I think it'll see a revival. Not soon, but some time in the next 8-10 years, I think we'll see flat subscriptions as the standard for a certain subtype of MMO as it becomes more feasible to produce more feature-dense, high-production value sandboxes with working suites of dynamic growth systems.
Lots of optional peripheral fees to further customize, I'm sure, but anything that's more of an internally consistent world than a series of modular set pieces is naturally better off with subscriptions, I think.
I mentioned before that subs are odd in that they restrict the company from collecting more money than they can from their customers. The company restricts themselves. I think this is why cash shops and F2P designs arose.
But subs have one advantage which should not be disregarded and something you noted. With subs, the company can plan better. They have a better idea of their income because subs tend to be steady unless you do something to chase your subscribers away. You can predict your revenue month to month.
I would guess that F2P has some consistency too but I would think their revenue waxes and wanes month to month. It's harder to plan long term this way.
Just my hunch.
Subscriptions grow and shrink based around expansion releases and the season. Less people subscribe during the summer months than the winter months as an example.
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by killion81 Why does the "I refuse to spend anything on my online video gaming" crowd believe that developers are targeting games at them? The more logical will point to the "whales" as the development target, the free players being 'content'. If that is the case, it seems like the developers would be better off simply creating more/better content and charging a sub, right?
Because:
a) they are content for the whales. Without the free players, there are few or no whales. It is not incidental that many f2p conversions result in more money.
b) devs do not know who is the "i refuse to spend anything" player. Every free player, from the dev perspective, is a potential paid customers.
Sounds very logical to me.
Let's also not forget that a large portion of a f2p playerbase spend a small but steady amount of money which more than makes up the cost it takes to keep them on the server. People who pay once from a cash shop is likely to do it again in the future.
Yeah .. the cost per player is really trivial. All a player is costing .. is some bandwidth and some storage. Think about how little storage a character is going to take, and the small amount of bandwidth one toon is going to use.
That is why such a system can be sustained with only a small minority of players paying. In fact, they are not really funding the cost of running the game (which is trivial) but development, and cusomter support. One customer support call cost more than hours and hours of playing.
Indeffinately, f2p games are still seen as the poor teenager, entry level to gaming by many, their quality, although not always the case, usually reflects this, either that or they are games most wage earning MMO players are not willing to pay for monthly as they are just not up to it, content or quality wise.
Comments
Yeah .. the cost per player is really trivial. All a player is costing .. is some bandwidth and some storage. Think about how little storage a character is going to take, and the small amount of bandwidth one toon is going to use.
That is why such a system can be sustained with only a small minority of players paying. In fact, they are not really funding the cost of running the game (which is trivial) but development, and cusomter support. One customer support call cost more than hours and hours of playing.