now, look at development in MMO's (some parallels). Ask yourself which developers are thinking long-term, and which are characterized by short-term objectives (e.g. fast profits now). Make a list if you like. On the long-term list, you will find companies that steadily build on a solid foundation with incremental success. I would argue that they understand the essence of Beatnik's post. They deal openly and ethically with their consumers. Their products function well and provide good entertainment value. Their customer service is excellent. When mistakes are made, they are acknowledged and corrected in a timely manner.
You'll see many games (and service providers) that don't meet these basic criteria for success fall by the wayside, and you'll see consumers congregate in MMOs that meet these standards. Those that like easy to learn, fantasy-based, linear questing, for example, are congregating in WoW. Those that like a sand-box game with a lot of technical depth are congregating in EVE. Just imagine how many more people would be playing EVE if they had a ground game to go along with space, as long as the excellent space adventure isn't adversely impacted in the process.
I still think MMOs can provide good entertainment value, if they and their online communities are managed artfully. Evidently, there are only a few true artists in the field.
Right now all I'm playing are FTP games so I pay nothing a month for entertainment on those. Mostly since I dont have much time to play my favorite games but will do when I can. Is only $10 a month for ragnarok and so far is the MMO I like the most from all the ones I have played. Is the only one I keep active when I can out of the 30+ accounts I got in other games that most likely will remain like they are now.
You forgot to mention that Valve's games such as HL2, CS
Originally posted by John.A.Zoid
$15 a month = $180 a year + retail cost and yet you're expected to pay for expansions even though people like Valve can keep updating their games without a monthly fee. Then on top of all that there are the micro transactions like the whole TCG type thing in mmorpgs such as SWG where if you want certain in game items the only way you're able to get them is by paying until you're lucky enough to get it. Not only that but you're paying for features that should come as standard with your monthly fee like what WOW charges you for like changing your character name or transfering your character to another server. I mean to me that is something that you expect as part of the service you want under you montly fee and a standard feature you would want in mmorpgs. Most the time you meet people who play the same game as you but you're normally on different servers and yet your subscription fee doesn't cover that : People say oh but that $15 goes towards server charges..... WOW makes over $1 billion a year so really they probbaly could charge everyone $5 a month and still be making more than enough. Yet soon we're going to enter in the territory where these companies start charging you $15 a month + retail + expansions + in game advertising + micro transactions + anything else they can think of and when are people going to say I've had enough of being taken a fool of? Guild Wars can survive without subscripton fee's so why don#t everyone else frop them if they expect us to pay for all this other crap? They still host every single server and still have to host every instance.
you forgot to mention that valve games such as CSS, CS, TF2, Ect, all conntect to multiplayer by "Player server hosting" And do not use any central main servers... "That is the reason they can provide small patches and fixes without charging a monthly, not to mention when they is a patch or update for the game, it is very small because there games are already so good that they dont need "too many fixes" The reason there games are so polished is because the maps are generall meant for skrimish/close quarter and medium maps, not entire planets or solar systems/worlds with thousdands of simotanious players
This is the reason mmos cost monthly. So basically your reasoning is flawed.
You can't assign a dollar amount on value. Or at least a blanket value as we all value different things. There are people who actually don't like single player games and prefer mmo's. To them it would be money well spent. And yes, you are correct (in my opinion) that there is "more" gameplay of a certain type in single player games. Gotta stop you here. None of the games that I listed are single player games. Yes, you can play against the computer, but you are usually expected to play against / with other people. There are single player games that you can play forever, Pac Man, Defender, Super Collapse, etc., but the games that you spend the most time with are going to be competitive in nature. More to the point, I can play with and against other people without paying $200+ annually. But there is an ineffable type of gameplay that you find in an mmo, one that is based on a social model. So what about the new Animal Crossing game? No monthly fee. Way cheaper than an MMO. When I fire up Oblvion and I'm in Skingrad it is very apparent that I'm in a single player game. There is no life. That is why I downloaded a mod that added population to the cities as it just seemed too dead. But in the end, the actual value is what the player wants and is willing to pay. And some people are more easily amused than others. At the end of the day, your average MMORPG player is still shoveling insane amounts of money into a product for an experience that they could get much cheaper in a regular multiplayer game. If people really want/need a social aspect while being in some sort of virtual world then it very well might be worth it to them. Heck, I would have no problem paying double what I pay if the gameplay was entertaining and I found that it was something that I enjoyed. But then again, for me, money is also a way to make one's life more enjoyable. Heck, there are people who will drop hundreds of dollars on the weekends at clubs. I would never do that as it has no value to me. Same thing with online games. There is value there, it's just up to the player whether or not he wants that value.
Well, you had mentioned games like Bejewelled, Tetris and the Sims, which were single player games.
However, I still don't agree, especially with your premise that people are pumping money into multi-player when they can get the same for free.
An obvious comparison is Network T.V. vs Cable T.V.
One could say "why pay for Cable when you can get the same thing for free on Network T.V.
And the obvious answer would be "because it's not the same.
One can argue that Network T.V. has the same types of programming that one could get on Cable but then the other can argue that the quality of the programs or the subjects on Cable are either better or more to their liking.
The same could be said about MMO's. V.S. other free games that have multi player. You could argue that Unreal Tournement 2004 is a multi player and has "better" x and y but then someone could easily say "but it's not Warhammer.
In the end, which is my point, it doesn't matter what one says is better for the value but what we want to spend our money on.
I could say that I can get a bag chocolate bars for about $2.00 but I prefer to go to Godiva and pay the 14.00 for a small bag.
Even though they are both chocolate, the Godiva is more to my liking.
edit: as far as the comment regarding "some people are more easily amused than others" I can't really get behind that type of argument as it strikes me as elitist. Also, more to the point, that just ends up as finger pointing as one could point to people who play ANY video games and say "well, you might like it but in the end, some people are more easily amused than others."
Same with sports. People watch sports but others might roll their eyes and say "big waste of time".
It's about defining for others what is better because of your own tastes. Now, this is not to say that I couldn't easily fall into that trap in a conversation and say "what!?!?! you actually like that? I think it's horrible!"
But in the end I fully realize that beauty is in the eye of the beholder even though I might look at someone's Hummel collection (which I wouldn't spend a dime on by the way) and just nod my head and smile.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
This thread sounds like it has a bunch of whiney kids whose parents won't pay for their WoW sub. $15 a month is a drop in the bucket to me. $40-50 for the game or X-pac is nothing. If you can't afford that then:
HAHA! <points>
If I feel I am not getting a good value I don't buyt he game or I quit paying my fee. If you don't feel MMO's are a good value than you should do the same. If enough people stop paying they will change or go out of business. That's capitalism, it might not be a perfect system but it's the best we have so far. You are free to leave this country and move to China if you don't like it.
What do you think companies should do? Let us play for free? Is that it, some people in this country want everything socialized that we even have MMORPG 'welfare'? If someone can't afford a sub than those of us who can should subsidize them?
It's only a rip-off if you consider playing MMORPGs too much work when you could just sit on the couch and watch TV, even though that costs way more (50-70 USD per month easily, not counting the box/cennection). And, gaming is much more interesting and rewarding than any other entertainment that isn't a sport.
A NYC pizza pie costs near 20 bucks, a MMO sub is 14.99 a month. My children are allowed one pizza night every other week so I spend about 40 bucks (two pies) twice a month. Thats 80 bucks a month for a god damn pizza and you're complaining about a 14 dollar mmo fee? And to make things worse you put mmos up against Valve? a company that doesnt host any games? seriously, did you think before you typed that out?
When i started playing and paying for MMOs i also stopped going out all the time and drinking. Saved me money actually. MMOs are actually a pretty inexpensive hobby i think.
Same here, I have responsibilities now that mean I can't go out that much anymore.
I enjoy playing MMOs a hell of a lot & the money I save on booze & aspirin is a bonus!
If you can't "Have your cake & eat it too", then how can "The proof of the pudding be in the eating"?
Dont buy new games, rent them, then if its so great you want to be able to pick it up anytime then check you Gamestation, chances are someone has traded it in and you can pick up a nice cheap copy
As for MMO fees, I have no qualms paying them, I go online to meet like minded people, play dungeons and kill stuff or craft depending on my desire.
The MMO I play dont cost me anything more than my monthly Fee, and I am happy to pay that as it (combined) the same as I would spend on a night out, so one night out versus a month of gaming at night
Originally posted by Volkmar And yes, you could play Left 4 Dead for way cheaper than a MMo, but how much content are you getting added to left 4 dead mmmh? I mean, from the company, not from fan mods that are free? Yes, everyone patches their game, but Single Player games rarely add content and when they do, it is in minimal form.
I laughed out loud.
Why shouldn't fan mods count as extra content? Most fan mods do a lot more than simply adding a new dungeon or boss monster. Most actually improve graphics and game play.
Originally posted by Volkmar MMOs, hell entire new dungeons, regions or even gameplay types get added with free patches every month!
They aren't free if you keep having to pay a subscription fee to play them.
Originally posted by fansede Remember some of these MMOs are Still alive and well and they are over 10 years old ( Ultima Online, Runescape, Everquest) , how many single player games can boast such enthusiasm?
How about classics like Mario (since 1981, and his own game 1985), Zelda (1986), and Tetris (1985)?
Instead of comparing MMOGs to other game genres, beer, restaurant meals, movies, cable, etc, how about just settling for that some think it's good value, and some don't?
If you don't think it is, cancel your subscriptions and go do whatever you feel is more worth for that money. Simple as that. You won't see a change to MMOG payments unless a large number of players agree with you and do the same - which has yet to happen so I must imagine you're in minority. ;-)
You won't see a change to MMOG payments unless a large number of players agree with you and do the same - which has yet to happen so I must imagine you're in minority. ;-)
I beg to differ. Before Perpetual Entertainment went under, they did a survey about gamer preferences. One of the questions was about price, and somewhere like 60% of respondents said that they would not play a game that required a subscription. This baffled the producers at Perpetual, because most of the respondents could afford it if they wanted to, and really enjoyed the concept of a Star Trek Online, but didn't buy into why they should pay a monthly fee when other games don't.
For as many gamers as there are in MMOs, there are more out there that are not nor will be MMO players until the games start to resemble single player games in terms of price. That's why nearly every major studio is trying to figure out ways to scrap the monthly fee. We got SOE with its /pizza, RMT, and advertising spaces. We got NCsoft with Guild Wars. Funcom practically gives Anarchy Online away for a whole year. The industry knows far better than us that they can't grow their playerbases to compete with WoW by tapping into the small percentage of gamers that don't mind paying for a game that is not their own. They are trying to bring new players in, but they know that cost is a major reason why new players don't join.
__________________________ "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
Beatnik59, you're of course right. I worded myself poorly in my previous post.
New (and older struggling) games will naturally try different methods to gain and keep players. Publishers and developers with new games in the pipeline could also use their current games (I'm thinking of Sony now) to see how players react to different marketing and payment systems.
And by all means, micro-payment games have been around for a long time, so subscriptions is not the only way.
What I meant, and didn't make clear at all, is that the MMOGs currently using a subscription based model will not change that unless players actually start leaving and citing the cost as the reason. Maybe these games could gain more players and more revenue by changing to a different model, but they won't take the risk unless they're already seeing a very negative trend.
Comments
Left for Dead? 6 hours playtime solo, 4 hours co-op..
Tomb Raider Underworld? 8 hours playtime solo, no co-op.
Gears of War 2.....?
You need me to go on?
Trust me when I say MMORPGs are excellent value in terms of games.
I have managed to get 75 hours outta Fallout 3 so far though....
Unregulated, free market capitalism is directly responsible for the U.S. mortgage scandal and recent global economic instability. Read about the Great Depression, and you'll get a better understanding perhaps of how capitalism requires monitoring and regulation to avoid exploitation and collapse. Look at the current efforts of world governments to address the problems, and you'll once again see the importance of legislation and regulation to avoid economic implosion due to greed and short-sightedness.
Actually this is false but it is great to see how people somehow think that the Government can fix their problems for them.
Lack of personal responsibility caused the current US Mortgage crisis. Sorry if you don't have a job or if you had a job that didn't make a lot of money yet you went to the Bank and got a loan for a house that you couldn't afford it wasn't the Bank's fault. They are trying to make money for their stockholders just like any Company. It is the individuals fault.
Not only was it a lack of Personal Responsisbility but it was the Government's intervention back in the 1990s that caused this crisis. The Government forced banks to take on riskier loans because their weren't enough "Minority Homeowners". Heck even the New York Times (A mecca of Liberlism) back in 1999 said that this current crisis would happen because of the Changes in Mortgage Loans that Bill Clinton put into place.
Government intervention prolonged the Great Depression (and only WW2 really got us out of it) and it will prolong this current crisis as well. The Market needs to be free and needs to adjust. If these banks and companies were allowed to fail then new ones would take their place.
That is how a free market works and it works well. See instead of propping up the Big 3 car companies they should let them fail. They gambled on how popular thier ideas would stay and they gambled wrong.
The banks as well should of been let to fail. Sure it would of been painful but in the long run it would of been the best thing to happen for our Country. Instead we mortgage our Children's future so we don't have to hurt as much now.
It is just Pathetic.
There's enough lack of personal responsibility to go around. People didn't have to take out two, three, or four mortgages in the hopes that they could "flip it" for cash out of thin air. Banks didn't have to give out shark loans that couldn't be repaid. Ultimately though, personal responsibility is something that can only be practiced by persons. Institutions have no capacity to take personal responsibility, because they are not human beings. We saw this clearly with Enron: the best thing about being in a corporation is that there's always someone else to blame, and we've seen a whole lot more of that from corporations lately, as you well know.
See, the problem is and always will be the relationship between doing an art well, and doing an art profitably. It's something Plato brings up in The Republic: one who practices their trade for the sake of money can never be a good artisan, because a good artisan practices their trade for the sake of the art itself, regardless of money. The problem with corporations like Sony is that they no longer (or never did) practice their trade for the sake of the consumer electronics art. They practice their trade for the sake of money, which means they have no business practicing their art.
You see, when SOE decides to bait and switch, redesign SWG into an unplayable mess right in the middle of active subscriptions, and undermine the integrity of the game through virtual lotteries, it doesn't make people want to respect Sony's intellectual property in Blu-Ray. In fact, it makes people not care about Sony's "rights" at all. Is Sony going to go after copiers? Perhaps, but every person they go after creates a new enemy and a new expense. Not only that, but I really don't think they want the law to get involved, because then they'd be opening themselves up to scrutiny about exploding batteries, Trials of Obi-Wan, etc.
The problem with markets these days has very little to do with not being able to make money. The problem with markets is that there's no mechanism in place to practice good arts, only profitable ones. Instead of doctors who practice medicine for the sake of good health, we have doctors who practice medicine for the sake of money. Instead of real-estate developers who practice development to make better homes, we have real-estate developers who practice development to make money, regardless of whether the homes are better or not.
Economics cannot model quality, only quantity. The problem with our current economy is that there's no incentive to practice quality arts, only an incentive to produce a greater quantity of money, regardless of whether it actually exists, or not.
Well said Beatnik, well said
Also regarding government regulation and lending policies. It's necessary to prevent those with power from contractually exploiting those with less power in a negotiation. Banks have money, homebuyers don't. They need money from the banks to purchase homes (i.e. a mortgage). Banks can offer mortgages with terms that either exploit the homeowners' dependence, or they can offer mortgages that do not exploit the homeowners' dependence. This is where regulation plays a role. By the way, most of the people affected by the mortgage crisis were not purchasing homes to flip them for a profit. They were purchasing homes for their families to live in.
Astute politicians raised concerns about some banks' lending policies years ago. They foresaw the current crisis and drafted regulatory recommendations. These recommendations were ignored in the interest of allowing the market to regulate itself. (Also, it's public knowledge that many politicians received financial contributions from the banks mainly responsible for the crisis.) Unfortunately, when the market regulates itself, it can do so in the form of recession or depression. In this kind of economic climate, everyone loses; every single person that is connected to the economy (from Washington to Moscow) is affected negatively. People that are only interested in the next quarter's earnings, or short-term financial gain, do not think globally, or long term it appears. The banks that were taking advantage of would-be home-owners' dependence were also committing finanicial suicide. To see this however, they would have to think globally and long-term. Greed, by definition, doesn't do this.
To see someone blame minority home-buyers for the global economic crisis would be laughable if the implications of the statement weren't so horrifying. Just imagine visible minorities being blamed for the global crisis and imagine the kind of appalling behaviour that might be a result--all of it completely misdirected. No, I'm afraid minorities can't be used as a scape-goat for this crisis, and if you consider the history of this behaviour, you'll want to stop before you go any further down that road.
Also, I don't actually think government can "fix" this, and this of course wasn't what I was saying. The main role of regulation is prevention, not complete re-stabilization. It's easier to prevent the dominoes from beginning to fall than it is to stop them and put them all upright once again. The best government can do at this point is attempt to mitigate damage. The dominoes are still falling, and a lot of people are going to be hit by the fallout still.
Now, look at development in MMO's (some parallels). Ask yourself which developers are thinking long-term, and which are characterized by short-term objectives (e.g. fast profits now). Make a list if you like. On the long-term list, you will find companies that steadily build on a solid foundation with incremental success. I would argue that they understand the essence of Beatnik's post. They deal openly and ethically with their consumers. Their products function well and provide good entertainment value. Their customer service is excellent. When mistakes are made, they are acknowledged and corrected in a timely manner.
You'll see many games (and service providers) that don't meet these basic criteria for success fall by the wayside, and you'll see consumers congregate in MMOs that meet these standards. Those that like easy to learn, fantasy-based, linear questing, for example, are congregating in WoW. Those that like a sand-box game with a lot of technical depth are congregating in EVE. Just imagine how many more people would be playing EVE if they had a ground game to go along with space, as long as the excellent space adventure isn't adversely impacted in the process.
I still think MMOs can provide good entertainment value, if they and their online communities are managed artfully. Evidently, there are only a few true artists in the field.
Right now all I'm playing are FTP games so I pay nothing a month for entertainment on those. Mostly since I dont have much time to play my favorite games but will do when I can. Is only $10 a month for ragnarok and so far is the MMO I like the most from all the ones I have played. Is the only one I keep active when I can out of the 30+ accounts I got in other games that most likely will remain like they are now.
You forgot to mention that Valve's games such as HL2, CS
you forgot to mention that valve games such as CSS, CS, TF2, Ect, all conntect to multiplayer by "Player server hosting" And do not use any central main servers... "That is the reason they can provide small patches and fixes without charging a monthly, not to mention when they is a patch or update for the game, it is very small because there games are already so good that they dont need "too many fixes" The reason there games are so polished is because the maps are generall meant for skrimish/close quarter and medium maps, not entire planets or solar systems/worlds with thousdands of simotanious players
This is the reason mmos cost monthly. So basically your reasoning is flawed.
Well, you had mentioned games like Bejewelled, Tetris and the Sims, which were single player games.
However, I still don't agree, especially with your premise that people are pumping money into multi-player when they can get the same for free.
An obvious comparison is Network T.V. vs Cable T.V.
One could say "why pay for Cable when you can get the same thing for free on Network T.V.
And the obvious answer would be "because it's not the same.
One can argue that Network T.V. has the same types of programming that one could get on Cable but then the other can argue that the quality of the programs or the subjects on Cable are either better or more to their liking.
The same could be said about MMO's. V.S. other free games that have multi player. You could argue that Unreal Tournement 2004 is a multi player and has "better" x and y but then someone could easily say "but it's not Warhammer.
In the end, which is my point, it doesn't matter what one says is better for the value but what we want to spend our money on.
I could say that I can get a bag chocolate bars for about $2.00 but I prefer to go to Godiva and pay the 14.00 for a small bag.
Even though they are both chocolate, the Godiva is more to my liking.
edit: as far as the comment regarding "some people are more easily amused than others" I can't really get behind that type of argument as it strikes me as elitist. Also, more to the point, that just ends up as finger pointing as one could point to people who play ANY video games and say "well, you might like it but in the end, some people are more easily amused than others."
Same with sports. People watch sports but others might roll their eyes and say "big waste of time".
It's about defining for others what is better because of your own tastes. Now, this is not to say that I couldn't easily fall into that trap in a conversation and say "what!?!?! you actually like that? I think it's horrible!"
But in the end I fully realize that beauty is in the eye of the beholder even though I might look at someone's Hummel collection (which I wouldn't spend a dime on by the way) and just nod my head and smile.
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
This thread sounds like it has a bunch of whiney kids whose parents won't pay for their WoW sub. $15 a month is a drop in the bucket to me. $40-50 for the game or X-pac is nothing. If you can't afford that then:
HAHA! <points>
If I feel I am not getting a good value I don't buyt he game or I quit paying my fee. If you don't feel MMO's are a good value than you should do the same. If enough people stop paying they will change or go out of business. That's capitalism, it might not be a perfect system but it's the best we have so far. You are free to leave this country and move to China if you don't like it.
What do you think companies should do? Let us play for free? Is that it, some people in this country want everything socialized that we even have MMORPG 'welfare'? If someone can't afford a sub than those of us who can should subsidize them?
It's only a rip-off if you consider playing MMORPGs too much work when you could just sit on the couch and watch TV, even though that costs way more (50-70 USD per month easily, not counting the box/cennection). And, gaming is much more interesting and rewarding than any other entertainment that isn't a sport.
Chicago Pizza > NYC Pizza!
Dont forget how many cash gw gave to players in tournaments
When i started playing and paying for MMOs i also stopped going out all the time and drinking.
Saved me money actually.
MMOs are actually a pretty inexpensive hobby i think.
Same here, I have responsibilities now that mean I can't go out that much anymore.
I enjoy playing MMOs a hell of a lot & the money I save on booze & aspirin is a bonus!
If you can't "Have your cake & eat it too", then how can "The proof of the pudding be in the eating"?
Take the Hecatomb? TCG What Is Your Doom? quiz.
To day is the time of the canny consumer
Dont buy new games, rent them, then if its so great you want to be able to pick it up anytime then check you Gamestation, chances are someone has traded it in and you can pick up a nice cheap copy
As for MMO fees, I have no qualms paying them, I go online to meet like minded people, play dungeons and kill stuff or craft depending on my desire.
The MMO I play dont cost me anything more than my monthly Fee, and I am happy to pay that as it (combined) the same as I would spend on a night out, so one night out versus a month of gaming at night
not a hard choice
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ab/Norsefire-logo.png
I laughed out loud.
Why shouldn't fan mods count as extra content? Most fan mods do a lot more than simply adding a new dungeon or boss monster. Most actually improve graphics and game play.
They aren't free if you keep having to pay a subscription fee to play them.
How about classics like Mario (since 1981, and his own game 1985), Zelda (1986), and Tetris (1985)?
This.
Instead of comparing MMOGs to other game genres, beer, restaurant meals, movies, cable, etc, how about just settling for that some think it's good value, and some don't?
If you don't think it is, cancel your subscriptions and go do whatever you feel is more worth for that money. Simple as that. You won't see a change to MMOG payments unless a large number of players agree with you and do the same - which has yet to happen so I must imagine you're in minority. ;-)
I beg to differ. Before Perpetual Entertainment went under, they did a survey about gamer preferences. One of the questions was about price, and somewhere like 60% of respondents said that they would not play a game that required a subscription. This baffled the producers at Perpetual, because most of the respondents could afford it if they wanted to, and really enjoyed the concept of a Star Trek Online, but didn't buy into why they should pay a monthly fee when other games don't.
For as many gamers as there are in MMOs, there are more out there that are not nor will be MMO players until the games start to resemble single player games in terms of price. That's why nearly every major studio is trying to figure out ways to scrap the monthly fee. We got SOE with its /pizza, RMT, and advertising spaces. We got NCsoft with Guild Wars. Funcom practically gives Anarchy Online away for a whole year. The industry knows far better than us that they can't grow their playerbases to compete with WoW by tapping into the small percentage of gamers that don't mind paying for a game that is not their own. They are trying to bring new players in, but they know that cost is a major reason why new players don't join.
__________________________
"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
Beatnik59, you're of course right. I worded myself poorly in my previous post.
New (and older struggling) games will naturally try different methods to gain and keep players. Publishers and developers with new games in the pipeline could also use their current games (I'm thinking of Sony now) to see how players react to different marketing and payment systems.
And by all means, micro-payment games have been around for a long time, so subscriptions is not the only way.
What I meant, and didn't make clear at all, is that the MMOGs currently using a subscription based model will not change that unless players actually start leaving and citing the cost as the reason. Maybe these games could gain more players and more revenue by changing to a different model, but they won't take the risk unless they're already seeing a very negative trend.