Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Saturday Morning Metaphorical MMO Reflection. You're Curious.
boogrlicious
Member Posts: 5
I'm sure that this has been talked about before, but I want to know why consumers "buy" the notion of subscription service over, say, a one-time-buy to play game. Having read a recent IGN article reflecting on gaming in 2011, I think the most interesting thing is that "Free" models were actually the most common for games (i.e. facebook games, F2P, etc.). I'm not wanting to have a quality/quantity discussion here as I firmly believe that there are plenty of experiences across the board that will appeal differently accross consumers. I simply want to offer my own reflection on what I'm seeing with MMOs at the moment.
I should note. This is a thread for casuals more than for hardcore players. This is a thread for someone who loves gaming, not someone who loves being great at a game (not that those two things are mutually exclusive, but I think my point is clear).
Though not a GW2 apologist, I'm still going to say that I think ArenaNet's business model of a one-time-buy for their game makes a lot of sense. If nothing else, it assumes that people who are already deeply committed to a subscription-based MMO aren't going to be inclined to leave it unless something truly compelling comes along, and even then, it may only be to try it out for a month.
Being a one-time purchase, the "risk" associated with moving to the game is lessened. It creates a perception that it'd be "ok" to buy GW2, because it's "free" after the initial purchase. This seems like a really shrewd business decision in that they get their product a lot of exposer without creating the consumer dilemma of "which franchise am i going to sink my 15 dollars into this month?" Anyone who buys GW2, and is already committed to a subscription like WoW or SWTOR, will never have to worry about making that decision. That means that ANet's game gets played....which is kind of the point of being in the business, isn't it?
We can talk about the idea that subscriptions contribute to staffing, server maintenance, etc., but I really think that's a dead conversation.
I think I'm simply saying that ANet wants people to play their game, and, in the future, MMO developers are either going to have to outspend Blizz and EA (Giants in the industry), or they're going to have to change the "business game" (which I see ANet trying to do).
This is not a thread for fanboys, but for people who love games and want to play them. I play a variety of genres and, though I do have my favorites, I definitely don't consider myself so blinded by immaturity as to suggest that "X" sucks because it's not "Y"
I'd like to know what other (thoughtful) people have to say about being able to play MMOs under the current business structures that exist.
I'll leave this with an image of Kenneth Burke's "Parlor"
"Imagine that you enter a parlor. You come late. When you arrive, others have long preceded you, and they are engaged in a heated discussion, a discussion too heated for them to pause and tell you exactly what it is about. In fact, the discussion had already begun long before any of them got there, so that no one present is qualified to retrace for you all the steps that had gone before. You listen for a while, until you decide that you have caught the tenor of the argument; then you put in your oar. Someone answers; you answer him; another comes to your defense; another aligns himself against you, to either the embarrassment or gratification of your opponent, depending upon the quality of your ally's assistance. However, the discussion is interminable. The hour grows late, you must depart. And you do depart, with the discussion still vigorously in progress"
Feel free to continue this discussion.
Comments
You're correct on that point about the "risk" of going into a subscription-based game, but also consider that those who take that risk feel more tied to that game. The more money you pay for a game, the more obligation you feel to play it so that your money wasn't wasted. (This is sometimes called the sunk cost fallacy.) I can imagine that this line of thinking is even strong for a recurring cost. If you have already paid $15 for the month, you feel like you should spend the maximum amount of time playing that game so that your $15 will have been well spent... even if there are other games you could be playing that are more fun.
You assume that by being buy-to-play, GW2 will "get played", which is—as you say—the whole point. But a majority of players (probably) can be driven to put more hours into the game by charging them to play it. Having people spend more time in game makes the game seem more popular and thus more attractive to both current and potential players.
I knew that part of my post would get me in trouble.
Thank you for the link. Not being an economist, I found it useful. I particularly liked how it repeatedly emphasized that people behave irrationally when it comes to these kinds of decisions. It's rather like people who consistently vote against their own best interest because they believe what they hear from political pundits.
I think I imagine gaming in my own life, then, as no exception. It was extremely difficult to quit WoW after spending ~4 years playing it from launch. I felt guilty playing other titles and felt that I wasn't "getting my money out" of WoW.
I guess, what I wanted to emphasize (and this is based on my individual experience only) was that I feel more rewarded by allowing a diversity of games into my life (especially MMOs), and am happy that GW2 will be a part of that because of their approach to navigating the B2P/P2P/F2P landscape. It's not to say that I fault EA/Bioware for their choice, but I definitely see that most entries from here on out would be wise to consider ANet's approach....because I think it's probably the only way for those future games to be sustainable (and for people to have the chance to play them). Although many may be able to afford it, I don't seem to buy into the idea that gamers will subscribe to more than one MMO at a time (with rare exceptions).
Well the concept of subscription based services is so the consumer will get a better game/updates/support than non-subscription based services. I'd have to say this was completely accurate in the early days of MMOs but in the modern day, I think alot of companies want to just charge subscription fee and have crap support or updates for their game.
I'm not sure about GW 2 and I don't know what ended up happening with Guild Wars 1, but I know Guild Wars 1 originally planned expansions every couple of months (not sure if they ended up doing that), which was their alternative to monthly fees. Conceptually it was basically the same thing but instead of monthly fees you had a larger fee every couple of months.
Also, in Asian countries like Korea, there are many subscription based MMOs that you don't have to buy. In other words you just download it and start subscribing, I believe even their triple A MMOs over there are like that like the Lineage series for example. You can imagine that with this style, the risk with subscriptions may actually be less than with buying games. Here in the West, however, many games want you to buy the game and also pay subscription fees and even also buy expansions.
You dont get why people would pay to use a product they already bought? You dont understand running costs?
Allow me to point you towards you car. You bought your car right? But you have to pay to keep using it? (Unless gas / insurance / etc is free where you live) Why are you not moaning to your car manufacturer that you should'ent have to keep paying to use something you've already bought?
You typed your post on a PC I assume? Did electricity become free and no one told me? So there you are paying to use something you've already bought?
Shall I go on?
As long as people fell that thier investment in a game is yeilding returns (Updates) then they will feel comfortable paying for the *running costs* of that game. When they no longer feel that its value for money they quit paying and playing. Why people find this to be a mystery that needs constant discussion baffles me.
Sounds as though you're saying that at any given time, the set of games that any given gamer is "currently playing" includes every B2P and F2P game in their library plus at most one P2P MMO. And because of that, B2P MMOs are not competing against each other in the same way that P2P MMOs are competing against each other. So when you look at it from that frame of reference, the B2P model makes a lot of business sense because you don't have the same kind of competition. You'll nevert "lose" people to other B2P/F2P games in the way that WoW loses players to other P2P games.
And I agree, to an extent. But I don't think it's the only way for future games to be sustainable, because as long as there are X million gamers who are willing to subscribe to one P2P game, there's a very large market to be tapped. You just have to be careful to only apply that model for games that can compete on the P2P field... games that are good enough for at least a modest slice of the playerbase to say "I am willing to make this my one P2P MMO above all the others."
The potential success of GW2 gives me hope that Buy to Play will become a common, or at least frequent, payment model. While it's true that I might spend more time in any MMO I'm paying monthly for than one I've bought outright for fear of not getting my money's worth, I don't think it will make me a happy or pleasant gamer.
Community matters in MMOs, and a bunch of burned out people who only play daily because they feel ripped off if they don't isn't going to make for a good community.
I'd rather be in game with a smaller community of players who are in game because it's the most fun thing they can think of doing at that moment.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
Your argument seems to advocate F2P being far more palatable than either of the two other models you are comparing - box purchase and subscription - as the money risked of moving to the gane in F2P is zero, where as with the other two it is a 15-60 USD up front fee.
The Emergence of F2P/Freemium and how prolific is it probably has a lot of people around here Dissatisfied, but that's the lowest risk for the consumer as it offers a reasonable length 'trial' to actually get into the game and know whether or not it's something you plan to play for a while.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I dont' really see myself as an advocate of F2P at all. I've actually never played any of those games. I have just always liked the idea of buying a game at the store (or vid digital download more recently) as a one time purchase. I don't mind purchasing add-on vanity items etc. if it suits a person's fancy. I think my intent with the original post was to argue for wanting to be able to play many games (including multiple MMOs), but subscriptions seem to discourage that for me. The earlier reply made a lot sense because the person was talking about how paying the subscription makes us feel as though we need to "stick" with a particular game. I've never felt that kind of dedication to a game, ever--with maybe the exception of when I was playing WoW for a number of years.
What a good discussion so far!
In that same light,would you put the risk level of free to play games higher or lower than a game where you purchase a client up front?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I can't speak for others, in my case the cost of more than one sub is no real deterrant to me, at times I've paid for as many as 5 accounts but always in the same game.
I've been a working adult my entire time in MMORPG's and there's never been enough time to do even on game full justice, so though I've tried it before, I never can stick with two MMO's at the same time. I can't even play single player games concurrently, I'm just a one game at a time person so the payment model has little impact on me.
F2P, B2P, P2P, doesn't matter much to me, I've played them all, and really judge my games on how fun they are, not how I pay for them.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Oh, i'd say, that F2P is obviously low/no risk at all--with the exception of what the software itself does on your machine (Origin, I'm looking at you). The initial purchase is a risk, but no riskier than a subscription. In fact, over time, it's less of a burden (not financial, but psychological). I think there's something normal about buying a game and expecting to be able to play it in the same way that you buy a CD/DVD and can listen or watch whenever you like, for the duration of the physical media. With a subscription, that initial purchase is only (usually) the first month. Then it's a matter of paying into it for more entertainment. That's not "risky" per-se, but I don't think that I can be convinced that it's necessary merely as a byproduct of "upkeep." That's not to say I'm right or wrong on that issue, it's just to state where I view it from: a position that tells me that when I purchase a game, I should be able to play it until I decide to stop, not when my quarter runs out, as it were.
Can you actually elaborate how is it 'low/no risk'?
Initial purchase become a barrier 'over time' but to get to that point is a part you does not seem to cover in your train of thought.
You spend nothing to try it and see if you like it. With a subscription, you pay a monthly fee andoften have to also buy a client. With a one-off box sale you pay the box price.
Subscription MMOs have been working on hammering away at that barrier over the past year or two. Traditionally, the 7-day trial was there for people to see if they wanted to invest more money and time into a game. For an MMO, 7 days is nowhere nearly enough in most cases, especially when you consider that realistically most gamers will only get a chance to play one or two days for a couple hours a day. This is why the few sub-based MMOs left have been moving away from the short rial and offering everying from the first 10-20 levels as free play to whole freemium packages.
There are so many MMOs available right now that the box/sub combination is the least appealing option. The Guild Wars model and F2P are two different takes on offering low risk entry. While F2P is the lowest initial risk and proves to remain a zero-expense gaming experience for the majority of a games' playerbase, the box is often seen as the lowest overall risk, as today's gamers are very accustomed to buying a game for 40-60 dollars, playing the crap out of it for a month or two and then shelving it. If they get additional gaming out of it, that is considered a bonus.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Well if the GW2 guys can give the same level of support and updates as, let's say, SWTOR, and without a cash shop, then somebody will have to explain why are they charging every month.
An honest review of SW:TOR 6/10 (Danny Wojcicki)
That I agree with, I also acknowledged that initial purchase - being it a subscription or box, become a barrier.
I guess I just misunderstood perception of the discussion. I thought the post was made from developer point of view.
F2P is low/no risk compared to P/B2P for a customer but it is also the same for developer?
I felt like I had read something in the bowels of GW2Guru related to this. I found the link to it here. It's from GamesCon 2007. Link for the full read, or pasted below for relevant section. (Note: Wall of Text Ahead). I think it reflects what I was trying to get at with the idea of less "risk" (and maybe "risk" is still the wrong word here) of a B2P game. anyhoo. Great conversation so far!
Again, I think it's appropriate to mention that I'm no GW2 apologist. I think this is an interesting discussion for gamers (especially MMO gamers) to have.
http://www.guildwars.com/events/tradeshows/gc2007/gcspeech.php
Don't count on subscriptions
In the early years of the MMO industry, from roughly 1997 to 2001, there were a few big MMOs that had active player populations. By the time we started ArenaNet in the summer of 2000, we knew of at least eighty MMOs that were in development. Based on the success of UO and EQ, publishers were reviewing their portfolios and planning to migrate their existing game franchises to the online world, where they believed they could adopt a subscription model and "make bank". Clearly, it did not work out that way. As more MMOs came into the market, two things changed. First, players now had a choice about which game they would play, and as a result their expectations for polish, content quantity, and service increased substantially. Second, and perhaps more telling for the future of the industry, it became clear that the subscription model forced players to choose a single game, rather than playing many different games.
Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true – you know it, and they know it. Gamers may buy the argument that your MMO requires a subscription fee, if you can tell them what they are getting for their money. This is the legacy of games like Guild Wars, Maple Story, and Silkroad Online, all of which introduced new business models into the MMO genre and were quite successful. The subscription model is still perfectly viable, but the pain threshold is very low now. It's no secret that gamers don't want to pay a subscription fee. If you can convince them that your game offers enough value to justify it, more power to you! But be prepared to defend your decision, often and loudly, and back it up over the lifetime of your game.
Be very aware of the choice you are asking players to make, and the frequency of that choice. In a subscription model you are asking players to make a choice every month, and it is a fairly drastic choice: Stay married, or get divorced? It is certainly the case that if every player decides to stay married every month, you can make more money from each player in the subscription model. But that will rarely be the case, and not something that you should count on. Every month, some percentage of your player base will decide on divorce, and as with marriage in the real word, once you are divorced you rarely get married to the same person again. If you go the subscription route, you'll need to have the confidence that your marriage rate will exceed your divorce rate.
With Guild Wars we ask players to make a choice only one time, and that choice is whether to buy the game, or not to buy the game. While we don't enjoy a recurring revenue stream each month, we do benefit from the fact that most Guild Wars players come back to the game when we release new content, so we are less concerned about players putting the game down for a few months. Players don't have to decide whether to stay married or get divorced, they just have to decide whether they want to play today or not. Beyond the benefit of a lower pain threshold to get into the game, this is the core strength of the Guild Wars business model, and one of the reasons it continues to thrive when many other subscription-based MMOs are struggling.
Innovate with your game play, and innovate with your business model! The two go hand in hand, and are mutually dependent on each other. Decide on your business model first, and then build your game around it. Guild Wars can be successful with its business model because we decided that we would not charge a subscription fee before we wrote the first line of code, and every design and technology decision we made served that purpose. We could never turn Guild Wars into a subscription-based game, just as Turbine could not suddenly decide to eliminate the subscription model for Lord of the Rings Online. If you decide to require players to subscribe to your game, be prepared to build a game that thoroughly justifies it.