One last point. People are noticing that f2p games simply aren't worth the effort or investment. Often times these people are the ones that are putting in money into the 'cash shop'. These people realize how much of a ripoff it is, and sometimes would rather pay to play a game where everyone else is paying, and the playing field is the same for everyone. Who knows, maybe you're one of those people that doesn't pay a dime. Which means you play for free, because others pay. Nothing is free in this world. Not sure why you would expect your entertainment to be, and it's even worse if you expect everyone else to pay so you don't have to.
Not saying sub is bad for FFXIV but as for that statement, many would disagree.
Do you realize that US alone has 313M people right? do you really think that 100M people are "gamers" i mean i am sure they do play from time to time, but heck i am even hectic to think there are 100M people with consoles on US alone.
I think that study focuses a lot on facebook games.
I'm sure it would be a logistical nightmare, but wonder if it would be possible to have both a F2P with cash shop model and a Subscription based model on different servers. Of course with no future character transfers to a different model server
At least that way they can cater to both groups
Exactly! I mentioned that a few pages back. I see no problem what so ever with that. I HATE cash shops of any kind but wtf do I care what some dude on another server is doing? He could be playing another game for all I care. So long as all developed content is made available to all P2P players through gameplay, or in-game gold I wont feel cheated or ripped off. And on the other hand, FP2 players can turn over their bank account numbers to play their way.
Hmm ... is it possible to copyright payment models? lol
They need to have it where you cannot buy anything better then the sub. That is the problem with almost all the f2p games out there. If you spend tons of money in a cash shop you get something over the person who averages $15/month.
While some f2p games have sub options sort of it is almost always a joke. Because of 1 issue if another person spends another $80 on the cash shop above the standard $15 for the sub they still have an advantage of some kind.
Only way I could ever see f2p being fair is if the $15/month option gives you free unlimited access to the cash shop for the duration of the sub payment. (All items become $0 when you have the sub). Items expire at the end of every month sub, everything is non-sellable/tradeable. Or see below, if they nerf f2p and sell things to unnerf it. Was unpopular in ToR but I think that was the right idea.
Only issue I see is if they do this... they will probably lose huge amounts of money. Because the serious people will just pay the $15... and the freeloaders will still pay nothing but use bandwidth, take up server space, and run up server cost.
Simple fact is this if I pay $15 on a mmo per month, I deserve and demand everything everyone else can get and I demand that no one is able to have more then me without putting in at least equal work. Does not matter if it is vanity stuff, legit gear, or a booster. NO mmo should force me to spend $100-1000 a month to be the best. Your wallet in RL should mean nothing in-game.
Best solution in my opinion:
P2P option: You get all boost, no cooldowns on content, more inventory, ect as long as the sub remains paid. If you pay the sub fee the cash shop button is disabled (No reason to have it as you get everything automatically).
F2P option: You have to buy everything every time for each aspect you do not want to be penalized. Example you have to buy the xp boost, craft boost, drop rate boosters, fatigue reset, auction house slots, dungeon reset scroll, item that lets you wear and loot gear above rare/uncommon (have to have something to prevent people at endgame from just changing to f2p).
In the end someone playing 20hrs a week can choose spend $15/month or average $50/month.
No gear, vanity stuff, boosters, mounts sold in the cash shop.
F2P could work, but companies need to stop screwing over serious customers and expect them to pick up the tab for free loaders.
I love how people call players that like F2P games freeloaders lol. I know people that have spent over 30k on craptastic free games. The F2P business model is not going anywhere. It is no accident all these games that were released as sub games are now F2P. Why limit your customers to 15$ a month when so many morons will be happy to spend so much more? They are such failures in every other way, but they can spend their rent money in a game, get an advantage, and pretend to be good at something. It amazes me the amount of people I know that spent themselves broke on gaming.
This game will probably end up going F2P too just like rift and tera and pretty much every other mmo. It's just an easier way to get more people into the game and you can just keep rolling out new shinys for all those idiots who will spend a small fortune so they can troll all the freeloaders. Monthly subs are over for MMO's. Oh and please let's just dispense with the idea that the community is better in sub games than F2P games. I mean really like only smart, mature, reasonable people can afford 15 bucks a month right? Gimme a break, it's all the same, it's the internet after all.
"While I won’t post the entire response here as it is quite lengthy but very interesting, I will tell you that Yoshi-P feels that MMORPG development today falls into two categories, those games that are investor tied and rely on fast income to pay all involved parties off but then may struggle with funding for future updates, and those companies like Blizzard and Square Enix that self fund their projects and can afford to wait for a more steady and reliable income off of a small fanbase.
Don’t misunderstand though, Yoshi-P was not advocating one model over the other, he explained that in his opinion the FFXIV subscription not only ensured a somewhat steady rate of income for the developer (which allows for better planning for future updates) but also provided a better game for FFXIV players because they could enjoy the benefits of a more steady rate of updates.
It’s an interesting debate and while Yoshi-P uses references to Star Wars: The Old Republic and RIFT as recent examples of games that were built to be subscription based but changed due to market conditions, he doesn’t feel that the FFXIV subscription fee is an “outdated” payment model as it fits with the high budget proportions of the game’s development. Yes, he acknowledges that their player base may be smaller than some other games on the market because of the subscription fee, but he is banking on knowing what type of income will be coming in monthly rather than maybe having a customer shell out $100 today and then never pay for anything again."
Again 13$ a month = .43cents a day or 3.01 a week to enjoy everything in the game . And be on the same level as everyone . You want that gear go get it . You want that Sword go get it . Unless your to damn lazy to get it that is .
Things that cost more then 3.01$ a week
Every extra value meal at any fast food restaurant for ONE meal
a Subway 6 inch
a Movie Ticket
a Adult Beverage
the price of a gallon of gas
IF you can not pay a simple 3.01$ a week or 13$ a month then you need to adjust things in your life and this MMO is not for you .
It isn't the case of the difficulty of obtaining $15 a month; it is whether the $15 a month is worth it to you. I’ve seen the same argument over and over again (close to two dozen P2P games that are now F2P) of breaking down the $12-$15 in so many ways. Coffee has been used, gum, movie tickets, and many others. I’ve talked about this several times before, but the P2P business model, while still possible, is extremely difficult to maintain currently. I’ve broken down the P2P model in 2 major brackets before: the $4.99-$9.99 bracket and the $12.99-$15.00 bracket.
Last time I checked (for the first bracket) earlier this year, I would say that close to 100% of those games went F2P. Only a couple of games have been released using that bracket payment model post 2010. I think Wakfu was one of the last games released using that bracket payment model.
Now… with the latter payment model (the one we are more familiarized with) the model in itself has taken a huge hit. If you look at the current trend, it has taken a nose dive. In this bracket I’ve (in the past) broken it down even further. Games released prior to 2005 and games released post 2006. There are still a handful of games that still use the P2P model for games released prior to 2005. One of the biggest factors is due to player loyalty as well as product branding. In this I mean attachment to the game via other methods such as board games, card games, movies, lore, books, etc.
I really have to update my list again, but P2P games at the end of 2010 stood around 12. Again these are games released post 2006. It went down to 10 then 8 then 6… I think it Is somewhere between 2-4 games that still use a strictly P2P business model for games released post 2006 and that fall under the following sub genres MMO(Fantasy, Historical, Horror, Real Life, Sci-Fi, and Super Hero). I don’t follow on the Sci-Fi section too much with only a few notable exceptions like EVE Online, Wildstar, SWTOR and maybe a couple of other games since a good portion of them fall into the realm of FPS.
Now let us go back to the whole $15 comment. For a hobby $15 is pretty cheap. Would you still agree that $30 a month is also pretty cheap for a hobby? This is where I present to you the blue pill and the red pill. You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.
With $30 a month you could easily pay 2 P2P games right? Now the question is would you? Remember, $30 a month isn’t expensive for a hobby right? Good. A good portion of the community would probably say no since they want to commit to one game and chances are they wouldn’t have time for the other. If they would chances are they would be playing the second MMO much more casually. If I were to ask the people interested in FFXIV ARR to play and pay for another MMO (Warhammer Online, SWTOR, TERA, TSW, etc.) would you? Chances are most of you guys would not.
So it isn’t the difficulty in obtaining the $15 but rather it isn’t worth it… to you. Now we are starting to scratch the surface.
Look at the trend at the majority of the P2P games released post 2006. A good portion of them released with 20, 40, 80 and upwards to 216 servers. Look at how many servers those games have now. Some have had reductions of anywhere from 80%-90% and a few are running a single server. Some of them are running one of each type, for example: PVE, RP-PVE, PVP, RP-PVP. What happened? Was there a collapse in the economy that made those $15 that much more difficult to obtain, or was it that people got bored of the same old same old?
I’ll pick 3 recent MMOs theme park MMOs. TERA, TSW, SWTOR. TERA has the nifty combat and nice graphics, TSW has the nice voiceovers/storytelling and player progression, SWTOR has the neat lore and dialoged options. Of course if you like those games you can easily add more positives to them. But was it enough to keep those games strictly P2P for more than a year? If not, why couldn’t they hold the player base?
Now let us look at FFXIV ARR. It has the nifty graphics, it has the lore, it has the music, it has the possibilities to open up on the storytelling department, and it has the flashy combat (not to be confused with fast paced combat). But will it be enough? For the diehard fans I would say yes. For the masses? We will have to see. The main thing that I am worried about the game is that many will write it off as a typical theme park game with the Final Fantasy skin and nothing else… note that they might be wrong, but it is still their opinion/perception), the other being the challenge. Like I stated before, the only two events I found challenging in Version 1.0 up to patch 1.20 were the Garuda and Ifrit fights. Really good link shells placed them in farming status after two weeks, and in a few cases after just one week.
Besides the Crystal Tower and the Bahamut fight will there be anything that will keep players in for the long run, or will people get geared up and complete most (i.e. 90% or more) of the content by the 3-6 month mark as most theme park games tend to be these days? I can easily see link shells placing the other endgame events and Primals in farm status before the one month mark. I’m not even sure about Odin and Bahamut. Odin wasn’t that difficult in FFXI, neither was Bahamut Version 2.0 in FFXI. From the 5 fights I did in Bahamut Version 2.0 I won four times. The only trick to it was not outpacing it in the damage dealing department due to the every-10%-mechanic-aoe-blast.
Remember one key thing about the “difficulty” and artificial barriers that games prior to World of Warcraft had? There are quite a few, but I will only pick on two of them since this post is already quite long. One is the length it took to get to max level; compare that to current games (as well as the % of the content that can be soloed/2-3 manned). The other is the availability of information. Back when FFXI vanilla came out what did we have for information? I would say 2-3 “reputable” sites that linked off some Japanese sites/blogs that had information/details/maps of different zones and monsters.
Fast forward to 2013… what do we have now? Now you have people posting videos in under 72 hours, and sometimes in under 24 hours showing you the complete fight in 1080p. By the end of the first or second week you already have multiple endgame link shells (placing those endgame events under farm status) showing you those same videos but to a much greater detail. Information such as where to stand, what food to take, viable setups, %-wise HP of the boss and how the mechanics change over time, to having the complete list of moves of said boss. By the end of the second or third week they release their final video which usually shows off a “Speed Run.”
Can I see the masses (i.e. excluding the FFXIV diehard fans) enjoying this title? Of course, unless you don’t like the combat. But will it keep them after the 3 or 6 month mark if it follows the same generic trend of most theme park games released post 2006… I’m not so sure about that.
So it has never been about gifs showing off “I can’t afford X Y Z $ to A B C MMO.” Like I said before, I’ve seen this same argument/statement used many times before (in the past 5 years in so many MMO forums). And that isn’t the case at all… rather is it worth it to them to keep the sub going as a long term investment. And if there is a huge reduction in subscribers, is it worth it to the company to keep said model regardless if the game was built in-house or not.
It isn't the case of the difficulty of obtaining $15 a month; it is whether the $15 a month is worth it to you. I’ve seen the same argument over and over again (close to two dozen P2P games that are now F2P) of breaking down the $12-$15 in so many ways. Coffee has been used, gum, movie tickets, and many others. I’ve talked about this several times before, but the P2P business model, while still possible, is extremely difficult to maintain currently. I’ve broken down the P2P model in 2 major brackets before: the $4.99-$9.99 bracket and the $12.99-$15.00 bracket.
...
I read your whole post, but cut it off at the first paragraph in my quote, for the sake of brevity.
The arguments comparing the "value" of a sub to those other things is to provide perspective. It's not a matter of "can you afford it or not"; I'm sure most people can afford a $13-$15 a month sub fee. But when it comes to people saying "it isn't worth the sub fee because it doesn't offer enough to make it worthwhile", then yes, the comparisons to other things that people will spend the equivalent of, if not more, over the course of a month, becomes quite relevant.
People will spend upwards of $15 for a movie and a fastfood meal. That's ~$15 for a 1.5-2 hour movie and maybe a half hour spent sitting at a McDonald's. If you're not going the fast food route, you can easily spend over $15 for the meal alone. People will readily and happily spend that on a weekly basis, sometimes multiple times a weekend, and not think twice about it.
Yet, spending that same ~$13 for a form of entertainment that provides them "all they can eat" entertainment, for a month at a time, suddenly sets off their "value-for-the-money alarms".
Speaking on the concept of "value for the money" alone, it's incongruous to say "$15+ for 3 hours of entertainment is a great value, but $15 for a month of "all you can eat" - upwards of ~720 hours of entertainment - access to a MMO is a horrible deal".
I'm personally of the opinion that the "value for the money" argument is a surrogate for some other issue.
I'd personally be much quicker to believe one of two scenarios to be the case:
1. They don't like the game enough to want to really play it in the first place, and the cost per month is just a convenient, ready-made reason to cite. People seldom will settle solely on their own opinions as "reason enough" for something. They've got to find something "more meaningful" to hang it on.
In this case, "it's not worth the fee" could simply be translated to "I don't like it enough to want to pay for it" - which is a perfectly good reason. Thing is, it's not a problem with the game/product. It's simply a case of "nothing is for everyone".
2. They do like the game and want to play it, but have been lulled into this "Bit-Torrent Everything Era" mindset of "I want it, but I don't want to pay for it, so it should be free". Of course, saying that would rightfully make them seem unrealistic and entitled. So, once again, a surrogate reason is used instead: "It's not worth the sub fee, it needs to be F2P".
There is actual precedent for example #2 to be the case in many cases. I saw it happen first-hand with FFXIV 1.0. There were many people who played the hell out of FFXIV 1.0 during the time that subs were frozen. They got multiple 50s, got through most all the content, and played consistently. Clearly, they enjoyed the game enough to play it so much. Or they're masochists who continuously play something and clock in serious hours doing things they hate... which is doubtful.
When SE announced that they would be reinstating subs (as they'd previously said they would when they felt the time was right), there was outrage on the official forums about it. People making the all-too-familiar arguments of how "it's not worth a sub", "subs are dead", "F2P is the future", etc. They warned that "no one would want to pay a sub for 1.0, they'd lose all their players, SE would have to shut down and 2.0 would never get made". It carried on for weeks.
But when the time came to sub, almost every person who said they'd split and would never pay a sub... subbed. And you could tell who they were, because the only people who can post on the official forums are those with active, paying accounts. If you weren't subbed, you weren't accessing the official forums and posting.
So, for all their complaints, warnings and threats... when it mattered, they paid the sub, and continued to right up to the end of 1.23.
What does that mean? It means that they found the game worth paying for... they just didn't want to pay for it. They thought the threats and warnings would get them their way. It didn't.
I have absolutely no doubt that many people around here fall into categories 1 and 2.
Others will argue against P2P simply because they're personally and emotionally committed to this idea that "everything should be F2P" and so a MMO "bucking them" riles them into "action" - futile as that action may be.
It isn't the case of the difficulty of obtaining $15 a month; it is whether the $15 a month is worth it to you. I’ve seen the same argument over and over again (close to two dozen P2P games that are now F2P) of breaking down the $12-$15 in so many ways. Coffee has been used, gum, movie tickets, and many others. I’ve talked about this several times before, but the P2P business model, while still possible, is extremely difficult to maintain currently. I’ve broken down the P2P model in 2 major brackets before: the $4.99-$9.99 bracket and the $12.99-$15.00 bracket.
...
I read your whole post, but cut it off at the first paragraph in my quote, for the sake of brevity.
I'm personally of the opinion that the "value for the money" argument is a surrogate for some other issue.
I'd personally be much quicker to believe one of two scenarios to be the case:
1. They don't like the game enough to want to really play it in the first place, and the cost per month is just a convenient, ready-made reason to cite. People seldom will settle solely on their own opinions as "reason enough" for something. They've got to find something "more meaningful" to hang it on.
In this case, "it's not worth the fee" could simply be translated to "I don't like it enough to want to pay for it" - which is a perfectly good reason. Thing is, it's not a problem with the game/product. It's simply a case of "nothing is for everyone".
2. They do like the game and want to play it, but have been lulled into this "Bit-Torrent Everything Era" mindset of "I want it, but I don't want to pay for it, so it should be free". Of course, saying that would rightfully make them seem unrealistic and entitled. So, once again, a surrogate reason is used instead: "It's not worth the sub fee, it needs to be F2P".
Your assumptions about people's reasons why they don't want to pay for a sub are maybe fun to argue about, but in the end are just meaningless assumptions. All it comes down to is whether they are going to pay for a sub or not. If they are going to play a f2p or b2p game instead of a p2p game, then all that matters is if there are enough players left that pay their for a sub.
Even if your second (very condescending to the point of insult) assumption is true, it still doesn't matter. If a company can't sell their p2p subs, it is only that company's fault. They need to come up with a better strategy then. Blaming their potential customers is ridiculous.
And that is what you are doing , blaming players for abandoning sub based games with your second reason. Your reasoning about this is also flawed, it is based on the idea that players only like one game at a given time. You conveniently leave out the situations where the player has a choice between seemingly two or more fun games and goes for the (in his/her eyes) cheaper product that doesn't require a sub. This is how a market works. But somehow if it comes to MMO's, many people seem to forget that. Smedley didn't forget that. Not that I consider him some kind of all knowing guru btw, but just to use the same name you mentioned But that is one reason why SOE's games go f2p.
Hmmm.... let's see..... FFXI is STILL a sub based game and it is 11+ yrs old now. Why would Yoshi change the revenue model for XIV? Because some of the leaches of F2P games cry they won't play a game that they don't plan to support?!
Your assumptions about people's reasons why they don't want to pay for a sub are maybe fun to argue about, but in the end are just meaningless assumptions. All it comes down to is whether they are going to pay for a sub or not. If they are going to play a f2p or b2p game instead of a p2p game, then all that matters is if there are enough players left that pay their for a sub.
There are reasons people will voice for why they don't want to pay a subscription. My opinions on the matter are based on the more common reasons given. So my "assumptions" are no more "invalid" than anyone else's.
Even if your second (very condescending to the point of insult) assumption is true, it still doesn't matter. If a company can't sell their p2p subs, it is only that company's fault. They need to come up with a better strategy then. Blaming their potential customers is ridiculous.
And that is what you are doing , blaming players for abandoning sub based games with your second reason. Your reasoning about this is also flawed, it is based on the idea that players only like one game at a given time. You conveniently leave out the situations where the player has a choice between seemingly two or more fun games and goes for the (in his/her eyes) cheaper product that doesn't require a sub. This is how a market works. But somehow if it comes to MMO's, many people seem to forget that. Smedley didn't forget that. Not that I consider him some kind of all knowing guru btw, but just to use the same name you mentioned But that is one reason why SOE's games go f2p.
You know.. I just adore it when people will deliberately eliminate entire portions of one of my posts, so they can take it out of context and try to spin it back around on me. No better way to say "I don't really have a good counter argument against what you said, so I'm just going to pretend like you didn't say most of it at all"
I gave a very specific example of a situation where people complained and insisted that FFXIV 1.0 would never be worth a sub, that they would never subscribe to the game, would cancel their accounts the day subs were reinstated and warned that the game would flop and 2.0 would never get made.
Everyone of them argued right up to the point that subs were reinstated, and then most every single one of them subscribed anyway. Their complaints, threats and warnings were hollow. They meant nothing. They wanted to play the game, and when it came down to it, were willing to pay for it... They simply wanted something they clearly enjoyed for free. So they drummed up the drama the best they could and tried to keep it "free".
Pointing out incongruities between people's words and their actions is not "condescending". Nor is it condescending to point out the very practical conclusion to that: That in the end, despite all their cries and complaints, they were merely crying wolf.
Also, I'm not sure why you brought up the bit about "people only liking one game at a given time". It has nothing to do with anything I'm saying. I'm not "conveniently leaving out" anything. I absolutely agree people might simply prefer other MMOs... But that's not the point of this topic, nor my post.
My post is addressing the issues/reasons behind why people would be against paying a sub fee for a specific MMO; FFXIV in this case.
What other games someone might or might not prefer to play is a moot point here, because people aren't talking about "other games". They're talking about ARR. They are here, on these forums, discussing why they think ARR should be F2P or B2P, why it shouldn't be P2P, and/or they're predicting that it will go F2P. They could be off discussing other games they prefer playing on other forums. They could even be off playing other games they prefer playing. None of that matters here, because the subject is quite specifically FFXIV: ARR.
The bit about Smedley is, again, based on actual events. Predicting the "end" of P2P as a revenue model suited his ends for changes taking place at SOE. It's not rocket science what happened there. He just ended up being wrong about it.
So, please... If you're going to take the time to respond to me, pay me a couple courtesies:
- Please don't chop out entire relevant portions of my posts so you can argue one specific passage out of context. It's very dishonest.
- Please try to avoid constructing strawmen and attempting to divert the discussion with irrelevant arguments.
If you can't do either of those, then please don't respond at all. Thank you.
Am I just old as schmidt? Free to play is a gimic for greedy companies to squeeze more out of an addicted fan base and it immediately turns me away from any game that implements it with it's absurd cash shops.
Now it is the norm and subscription based models are bad? Are gamers this stupid and naive?
Originally posted by Ryowulf Are some of you saying you don't like ftp because its ptw or in some ways unfair to players. In other words you don't trust the Devs of FF to make a decent ftp system. Yet you trust them to have ptp without a bad cash shop(or none at all) or not go ftp (or some hybrid) 6-8 months after going live?
hehe sounds funny when you put it that way =-) We trust them to make a fair P2P game but would not trust them to add a cash shop or F2P model.
That also sort of implies you trust them not to include time sinks for the purpose of keeping you subbed longer so you pay more, like say leve quest limitations or cooldowns. Do you all trust they wouldn't do that? Do you think people will justify and explain away the time sinks rather than acknowledge them? They've sort of existed in every mmo since UO, Lineage, and EQ.
lol, when it comes down to it you gona pay no matter what model they pick. People who think F2P is really free have only fooled themselves. Sure with a sub model they will want to bottle neck you as much as they can. Its only smart business =-)
Path of Exile is really free. The only "convenience" you can buy is extra bank stash, but you already have 24 character slots, so it just takes a few seconds to simply take out something from a mule. You are allowed to multiclient too, so you can keep a storage mule on other accounts.
You rarely (maybe once every 80 hours of gameplay) need more space than you already got through your 4 standard bank stash tabs.
Why do I even bring out Path of Exile when it isn't a MMORPG? Well, because it is more MMORPG than SWTOR was at release. It is an action RPG that has a thriving barter economy and focuses on group play.
Am I just old as schmidt? Free to play is a gimic for greedy companies to squeeze more out of an addicted fan base and it immediately turns me away from any game that implements it with it's absurd cash shops.
Now it is the norm and subscription based models are bad? Are gamers this stupid and naive?
Am I just old as schmidt? Free to play is a gimic for greedy companies to squeeze more out of an addicted fan base and it immediately turns me away from any game that implements it with it's absurd cash shops.
Now it is the norm and subscription based models are bad? Are gamers this stupid and naive?
People just want free, it's human nature
I am guessing that people who are not used to getting stuff for free, appriciate free stuff more than those who have been given a lot for free.
wow, do you live under a MMo Rock or something, ohh never mind you mentioned WoW so I guess that's a yes? This is the only other sub MMo you've ever seen... I think you spent too much time in the other one.
Yeah guess it's not free huh... but hey if it were free I'm sure this would be a discussion about how they shouldn't make the cash shop OP for the ones that support the game in that manor. You know by giving the ones buying things in it good items that might be better then what you can get?
Am I just old as schmidt? Free to play is a gimic for greedy companies to squeeze more out of an addicted fan base and it immediately turns me away from any game that implements it with it's absurd cash shops.
Now it is the norm and subscription based models are bad? Are gamers this stupid and naive?
People just want free, it's human nature
I am guessing that people who are not used to getting stuff for free, appriciate free stuff more than those who have been given a lot for free.
It's still human nature, why pay when you can get for free, but you're right, some people do appreciate it more.
I was gonna play but won't now, after guild wars 2 I will never play another game on a sub based model.
GW2 has shown that you don't need to take every dollar from a player.
And yeah it's a wow clone better someways worse others, not for me.
Really? GW2 has showed why P2P is better imo.
This.
I don't understand how some people can still claim GW2's model is the holy grail of business models. The game is incredibly shallow and content-light. The game may get regular updates but there is next to nothing of value in them. All they ever add is a few quests and a another treadmill to grind (which is ironic given that pre-launch they made it pretty clear they'd never go that route).
The reason P2P has died in recent years is because so many developers are releasing uninspired rubbish with a subscription fee to try and cash in on WoW's success. All it's gonna take is for someone to make an actually decent MMO to revive the sub model.
As an aside, YoshiP has already explained why the sub model is pretty much a guaranteed success to them; they're not looking for an immediate return on investment. FFXI has proven to be SquareEnix's biggest money maker in the history of the company. Knowing this they're willing to let FFXIV run as a subscription-based game as long as it turns a profit, which will take a very small number of players.
The subscription model is actually a bigger money-maker in the long term. The only reason so many MMOs switch from P2P to F2P/B2P is because they want/need an immediate ROI and they sacrifice long-term gains for this. SE seems quite happy to just let the game run with the sub and make them more money down the road.
Am I just old as schmidt? Free to play is a gimic for greedy companies to squeeze more out of an addicted fan base and it immediately turns me away from any game that implements it with it's absurd cash shops.
Now it is the norm and subscription based models are bad? Are gamers this stupid and naive?
People just want free, it's human nature
I am guessing that people who are not used to getting stuff for free, appriciate free stuff more than those who have been given a lot for free.
It's still human nature, why pay when you can get for free, but you're right, some people do appreciate it more.
Because paying is a form of support. The question should be: do I want to support them or not? Of course paying is not the only way to can support something, but it is certainly one way that has an impact.
Because paying is a form of support. The question should be: do I want to support them or not? Of course paying is not the only way to can support something, but it is certainly one way that has an impact.
I certainly agree with you bro, i'm just making a simple statement that it's human nature to want stuff for free. There are stipulations and factures that would change that, but to it's core, it's human nature to want things for free.
Because paying is a form of support. The question should be: do I want to support them or not? Of course paying is not the only way to can support something, but it is certainly one way that has an impact.
I certainly agree with you bro, i'm just making a simple statement that it's human nature to want stuff for free. There are stipulations and factures that would change that, but to it's core, it's human nature to want things for free.
I disagree. I believe that it strongly dependent on the person and thus not human nature.
Because paying is a form of support. The question should be: do I want to support them or not? Of course paying is not the only way to can support something, but it is certainly one way that has an impact.
I certainly agree with you bro, i'm just making a simple statement that it's human nature to want stuff for free. There are stipulations and factures that would change that, but to it's core, it's human nature to want things for free.
I disagree. I believe that it strongly dependent on the person and thus not human nature.
Do people not see what the F2P model has done to this genre? It has let 100's of sub par clones emerge and turn this genre into an app store like joke.
When do companies go F2P? When their game is dying because it is not good enough for a sub to boost pop numbers, and exploit it's true fans. Or when a sub par clone with 0 originality needs to compete with games way above it's pay grade.
The F2P model is a joke. These games are watered down clones or are specifically designed models to milk an addiction.
F2P costs more than any SUB MMO ever did. Sheep like gamers are border line sinking this genre.
Comments
I think that study focuses a lot on facebook games.
Exactly! I mentioned that a few pages back. I see no problem what so ever with that. I HATE cash shops of any kind but wtf do I care what some dude on another server is doing? He could be playing another game for all I care. So long as all developed content is made available to all P2P players through gameplay, or in-game gold I wont feel cheated or ripped off. And on the other hand, FP2 players can turn over their bank account numbers to play their way.
Hmm ... is it possible to copyright payment models?
lol
They need to have it where you cannot buy anything better then the sub. That is the problem with almost all the f2p games out there. If you spend tons of money in a cash shop you get something over the person who averages $15/month.
While some f2p games have sub options sort of it is almost always a joke. Because of 1 issue if another person spends another $80 on the cash shop above the standard $15 for the sub they still have an advantage of some kind.
Only way I could ever see f2p being fair is if the $15/month option gives you free unlimited access to the cash shop for the duration of the sub payment. (All items become $0 when you have the sub). Items expire at the end of every month sub, everything is non-sellable/tradeable. Or see below, if they nerf f2p and sell things to unnerf it. Was unpopular in ToR but I think that was the right idea.
Only issue I see is if they do this... they will probably lose huge amounts of money. Because the serious people will just pay the $15... and the freeloaders will still pay nothing but use bandwidth, take up server space, and run up server cost.
Simple fact is this if I pay $15 on a mmo per month, I deserve and demand everything everyone else can get and I demand that no one is able to have more then me without putting in at least equal work. Does not matter if it is vanity stuff, legit gear, or a booster. NO mmo should force me to spend $100-1000 a month to be the best. Your wallet in RL should mean nothing in-game.
Best solution in my opinion:
P2P option: You get all boost, no cooldowns on content, more inventory, ect as long as the sub remains paid. If you pay the sub fee the cash shop button is disabled (No reason to have it as you get everything automatically).
F2P option: You have to buy everything every time for each aspect you do not want to be penalized. Example you have to buy the xp boost, craft boost, drop rate boosters, fatigue reset, auction house slots, dungeon reset scroll, item that lets you wear and loot gear above rare/uncommon (have to have something to prevent people at endgame from just changing to f2p).
In the end someone playing 20hrs a week can choose spend $15/month or average $50/month.
No gear, vanity stuff, boosters, mounts sold in the cash shop.
F2P could work, but companies need to stop screwing over serious customers and expect them to pick up the tab for free loaders.
I love how people call players that like F2P games freeloaders lol. I know people that have spent over 30k on craptastic free games. The F2P business model is not going anywhere. It is no accident all these games that were released as sub games are now F2P. Why limit your customers to 15$ a month when so many morons will be happy to spend so much more? They are such failures in every other way, but they can spend their rent money in a game, get an advantage, and pretend to be good at something. It amazes me the amount of people I know that spent themselves broke on gaming.
This game will probably end up going F2P too just like rift and tera and pretty much every other mmo. It's just an easier way to get more people into the game and you can just keep rolling out new shinys for all those idiots who will spend a small fortune so they can troll all the freeloaders. Monthly subs are over for MMO's. Oh and please let's just dispense with the idea that the community is better in sub games than F2P games. I mean really like only smart, mature, reasonable people can afford 15 bucks a month right? Gimme a break, it's all the same, it's the internet after all.
"While I won’t post the entire response here as it is quite lengthy but very interesting, I will tell you that Yoshi-P feels that MMORPG development today falls into two categories, those games that are investor tied and rely on fast income to pay all involved parties off but then may struggle with funding for future updates, and those companies like Blizzard and Square Enix that self fund their projects and can afford to wait for a more steady and reliable income off of a small fanbase.
Don’t misunderstand though, Yoshi-P was not advocating one model over the other, he explained that in his opinion the FFXIV subscription not only ensured a somewhat steady rate of income for the developer (which allows for better planning for future updates) but also provided a better game for FFXIV players because they could enjoy the benefits of a more steady rate of updates.
It’s an interesting debate and while Yoshi-P uses references to Star Wars: The Old Republic and RIFT as recent examples of games that were built to be subscription based but changed due to market conditions, he doesn’t feel that the FFXIV subscription fee is an “outdated” payment model as it fits with the high budget proportions of the game’s development. Yes, he acknowledges that their player base may be smaller than some other games on the market because of the subscription fee, but he is banking on knowing what type of income will be coming in monthly rather than maybe having a customer shell out $100 today and then never pay for anything again."
Source: http://www.gamebreaker.tv/mmorpg/yoshi-p-defends-ffxiv-subscription/
Again 13$ a month = .43cents a day or 3.01 a week to enjoy everything in the game . And be on the same level as everyone . You want that gear go get it . You want that Sword go get it . Unless your to damn lazy to get it that is .
Things that cost more then 3.01$ a week
Every extra value meal at any fast food restaurant for ONE meal
a Subway 6 inch
a Movie Ticket
a Adult Beverage
the price of a gallon of gas
IF you can not pay a simple 3.01$ a week or 13$ a month then you need to adjust things in your life and this MMO is not for you .
http://absoluteretribution.enjin.com/ Guild Website and Recruitment link
It isn't the case of the difficulty of obtaining $15 a month; it is whether the $15 a month is worth it to you. I’ve seen the same argument over and over again (close to two dozen P2P games that are now F2P) of breaking down the $12-$15 in so many ways. Coffee has been used, gum, movie tickets, and many others. I’ve talked about this several times before, but the P2P business model, while still possible, is extremely difficult to maintain currently. I’ve broken down the P2P model in 2 major brackets before: the $4.99-$9.99 bracket and the $12.99-$15.00 bracket.
Last time I checked (for the first bracket) earlier this year, I would say that close to 100% of those games went F2P. Only a couple of games have been released using that bracket payment model post 2010. I think Wakfu was one of the last games released using that bracket payment model.
Now… with the latter payment model (the one we are more familiarized with) the model in itself has taken a huge hit. If you look at the current trend, it has taken a nose dive. In this bracket I’ve (in the past) broken it down even further. Games released prior to 2005 and games released post 2006. There are still a handful of games that still use the P2P model for games released prior to 2005. One of the biggest factors is due to player loyalty as well as product branding. In this I mean attachment to the game via other methods such as board games, card games, movies, lore, books, etc.
I really have to update my list again, but P2P games at the end of 2010 stood around 12. Again these are games released post 2006. It went down to 10 then 8 then 6… I think it Is somewhere between 2-4 games that still use a strictly P2P business model for games released post 2006 and that fall under the following sub genres MMO(Fantasy, Historical, Horror, Real Life, Sci-Fi, and Super Hero). I don’t follow on the Sci-Fi section too much with only a few notable exceptions like EVE Online, Wildstar, SWTOR and maybe a couple of other games since a good portion of them fall into the realm of FPS.
Now let us go back to the whole $15 comment. For a hobby $15 is pretty cheap. Would you still agree that $30 a month is also pretty cheap for a hobby? This is where I present to you the blue pill and the red pill. You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.
With $30 a month you could easily pay 2 P2P games right? Now the question is would you? Remember, $30 a month isn’t expensive for a hobby right? Good. A good portion of the community would probably say no since they want to commit to one game and chances are they wouldn’t have time for the other. If they would chances are they would be playing the second MMO much more casually. If I were to ask the people interested in FFXIV ARR to play and pay for another MMO (Warhammer Online, SWTOR, TERA, TSW, etc.) would you? Chances are most of you guys would not.
So it isn’t the difficulty in obtaining the $15 but rather it isn’t worth it… to you. Now we are starting to scratch the surface.
Look at the trend at the majority of the P2P games released post 2006. A good portion of them released with 20, 40, 80 and upwards to 216 servers. Look at how many servers those games have now. Some have had reductions of anywhere from 80%-90% and a few are running a single server. Some of them are running one of each type, for example: PVE, RP-PVE, PVP, RP-PVP. What happened? Was there a collapse in the economy that made those $15 that much more difficult to obtain, or was it that people got bored of the same old same old?
I’ll pick 3 recent MMOs theme park MMOs. TERA, TSW, SWTOR. TERA has the nifty combat and nice graphics, TSW has the nice voiceovers/storytelling and player progression, SWTOR has the neat lore and dialoged options. Of course if you like those games you can easily add more positives to them. But was it enough to keep those games strictly P2P for more than a year? If not, why couldn’t they hold the player base?
Now let us look at FFXIV ARR. It has the nifty graphics, it has the lore, it has the music, it has the possibilities to open up on the storytelling department, and it has the flashy combat (not to be confused with fast paced combat). But will it be enough? For the diehard fans I would say yes. For the masses? We will have to see. The main thing that I am worried about the game is that many will write it off as a typical theme park game with the Final Fantasy skin and nothing else… note that they might be wrong, but it is still their opinion/perception), the other being the challenge. Like I stated before, the only two events I found challenging in Version 1.0 up to patch 1.20 were the Garuda and Ifrit fights. Really good link shells placed them in farming status after two weeks, and in a few cases after just one week.
Besides the Crystal Tower and the Bahamut fight will there be anything that will keep players in for the long run, or will people get geared up and complete most (i.e. 90% or more) of the content by the 3-6 month mark as most theme park games tend to be these days? I can easily see link shells placing the other endgame events and Primals in farm status before the one month mark. I’m not even sure about Odin and Bahamut. Odin wasn’t that difficult in FFXI, neither was Bahamut Version 2.0 in FFXI. From the 5 fights I did in Bahamut Version 2.0 I won four times. The only trick to it was not outpacing it in the damage dealing department due to the every-10%-mechanic-aoe-blast.
Remember one key thing about the “difficulty” and artificial barriers that games prior to World of Warcraft had? There are quite a few, but I will only pick on two of them since this post is already quite long. One is the length it took to get to max level; compare that to current games (as well as the % of the content that can be soloed/2-3 manned). The other is the availability of information. Back when FFXI vanilla came out what did we have for information? I would say 2-3 “reputable” sites that linked off some Japanese sites/blogs that had information/details/maps of different zones and monsters.
Fast forward to 2013… what do we have now? Now you have people posting videos in under 72 hours, and sometimes in under 24 hours showing you the complete fight in 1080p. By the end of the first or second week you already have multiple endgame link shells (placing those endgame events under farm status) showing you those same videos but to a much greater detail. Information such as where to stand, what food to take, viable setups, %-wise HP of the boss and how the mechanics change over time, to having the complete list of moves of said boss. By the end of the second or third week they release their final video which usually shows off a “Speed Run.”
Can I see the masses (i.e. excluding the FFXIV diehard fans) enjoying this title? Of course, unless you don’t like the combat. But will it keep them after the 3 or 6 month mark if it follows the same generic trend of most theme park games released post 2006… I’m not so sure about that.
So it has never been about gifs showing off “I can’t afford X Y Z $ to A B C MMO.” Like I said before, I’ve seen this same argument/statement used many times before (in the past 5 years in so many MMO forums). And that isn’t the case at all… rather is it worth it to them to keep the sub going as a long term investment. And if there is a huge reduction in subscribers, is it worth it to the company to keep said model regardless if the game was built in-house or not.
I read your whole post, but cut it off at the first paragraph in my quote, for the sake of brevity.
The arguments comparing the "value" of a sub to those other things is to provide perspective. It's not a matter of "can you afford it or not"; I'm sure most people can afford a $13-$15 a month sub fee. But when it comes to people saying "it isn't worth the sub fee because it doesn't offer enough to make it worthwhile", then yes, the comparisons to other things that people will spend the equivalent of, if not more, over the course of a month, becomes quite relevant.
People will spend upwards of $15 for a movie and a fastfood meal. That's ~$15 for a 1.5-2 hour movie and maybe a half hour spent sitting at a McDonald's. If you're not going the fast food route, you can easily spend over $15 for the meal alone. People will readily and happily spend that on a weekly basis, sometimes multiple times a weekend, and not think twice about it.
Yet, spending that same ~$13 for a form of entertainment that provides them "all they can eat" entertainment, for a month at a time, suddenly sets off their "value-for-the-money alarms".
Speaking on the concept of "value for the money" alone, it's incongruous to say "$15+ for 3 hours of entertainment is a great value, but $15 for a month of "all you can eat" - upwards of ~720 hours of entertainment - access to a MMO is a horrible deal".
I'm personally of the opinion that the "value for the money" argument is a surrogate for some other issue.
I'd personally be much quicker to believe one of two scenarios to be the case:
1. They don't like the game enough to want to really play it in the first place, and the cost per month is just a convenient, ready-made reason to cite. People seldom will settle solely on their own opinions as "reason enough" for something. They've got to find something "more meaningful" to hang it on.
In this case, "it's not worth the fee" could simply be translated to "I don't like it enough to want to pay for it" - which is a perfectly good reason. Thing is, it's not a problem with the game/product. It's simply a case of "nothing is for everyone".
2. They do like the game and want to play it, but have been lulled into this "Bit-Torrent Everything Era" mindset of "I want it, but I don't want to pay for it, so it should be free". Of course, saying that would rightfully make them seem unrealistic and entitled. So, once again, a surrogate reason is used instead: "It's not worth the sub fee, it needs to be F2P".
There is actual precedent for example #2 to be the case in many cases. I saw it happen first-hand with FFXIV 1.0. There were many people who played the hell out of FFXIV 1.0 during the time that subs were frozen. They got multiple 50s, got through most all the content, and played consistently. Clearly, they enjoyed the game enough to play it so much. Or they're masochists who continuously play something and clock in serious hours doing things they hate... which is doubtful.
When SE announced that they would be reinstating subs (as they'd previously said they would when they felt the time was right), there was outrage on the official forums about it. People making the all-too-familiar arguments of how "it's not worth a sub", "subs are dead", "F2P is the future", etc. They warned that "no one would want to pay a sub for 1.0, they'd lose all their players, SE would have to shut down and 2.0 would never get made". It carried on for weeks.
But when the time came to sub, almost every person who said they'd split and would never pay a sub... subbed. And you could tell who they were, because the only people who can post on the official forums are those with active, paying accounts. If you weren't subbed, you weren't accessing the official forums and posting.
So, for all their complaints, warnings and threats... when it mattered, they paid the sub, and continued to right up to the end of 1.23.
What does that mean? It means that they found the game worth paying for... they just didn't want to pay for it. They thought the threats and warnings would get them their way. It didn't.
I have absolutely no doubt that many people around here fall into categories 1 and 2.
Others will argue against P2P simply because they're personally and emotionally committed to this idea that "everything should be F2P" and so a MMO "bucking them" riles them into "action" - futile as that action may be.
Your assumptions about people's reasons why they don't want to pay for a sub are maybe fun to argue about, but in the end are just meaningless assumptions. All it comes down to is whether they are going to pay for a sub or not. If they are going to play a f2p or b2p game instead of a p2p game, then all that matters is if there are enough players left that pay their for a sub.
Even if your second (very condescending to the point of insult) assumption is true, it still doesn't matter. If a company can't sell their p2p subs, it is only that company's fault. They need to come up with a better strategy then. Blaming their potential customers is ridiculous.
And that is what you are doing , blaming players for abandoning sub based games with your second reason. Your reasoning about this is also flawed, it is based on the idea that players only like one game at a given time. You conveniently leave out the situations where the player has a choice between seemingly two or more fun games and goes for the (in his/her eyes) cheaper product that doesn't require a sub. This is how a market works. But somehow if it comes to MMO's, many people seem to forget that. Smedley didn't forget that. Not that I consider him some kind of all knowing guru btw, but just to use the same name you mentioned
But that is one reason why SOE's games go f2p.
Yes! And praise Jesus that it will be!
I was getting disgruntled by the type of player personalities free-to-play communities often attract.
Fishing on Gilgamesh since 2013
Fishing on Bronzebeard since 2005
Fishing in RL since 1992
Born with a fishing rod in my hand in 1979
Hmmm.... let's see..... FFXI is STILL a sub based game and it is 11+ yrs old now. Why would Yoshi change the revenue model for XIV? Because some of the leaches of F2P games cry they won't play a game that they don't plan to support?!
Thank you Yoshi!!!! Keep them leaches out!
New video from Mr Happy about this very topic. Worth listening to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE1KdRDq6hE
Am I just old as schmidt? Free to play is a gimic for greedy companies to squeeze more out of an addicted fan base and it immediately turns me away from any game that implements it with it's absurd cash shops.
Now it is the norm and subscription based models are bad? Are gamers this stupid and naive?
Path of Exile is really free. The only "convenience" you can buy is extra bank stash, but you already have 24 character slots, so it just takes a few seconds to simply take out something from a mule. You are allowed to multiclient too, so you can keep a storage mule on other accounts.
You rarely (maybe once every 80 hours of gameplay) need more space than you already got through your 4 standard bank stash tabs.
Why do I even bring out Path of Exile when it isn't a MMORPG? Well, because it is more MMORPG than SWTOR was at release. It is an action RPG that has a thriving barter economy and focuses on group play.
People just want free, it's human nature
I am guessing that people who are not used to getting stuff for free, appriciate free stuff more than those who have been given a lot for free.
wow, do you live under a MMo Rock or something, ohh never mind you mentioned WoW so I guess that's a yes? This is the only other sub MMo you've ever seen... I think you spent too much time in the other one.
Yeah guess it's not free huh... but hey if it were free I'm sure this would be a discussion about how they shouldn't make the cash shop OP for the ones that support the game in that manor. You know by giving the ones buying things in it good items that might be better then what you can get?
/moves off to the next tired thread
It's still human nature, why pay when you can get for free, but you're right, some people do appreciate it more.
This.
I don't understand how some people can still claim GW2's model is the holy grail of business models. The game is incredibly shallow and content-light. The game may get regular updates but there is next to nothing of value in them. All they ever add is a few quests and a another treadmill to grind (which is ironic given that pre-launch they made it pretty clear they'd never go that route).
The reason P2P has died in recent years is because so many developers are releasing uninspired rubbish with a subscription fee to try and cash in on WoW's success. All it's gonna take is for someone to make an actually decent MMO to revive the sub model.
As an aside, YoshiP has already explained why the sub model is pretty much a guaranteed success to them; they're not looking for an immediate return on investment. FFXI has proven to be SquareEnix's biggest money maker in the history of the company. Knowing this they're willing to let FFXIV run as a subscription-based game as long as it turns a profit, which will take a very small number of players.
The subscription model is actually a bigger money-maker in the long term. The only reason so many MMOs switch from P2P to F2P/B2P is because they want/need an immediate ROI and they sacrifice long-term gains for this. SE seems quite happy to just let the game run with the sub and make them more money down the road.
Because paying is a form of support. The question should be: do I want to support them or not? Of course paying is not the only way to can support something, but it is certainly one way that has an impact.
I certainly agree with you bro, i'm just making a simple statement that it's human nature to want stuff for free. There are stipulations and factures that would change that, but to it's core, it's human nature to want things for free.
I disagree. I believe that it strongly dependent on the person and thus not human nature.
Fair enough, we agree to disagree
Do people not see what the F2P model has done to this genre? It has let 100's of sub par clones emerge and turn this genre into an app store like joke.
When do companies go F2P? When their game is dying because it is not good enough for a sub to boost pop numbers, and exploit it's true fans. Or when a sub par clone with 0 originality needs to compete with games way above it's pay grade.
The F2P model is a joke. These games are watered down clones or are specifically designed models to milk an addiction.
F2P costs more than any SUB MMO ever did. Sheep like gamers are border line sinking this genre.