To the original question I say no, the more the merrier. In F2P games that offer a subscription for bonuses, I will often go the subscription route, as the benefits are worth it.
Subs are dead unless companies do something like this - PSNow is offering a 15 USD a month sub to play any and all of their games online - that is 100+ PS3 and PS4 games from remote servers. That is worth it, one game for that much no.
Subs are dead unless companies do something like this - PSNow is offering a 15 USD a month sub to play any and all of their games online - that is 100+ PS3 and PS4 games from remote servers. That is worth it, one game for that much no.
That is still a sub. Doesn't matter now many games you get for it. It isn't f2p.
The answer is obviously that the future of mmo business models is a crowd-funded game that makes $200 Million dollars and then launches with a $70 box price, with a collectors going for $130 and a platinum edition for $250, and a $14.95 basic monthly subscription or a $21.95 monthly premium subscription and a cash shop with $500 starships, cars, or horses and $75 no level cap end-game lazshers or machineguns or swords. Oh and don't forget the inventory clogging loot chests that require a $5 key to open.
Just because you prefer a subscription, doesn't mean the cash shop is going anywhere...
Come back here in 10 years (if we're lucky) and see if I'm lying.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire: Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
For LOTRO there was an instant 3x to 4x increased in players (peak vs total in a month) and a doubling of revenue. The majority of the revenue increase came from subs, not the cash shop.
We can only speculate where it went from there because they have not published numbers on this since then. The best information we have is from third party sites. We know that in 2011 the expansion sold well (promoted as best expansion sales to date). In 2012 we didn't see any financial data, but there were layoffs (which do not indicate financial growth). 2013/2014 did not seem any better (no big positive statements made).
It is only reasonable to conclude that the F2P conversion did very well to give the game a boost, and that it helped to grow the game for a couple of years. However, the game seems to have tapered off after that, and we have not seen any signs of strong growth since 2011.
Overall F2P seems to have been very good for this game, and seems to have helped to grow the game. It is reasonable to think that the game would not have done as well if not for the F2P conversion. However, it is also reasonable to think that despite the F2P conversion, this game is following a trend similar to other games, regardless of business model (i.e. F2P helped, but it didn't really change things overall)
This problem with sub mmo, when one ask people, hey want to go play some wildstar or eso? nooo wow is better why should i pay my sub money to them 2 as wow still better, if people keep pack up in to wow, sub mmo going be this way with little to few.
Even ff14 seem like losing people slowly, as there not showing the real numbers of ff14, after saying we have 1 mil sub player with all 3 mmo, is a marking move making them self look big like we all fine doing good not losing players.
for me the payment model will probably have no influence on what i want to play in 95% of all cases - but from experience i can say that i always spent A LOT more on free to play games that i liked as opposed to subscription games that i liked...
Originally posted by travamars I think there should only be sub games. I cant afford to play free games, they cost to much.
Amen.
Those of us who actually support the games we play know that F2P costs way more than $15/mo. Give me a B2P or P2P any day.
I don't pay $180+ per year per game (just to rent access) for any of my F2P games. At the most I spend $50 - $60 every 6 months or so. Since most every "P2P" game has a cash shop and RMT now, it becomes a much more expensive game. $180 is the baseline plus there are xpac costs ($60) plus the cash shop plus the RMT. I can play, support, and enjoy sub-free games much cheaper.
In the last year I've spent:
LotRO: $85
EQ2: $80
Neverwinter Online: $70
Marvel Heroes: $70
Tera: $0
GW2: $0
STO: $0
TSW: $30
Rift: $35
Eldevin: $30
WoW: $15 - I stopped after the month because there was no way the game was worth $180+ a year in rental fees, cash shop costs, and dlc/xpac fees. It was the worst game I played this year.
That's the funny thing about P2P zealots. They keep trying to sell that their rental fee thing is so much cheaper.
Doesn't matter what YOU spent. Most serious gamers want access to ALL of the game. If your just a casual gamer who doesnt mind running back and forth emptying your one bag because you dont HAVE to buy more bags, more power to you. But some people dont like to play at a disadvantage. From all the games you posted and the amount spent on them, apparently you didnt spend enough to make them enjoyable or you wouldnt have been jumping around from game to game.
Cash Shops that have _anything else_ but cosmetics/account services need to go. They are the most player-abusing system ever created.
Good P2P models: WoW, ESO and FFXIV
Good B2P models: One with starting price + price for additional content and only cosmetic cash shop. (Doesn't exist)
Good F2P models: Game itself free but offers vip subscription i.e limited to a monthly payment with cosmetic cash shop.
Just recently went back to WoW (30€ expansion + 20€ for 2 months) which is quite a lot but the game feels very relaxing and equal compared to F2P/B2P games I have played before.
I played so many mmorpg and now I only play mmorpg with subs. Better experience, less kids, more dedicated player, less item shop, more obtainable items, more updates usually, better service usually.... and more!
Note; Currently playing ESO and it worth my 15$ every months.
Originally posted by travamars I think there should only be sub games. I cant afford to play free games, they cost to much.
Amen.
Those of us who actually support the games we play know that F2P costs way more than $15/mo. Give me a B2P or P2P any day.
I don't pay $180+ per year per game (just to rent access) for any of my F2P games. At the most I spend $50 - $60 every 6 months or so. Since most every "P2P" game has a cash shop and RMT now, it becomes a much more expensive game. $180 is the baseline plus there are xpac costs ($60) plus the cash shop plus the RMT. I can play, support, and enjoy sub-free games much cheaper.
In the last year I've spent:
LotRO: $85
EQ2: $80
Neverwinter Online: $70
Marvel Heroes: $70
Tera: $0
GW2: $0
STO: $0
TSW: $30
Rift: $35
Eldevin: $30
WoW: $15 - I stopped after the month because there was no way the game was worth $180+ a year in rental fees, cash shop costs, and dlc/xpac fees. It was the worst game I played this year.
That's the funny thing about P2P zealots. They keep trying to sell that their rental fee thing is so much cheaper.
Doesn't matter what YOU spent. Most serious gamers want access to ALL of the game. If your just a casual gamer who doesnt mind running back and forth emptying your one bag because you dont HAVE to buy more bags, more power to you. But some people dont like to play at a disadvantage. From all the games you posted and the amount spent on them, apparently you didnt spend enough to make them enjoyable or you wouldnt have been jumping around from game to game.
F2P or B2P do have some thing can't access in the game, sub as well, there are thing can't access with out spending more time out your life to access them in to a grind, this what casual gamer face, can't raid due to work, can't get the high pvp ranks due to work, don't get access to all of the game, if can't get to it with your $15 or in other model just life of a mmo.
Bag part any model try to limit people bag size at start, with Rift I think only mmo that one can just sell right in to the store with out running back and forth to a npc.
Doesn't matter what YOU spent. Most serious gamers want access to ALL of the game. If your just a casual gamer who doesnt mind running back and forth emptying your one bag because you dont HAVE to buy more bags, more power to you. But some people dont like to play at a disadvantage. From all the games you posted and the amount spent on them, apparently you didnt spend enough to make them enjoyable or you wouldnt have been jumping around from game to game.
hmm ... given that most MMOs have cash shops, including the p2p ones, and that all single player games have DLCs ... i highly doubt either a) most serious gamers want access to ALL of the game, or b) devs cares about serious gamers.
Subscriptions are fine, but $15 a month is no longer justified with current bandwidth and development costs if these companies are planning to churn out full or close to full priced expansions every year. Prices should be reduced to $5-$10 a month depending on the quality of the game. F2P and B2P with reasonable item malls that don't sell power are also good options.
On a side note to the OP: FFXIV does not have 2 million subs. This was proven by a statement by Square Enix recently where their 3 MMOs combined have ALMOST 1 million subs. It's more likely sitting at 800-900k subs if it's even that high.
That article was from like 2 or 3 months after the game released. It's so old and outdated. It also says on their website they have over 2 million subscribers.
I think there are a lot of good games with subs. Do you really mean good? Perhaps you mean great? Or Perfect? Or have a long checklist of things that makes a game a pile of crap if it has even a single thing checked?
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Subscriptions are fine, but $15 a month is no longer justified with current bandwidth and development costs if these companies are planning to churn out full or close to full priced expansions every year. Prices should be reduced to $5-$10 a month depending on the quality of the game. F2P and B2P with reasonable item malls that don't sell power are also good options.
On a side note to the OP: FFXIV does not have 2 million subs. This was proven by a statement by Square Enix recently where their 3 MMOs combined have ALMOST 1 million subs. It's more likely sitting at 800-900k subs if it's even that high.
That article was from like 2 or 3 months after the game released. It's so old and outdated. It also says on their website they have over 2 million subscribers.
Was it over 2 mil register user? not sub the web site claim. I went to check is not up there anymore. And with how many server what someone said they have about 64 server, as number don't fit, to have about player 30K+ per server.
I'll pay a sub if the game is new and I want to check it out or if I find it really addictive like I did with SWTOR when it first came out (loved the class story lines). Now I play a lot of MMO's none of which I'm paying a sub.
I'm surprised the subscription models have not changed much in all these years and has remained a set standard, except for some games adding tax or including the credit card fees in the sub. They really should make the sub model more flexible. With a one day sub, a weekend sub., or a weekly sub at least. I do like how some games allow you to convert in-game credits for subscription purchases, basically allowing you to play for free. I also like how some sub games offer a free week once or twice a year so players can determine if they wish to return.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Originally posted by travamars I think there should only be sub games. I cant afford to play free games, they cost to much.
Amen.
Those of us who actually support the games we play know that F2P costs way more than $15/mo. Give me a B2P or P2P any day.
I don't pay $180+ per year per game (just to rent access) for any of my F2P games. At the most I spend $50 - $60 every 6 months or so. Since most every "P2P" game has a cash shop and RMT now, it becomes a much more expensive game. $180 is the baseline plus there are xpac costs ($60) plus the cash shop plus the RMT. I can play, support, and enjoy sub-free games much cheaper.
In the last year I've spent:
LotRO: $85
EQ2: $80
Neverwinter Online: $70
Marvel Heroes: $70
Tera: $0
GW2: $0
STO: $0
TSW: $30
Rift: $35
Eldevin: $30
WoW: $15 - I stopped after the month because there was no way the game was worth $180+ a year in rental fees, cash shop costs, and dlc/xpac fees. It was the worst game I played this year.
That's the funny thing about P2P zealots. They keep trying to sell that their rental fee thing is so much cheaper.
Doesn't matter what YOU spent. Most serious gamers want access to ALL of the game. If your just a casual gamer who doesnt mind running back and forth emptying your one bag because you dont HAVE to buy more bags, more power to you. But some people dont like to play at a disadvantage. From all the games you posted and the amount spent on them, apparently you didnt spend enough to make them enjoyable or you wouldnt have been jumping around from game to game.
Im sure in Gw2 you have a lot more inventory slots than some recently released and old P2P titles
But even so, redneck Joe will come here complaining about bag space.
Originally posted by travamars I think there should only be sub games. I cant afford to play free games, they cost to much.
Amen.
Those of us who actually support the games we play know that F2P costs way more than $15/mo. Give me a B2P or P2P any day.
I don't pay $180+ per year per game (just to rent access) for any of my F2P games. At the most I spend $50 - $60 every 6 months or so. Since most every "P2P" game has a cash shop and RMT now, it becomes a much more expensive game. $180 is the baseline plus there are xpac costs ($60) plus the cash shop plus the RMT. I can play, support, and enjoy sub-free games much cheaper.
In the last year I've spent:
LotRO: $85
EQ2: $80
Neverwinter Online: $70
Marvel Heroes: $70
Tera: $0
GW2: $0
STO: $0
TSW: $30
Rift: $35
Eldevin: $30
WoW: $15 - I stopped after the month because there was no way the game was worth $180+ a year in rental fees, cash shop costs, and dlc/xpac fees. It was the worst game I played this year.
That's the funny thing about P2P zealots. They keep trying to sell that their rental fee thing is so much cheaper.
I have to agree, I play quite a few of the games on your list and have spent about the same amounts or less than you. I know there are people that pay a lot more, but there are also people that don't pay at all.
I also have subs to FF14 and ESO and while the games themselves are great, the game tax (sub) really pisses me off. Its not like either of those two games are substantially better than many other mmos (f2p or b2p), and they actually are not better than some single player rpgs like DAI that I only payed for once.
The only arguments I have seen for justifying a sub are that the money is spent developing the game, keeping the servers up, providing support, and that it keeps the riff-raff out. Its nice to see that FF14 and ESO actually seem to be using the sub money for such ends, but as far as I can see you could achieve the same thing with a box price, cosmetics/services cash shop, and paid dlc/expansions released periodically. How is that not better for consumers than having to pay a sub for every game you are interested in playing?
I AMAZES me that people tolerate Blizzard charging them a sub and making them pay nearly the price of a new game for their expansions (as well as having a cash shop etc). Its like daylight robbery, and people actually defend it! Every subscriber is basically paying them the price of a whole new game every four months and they get to sell any substantial content updates on top of that. Its like they are releasing a million unit selling new game every four months or so with a fraction of the development costs it would take to make a new game.
i think they should get rid of subs haven't seen a company deliver the amount of content you get from paying a sub. i'd rather pay for expanions then spend a month of no updates and such
No, F2P and cash shops need to go away, along with all players who like them. MMOs were better 10 years ago, than now. Only thing which has improved is the GFX and combat, all other gameplay elements have become dumbed down and simple and now there is always the possibility to buy stuff with real money instead of earning it by playing the game.
Comments
To the original question I say no, the more the merrier. In F2P games that offer a subscription for bonuses, I will often go the subscription route, as the benefits are worth it.
INDEED NEVER
F2P is crapy excuse to pay2win
B2P its acceptable but usual dev run out funds to keep update
i Still support Moth sub - but i like remove client or give decent trial before in same day release to see worth
but probably not hapepn in actual shit game market our living
Subs are dead unless companies do something like this - PSNow is offering a 15 USD a month sub to play any and all of their games online - that is 100+ PS3 and PS4 games from remote servers. That is worth it, one game for that much no.
That is still a sub. Doesn't matter now many games you get for it. It isn't f2p.
You stay sassy!
Amen.
Those of us who actually support the games we play know that F2P costs way more than $15/mo. Give me a B2P or P2P any day.
What a stupid question...
The answer is obviously that the future of mmo business models is a crowd-funded game that makes $200 Million dollars and then launches with a $70 box price, with a collectors going for $130 and a platinum edition for $250, and a $14.95 basic monthly subscription or a $21.95 monthly premium subscription and a cash shop with $500 starships, cars, or horses and $75 no level cap end-game lazshers or machineguns or swords. Oh and don't forget the inventory clogging loot chests that require a $5 key to open.
Just because you prefer a subscription, doesn't mean the cash shop is going anywhere...
Come back here in 10 years (if we're lucky) and see if I'm lying.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire:
Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
For LOTRO there was an instant 3x to 4x increased in players (peak vs total in a month) and a doubling of revenue. The majority of the revenue increase came from subs, not the cash shop.
We can only speculate where it went from there because they have not published numbers on this since then. The best information we have is from third party sites. We know that in 2011 the expansion sold well (promoted as best expansion sales to date). In 2012 we didn't see any financial data, but there were layoffs (which do not indicate financial growth). 2013/2014 did not seem any better (no big positive statements made).
It is only reasonable to conclude that the F2P conversion did very well to give the game a boost, and that it helped to grow the game for a couple of years. However, the game seems to have tapered off after that, and we have not seen any signs of strong growth since 2011.
Overall F2P seems to have been very good for this game, and seems to have helped to grow the game. It is reasonable to think that the game would not have done as well if not for the F2P conversion. However, it is also reasonable to think that despite the F2P conversion, this game is following a trend similar to other games, regardless of business model (i.e. F2P helped, but it didn't really change things overall)
This problem with sub mmo, when one ask people, hey want to go play some wildstar or eso? nooo wow is better why should i pay my sub money to them 2 as wow still better, if people keep pack up in to wow, sub mmo going be this way with little to few.
Even ff14 seem like losing people slowly, as there not showing the real numbers of ff14, after saying we have 1 mil sub player with all 3 mmo, is a marking move making them self look big like we all fine doing good not losing players.
Doesn't matter what YOU spent. Most serious gamers want access to ALL of the game. If your just a casual gamer who doesnt mind running back and forth emptying your one bag because you dont HAVE to buy more bags, more power to you. But some people dont like to play at a disadvantage. From all the games you posted and the amount spent on them, apparently you didnt spend enough to make them enjoyable or you wouldnt have been jumping around from game to game.
Cash Shops that have _anything else_ but cosmetics/account services need to go. They are the most player-abusing system ever created.
Good P2P models: WoW, ESO and FFXIV
Good B2P models: One with starting price + price for additional content and only cosmetic cash shop. (Doesn't exist)
Good F2P models: Game itself free but offers vip subscription i.e limited to a monthly payment with cosmetic cash shop.
Just recently went back to WoW (30€ expansion + 20€ for 2 months) which is quite a lot but the game feels very relaxing and equal compared to F2P/B2P games I have played before.
Fuck whales, cap the monthly payments.
No,
I played so many mmorpg and now I only play mmorpg with subs. Better experience, less kids, more dedicated player, less item shop, more obtainable items, more updates usually, better service usually.... and more!
Note; Currently playing ESO and it worth my 15$ every months.
F2P or B2P do have some thing can't access in the game, sub as well, there are thing can't access with out spending more time out your life to access them in to a grind, this what casual gamer face, can't raid due to work, can't get the high pvp ranks due to work, don't get access to all of the game, if can't get to it with your $15 or in other model just life of a mmo.
Bag part any model try to limit people bag size at start, with Rift I think only mmo that one can just sell right in to the store with out running back and forth to a npc.
hmm ... given that most MMOs have cash shops, including the p2p ones, and that all single player games have DLCs ... i highly doubt either a) most serious gamers want access to ALL of the game, or b) devs cares about serious gamers.
Take your pick.
That article was from like 2 or 3 months after the game released. It's so old and outdated. It also says on their website they have over 2 million subscribers.
All die, so die well.
I think there are a lot of good games with subs. Do you really mean good? Perhaps you mean great? Or Perfect? Or have a long checklist of things that makes a game a pile of crap if it has even a single thing checked?
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Was it over 2 mil register user? not sub the web site claim. I went to check is not up there anymore. And with how many server what someone said they have about 64 server, as number don't fit, to have about player 30K+ per server.
I'll pay a sub if the game is new and I want to check it out or if I find it really addictive like I did with SWTOR when it first came out (loved the class story lines). Now I play a lot of MMO's none of which I'm paying a sub.
I'm surprised the subscription models have not changed much in all these years and has remained a set standard, except for some games adding tax or including the credit card fees in the sub. They really should make the sub model more flexible. With a one day sub, a weekend sub., or a weekly sub at least. I do like how some games allow you to convert in-game credits for subscription purchases, basically allowing you to play for free. I also like how some sub games offer a free week once or twice a year so players can determine if they wish to return.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Im sure in Gw2 you have a lot more inventory slots than some recently released and old P2P titles
But even so, redneck Joe will come here complaining about bag space.
Why do I even bother explaining.
I have to agree, I play quite a few of the games on your list and have spent about the same amounts or less than you. I know there are people that pay a lot more, but there are also people that don't pay at all.
I also have subs to FF14 and ESO and while the games themselves are great, the game tax (sub) really pisses me off. Its not like either of those two games are substantially better than many other mmos (f2p or b2p), and they actually are not better than some single player rpgs like DAI that I only payed for once.
The only arguments I have seen for justifying a sub are that the money is spent developing the game, keeping the servers up, providing support, and that it keeps the riff-raff out. Its nice to see that FF14 and ESO actually seem to be using the sub money for such ends, but as far as I can see you could achieve the same thing with a box price, cosmetics/services cash shop, and paid dlc/expansions released periodically. How is that not better for consumers than having to pay a sub for every game you are interested in playing?
I AMAZES me that people tolerate Blizzard charging them a sub and making them pay nearly the price of a new game for their expansions (as well as having a cash shop etc). Its like daylight robbery, and people actually defend it! Every subscriber is basically paying them the price of a whole new game every four months and they get to sell any substantial content updates on top of that. Its like they are releasing a million unit selling new game every four months or so with a fraction of the development costs it would take to make a new game.
My gaming blog