NCSoft has datacenters in EU and NA that they house themselves
Zenimax has their own datacenters in EU and NA that they house themselves
Ubisoft has their own
EA Games has their own
Since when codemasters have MMOs? They have few rally games some of which closed off their multiplayer aspect (Race Driver: GRID), and how popular are they
Yes, co-locations are datacenters, but they are datacenters made to be shared among various clients. Obviously it is going to be more expensive to maintain, given every single client has very specific set of requirements. Also your infrastructure has to be a lot more robust.
NCSoft has datacenters in EU and NA that they house themselves
Zenimax has their own datacenters in EU and NA that they house themselves
Blizzard has their own
Ubisoft has their own
EA Games has their own
Are you sure about this? The last time that I had checked Blizzard housed their servers in AT&T datacenters in the US. So AT&T is actually the one responsible for the majority of physical maintenance. Blizz does have their own server software that runs on the boxes, but they don't necessarily have an employee sitting there power cycling these machines.
As I said, if you know something I don't, I'd love to hear about it. That's just the last I know of, which is probably a couple years out of date. However, I don't see any reason that they'd set up their own datacenters around the country, and world.
NCSoft has datacenters in EU and NA that they house themselves
Zenimax has their own datacenters in EU and NA that they house themselves
Blizzard has their own
Ubisoft has their own
EA Games has their own
Are you sure about this? The last time that I had checked Blizzard housed their servers in AT&T datacenters in the US. So AT&T is actually the one responsible for the majority of physical maintenance. Blizz does have their own server software that runs on the boxes, but they don't necessarily have an employee sitting there power cycling these machines.
As I said, if you know something I don't, I'd love to hear about it. That's just the last I know of, which is probably a couple years out of date. However, I don't see any reason that they'd set up their own datacenters around the country, and world.
Corrected my post after some more in-depth search.
With a sub game I have "consumer surplus". (google it to understand)
With F2P/B2P cash shop, there is NO consumer surplus.
I am a consumer and like surplus. You should too.
PS. it is a fallacy to think that a handful of "whales" support your F2P experience. That same as it isn't the "whales" that keep Las Vegas in business. But feel free to displace as much as you like.
NCSoft has datacenters in EU and NA that they house themselves
Zenimax has their own datacenters in EU and NA that they house themselves
Blizzard has their own
Ubisoft has their own
EA Games has their own
Are you sure about this? The last time that I had checked Blizzard housed their servers in AT&T datacenters in the US. So AT&T is actually the one responsible for the majority of physical maintenance. Blizz does have their own server software that runs on the boxes, but they don't necessarily have an employee sitting there power cycling these machines.
As I said, if you know something I don't, I'd love to hear about it. That's just the last I know of, which is probably a couple years out of date. However, I don't see any reason that they'd set up their own datacenters around the country, and world.
Corrected my post after some more in-depth search.
Sorry, I think that you're missing the point. If Blizzard isn't managing their own datacenter, it's unlikely that these other companies are. In fact, I'm fairly certain Ubisoft isn't, either. I did a quick internet search and it looks like EA actually uses a company called PlanNet (ooo, that's catchy) for their datacenters. It's really not all that surprising. I mean it's about knowing your strengths. They are not a networking company, they're a game publisher. However, if anyone was to host their own datacenter, I saw it being EA. If they aren't then I doubt anyone would.
With a sub game I have "consumer surplus". (google it to understand)
With F2P/B2P cash shop, there is NO consumer surplus.
I am a consumer and like surplus. You should too.
PS. it is a fallacy to think that a handful of "whales" support your F2P experience. That same as it isn't the "whales" that keep Las Vegas in business. But feel free to displace as much as you like.
If an mmo you wanted to play was f2p or b2p it would generate a higher consumer surplus if you were willing to pay a sub for it.
For example if you are willing to pay $15/month + box price ($60), but it only costs you $60 to buy the game and play it indefinitely there would be a consumer surplus of $15/month.
By your own logic you would be much happier with f2p or b2p, which makes sense since most people like to think they are getting a good deal and not paying a premium for the things they buy.
NCSoft has datacenters in EU and NA that they house themselves
Zenimax has their own datacenters in EU and NA that they house themselves
Blizzard has their own
Ubisoft has their own
EA Games has their own
Are you sure about this? The last time that I had checked Blizzard housed their servers in AT&T datacenters in the US. So AT&T is actually the one responsible for the majority of physical maintenance. Blizz does have their own server software that runs on the boxes, but they don't necessarily have an employee sitting there power cycling these machines.
As I said, if you know something I don't, I'd love to hear about it. That's just the last I know of, which is probably a couple years out of date. However, I don't see any reason that they'd set up their own datacenters around the country, and world.
Corrected my post after some more in-depth search.
Sorry, I think that you're missing the point. If Blizzard isn't managing their own datacenter, it's unlikely that these other companies are. In fact, I'm fairly certain Ubisoft isn't, either. I did a quick internet search and it looks like EA actually uses a company called PlanNet (ooo, that's catchy) for their datacenters. It's really not all that surprising. I mean it's about knowing your strengths. They are not a networking company, they're a game publisher. However, if anyone was to host their own datacenter, I saw it being EA. If they aren't then I doubt anyone would.
With a sub game I have "consumer surplus". (google it to understand)
With F2P/B2P cash shop, there is NO consumer surplus.
I am a consumer and like surplus. You should too.
PS. it is a fallacy to think that a handful of "whales" support your F2P experience. That same as it isn't the "whales" that keep Las Vegas in business. But feel free to displace as much as you like.
If an mmo you wanted to play was f2p or b2p it would generate a higher consumer surplus if you were willing to pay a sub for it.
For example if you are willing to pay $15/month + box price ($60), but it only costs you $60 to buy the game and play it indefinitely there would be a consumer surplus of $15/month.
By your own logic you would be much happier with f2p or b2p, which makes sense since most people like to think they are getting a good deal and not paying a premium for the things they buy.
You are assuming all games are together in the same market. But in fact that is not the case. Sure when you initially choose which game to play they are together, but once inside a game it is a monopoly in that games marketplace. A Perfectly Price Discrimination Monopoly. Where there is no consumer surplus.
You also assume that there is a MMORPG that I would want to play that is F2P/B2P. While many are happy to get "exactly what the pay for", In a market only a very small minority should be getting exactly what they pay for. Those at the intersection of Supply and Demand. Those whose exact willingness to pay matches the market equilibrium. Everyone else who is willing to pay should, receive consumer surplus. Demand is downward slopping after all.
Except in the case of a Perfectly Price Discriminating Monopoly. By breaking up the transactions in to micro-transactions, the game companies are able to make demand flat. Seems great right? Everyone paying exactly what they want for exactly what they want. But that isn't the whole picture. Only the top half. You see Supply still slopes upward. Making everything below the flat demand curve Supplier Surplus.
In a competitive market, Supply slopes up, while Demand slopes down. Where they meet is the price, and market equilibrium. Everything to the left of the intersection is surplus. The consumer gets what is above, the supplier gets what is below the intersection. But if demand is flat the consumer gets none.
TL:DR Take some economics classes. The Game companies have staff that has, Giving them an advantage.
NCSoft has datacenters in EU and NA that they house themselves
Zenimax has their own datacenters in EU and NA that they house themselves
Blizzard has their own
Ubisoft has their own
EA Games has their own
Are you sure about this? The last time that I had checked Blizzard housed their servers in AT&T datacenters in the US. So AT&T is actually the one responsible for the majority of physical maintenance. Blizz does have their own server software that runs on the boxes, but they don't necessarily have an employee sitting there power cycling these machines.
As I said, if you know something I don't, I'd love to hear about it. That's just the last I know of, which is probably a couple years out of date. However, I don't see any reason that they'd set up their own datacenters around the country, and world.
Corrected my post after some more in-depth search.
Sorry, I think that you're missing the point. If Blizzard isn't managing their own datacenter, it's unlikely that these other companies are. In fact, I'm fairly certain Ubisoft isn't, either. I did a quick internet search and it looks like EA actually uses a company called PlanNet (ooo, that's catchy) for their datacenters. It's really not all that surprising. I mean it's about knowing your strengths. They are not a networking company, they're a game publisher. However, if anyone was to host their own datacenter, I saw it being EA. If they aren't then I doubt anyone would.
PlanNet also designs and constructs data centers.
As of December 2013 they are saying EA uses Equinix
It's possible they build their own datacenter in 2014, I suppose, but it's unlikely. Again, there is a big difference between building a datacenter and understanding how to manage that datacenter. You are not a networking company. Why suffer all of the horrible deaths and outages others have, when you could invest in something more mature?
Only very large companies build their own data centers. Examples of this are Google and Amazon. Even banks don't build their own datacenters, but rather lease space from other providers. There is no need for gaming companies to have their own centers, as what they need is a distributed network, and not centralized locations.
As of December 2013 they are saying EA uses Equinix
It's possible they build their own datacenter in 2014, I suppose, but it's unlikely. Again, there is a big difference between building a datacenter and understanding how to manage that datacenter. You are not a networking company. Why suffer all of the horrible deaths and outages others have, when you could invest in something more mature?
I haven't checked but "big" / "diverse" companies could use more than one. Different countries / continents - especially if there have been take-overs etc. may result in more than one. And when you have maybe have SAP, BaaN etc. issues,licences issues and maybe agreements with different partners (IBM, CSC, Microsoft etc.) well the journey towards consolidation can be interesting.
Personally I don't think so. I feel it is the most fair model out there that ensures there are not advantages given in the game (unless they try sub + cash shop). If anything, I think the premium model is one of the most fair (again given no cash shop BS) giving the sub fee as an option giving all the content while paying the subscription otherwise maybe buying each part seperate. DnD Online managed this model extremely well as far as its Subscription and module system, granted its not likely all games can support the same model.
Premium I feel is the best system for F2P to use with cash shop being minimal, ideally focused on cosmetics (and not ALL good cosmetics, leave stuff for in game to earn).
DnD Online managed this model extremely well as far as its Subscription and module system, granted its not likely all games can support the same model.
marvel heroes does this too .. namely the item to be sold are heroes & their costumes.
NCSoft has datacenters in EU and NA that they house themselves
Zenimax has their own datacenters in EU and NA that they house themselves
Blizzard has their own
Ubisoft has their own
EA Games has their own
Are you sure about this? The last time that I had checked Blizzard housed their servers in AT&T datacenters in the US. So AT&T is actually the one responsible for the majority of physical maintenance. Blizz does have their own server software that runs on the boxes, but they don't necessarily have an employee sitting there power cycling these machines.
As I said, if you know something I don't, I'd love to hear about it. That's just the last I know of, which is probably a couple years out of date. However, I don't see any reason that they'd set up their own datacenters around the country, and world.
Corrected my post after some more in-depth search.
Sorry, I think that you're missing the point. If Blizzard isn't managing their own datacenter, it's unlikely that these other companies are. In fact, I'm fairly certain Ubisoft isn't, either. I did a quick internet search and it looks like EA actually uses a company called PlanNet (ooo, that's catchy) for their datacenters. It's really not all that surprising. I mean it's about knowing your strengths. They are not a networking company, they're a game publisher. However, if anyone was to host their own datacenter, I saw it being EA. If they aren't then I doubt anyone would.
PlanNet also designs and constructs data centers.
As of December 2013 they are saying EA uses Equinix
It's possible they build their own datacenter in 2014, I suppose, but it's unlikely. Again, there is a big difference between building a datacenter and understanding how to manage that datacenter. You are not a networking company. Why suffer all of the horrible deaths and outages others have, when you could invest in something more mature?
Server rental is fine as well. In a co-location you pay the electricity bill and every feature that they may or may not have. Server rentals have completely different business models. For example, my company has over 30 servers in Germany, housing all our projects.
The host we use is powered by solar/wind/coal facilities
Once that traffic is sucked out, we pay 1.5 euro per terabyte. Although I'm not sure how that charging works because frankly we've never hit that threshold. And we are rather small company. I'm sure there will be special offers and special treatment for the likes of EA/Ubi/Blizzard/Anyone popular, because when such companies want something, they dont but 1 or 2 servers, they buy them by the hundreds.
Suffice to say, our servers are paying for themselves just by serving ads. Hardware swaps happen for no additional cost (broken ethernet adapter, broken HDD, broken SSD, faulty RAM). All of this is included in the rental fee
The monthly price for all the servers is a little over 3000 euro. And those are servers with 40 gigs of ram each, because as Leon1e earlier explained, some of our software works only in RAM. Even our database clusters use huge RAM pools.
The traffic between servers is not charged. Only the outgoing traffic is.
This is nowhere near the early crazy number of 30k/mo. for networking alone.
Just checked, they offer co-location as well, but prices are double for advanced rack. So ... plenty of room of the aforementioned $30k sum (only for networking as he said) . That's not cloud computing either. Real physical dedicated servers and racks.
NCSoft has datacenters in EU and NA that they house themselves
Zenimax has their own datacenters in EU and NA that they house themselves
Blizzard has their own
Ubisoft has their own
EA Games has their own
Are you sure about this? The last time that I had checked Blizzard housed their servers in AT&T datacenters in the US. So AT&T is actually the one responsible for the majority of physical maintenance. Blizz does have their own server software that runs on the boxes, but they don't necessarily have an employee sitting there power cycling these machines.
As I said, if you know something I don't, I'd love to hear about it. That's just the last I know of, which is probably a couple years out of date. However, I don't see any reason that they'd set up their own datacenters around the country, and world.
Corrected my post after some more in-depth search.
Sorry, I think that you're missing the point. If Blizzard isn't managing their own datacenter, it's unlikely that these other companies are. In fact, I'm fairly certain Ubisoft isn't, either. I did a quick internet search and it looks like EA actually uses a company called PlanNet (ooo, that's catchy) for their datacenters. It's really not all that surprising. I mean it's about knowing your strengths. They are not a networking company, they're a game publisher. However, if anyone was to host their own datacenter, I saw it being EA. If they aren't then I doubt anyone would.
PlanNet also designs and constructs data centers.
As of December 2013 they are saying EA uses Equinix
It's possible they build their own datacenter in 2014, I suppose, but it's unlikely. Again, there is a big difference between building a datacenter and understanding how to manage that datacenter. You are not a networking company. Why suffer all of the horrible deaths and outages others have, when you could invest in something more mature?
This is nowhere near the early crazy number of 30k/mo. for networking alone.
Just checked, they offer co-location as well, but prices are double for advanced rack. So ... plenty of room of the aforementioned $30k sum. That's not cloud computing either. Real physical dedicated servers and racks.
I think I read that Ubisoft was using cloud computing, but can't say 100%
I think I read that Ubisoft was using cloud computing, but can't say 100%
Nothing wrong with cloud computing either. Its even cheaper. Although the hardware is questionable since its a virtualization tech. We already know that specs do not mean performance. In cloud environment you buy specs. Still do, if it works for them, good for them!
Members of a MMO gaming site that are for F2P are no different than people that don't own a Ferrari but demand to be a member of the Ferrari Owner Club.
Originally posted by NorseGod Members of a MMO gaming site that are for F2P are no different than people that don't own a Ferrari but demand to be a member of the Ferrari Owner Club.
There is a key difference.
Players here *can* play f2p games all day ... but unless you shelf out $$$, you are not going to drive a Ferrari every day.
There is no demanding ... f2p games are there for you to play. You don't have to demand.
Recently, I have seen many people in game and on various sites complain about paying a subscription fee.
Since WOW is really the only game that has been subscription based and a huge success over these past 10 years. (Also FFXIV. Over 2 million subs.)
People have always complained about subs.
It's a model that works really well for games that aren't shitty WoW clones. The number of MMOs outside that category in the past 12 years is almost nonexistent.
And no, FF has less than 1 million subs. Hell, all 3 of that company's MMOs ammounts to less than 1 million subs.
Originally posted by NorseGod Members of a MMO gaming site that are for F2P are no different than people that don't own a Ferrari but demand to be a member of the Ferrari Owner Club.
There is a key difference.
Players here *can* play f2p games all day ... but unless you shelf out $$$, you are not going to drive a Ferrari every day.
There is no demanding ... f2p games are there for you to play. You don't have to demand.
Ferrari owners "can" drive a Prius all day.
Most hobbies involve spending your own money and not expecting someone else to pay for you.
In short no. However I do think the subscription model needs to evolve.
The idea that a subscription should cost $15 and allow 1 month (30 days) of access regardless of how much time is actually spent playing the game is outdated. Publishers really need to consider $5 or $10 a month subscriptions, and even the option to pay by the hour.
I am a fan of the Sub model, keeps F2P terrorists away by that I mean those who's only enjoyment seems to be griefing others. Communities based on sub models have generally been much friendly a cooperative, which is kinda of the point of anMMO. I would say that varying sub fee's has a place, particularly for multiple game subs from the same company and I respect of play time. Also a B2P model with cashshop DLC, that way you pay for actual content rather than promised content on sub fee.
I don't have a problem with cosmetic cashshop items, but it never ends there and I won't play P2W, as there's no challenge in it. Why play if there's no challenge?
I am a fan of the Sub model, keeps F2P terrorists away by that I mean those who's only enjoyment seems to be griefing others. Communities based on sub models have generally been much friendly a cooperative, which is kinda of the point of anMMO. I would say that varying sub fee's has a place, particularly for multiple game subs from the same company and I respect of play time. Also a B2P model with cashshop DLC, that way you pay for actual content rather than promised content on sub fee.
I don't have a problem with cosmetic cashshop items, but it never ends there and I won't play P2W, as there's no challenge in it. Why play if there's no challenge?
So, would you say that a game that charges $100 a month to play has a better community than one that only charges $15 a month? It does, after all, keep the lesser invested away... clearly they wouldn't spend so much merely to grief other players... or would they?
The argument that subscriptions keep the near-do-well away is a fallacy. There are just as many asshats with money as there are without.
Originally posted by Phaen I am a fan of the Sub model, keeps F2P terrorists away by that I mean those who's only enjoyment seems to be griefing others. Communities based on sub models have generally been much friendly a cooperative, which is kinda of the point of anMMO. I would say that varying sub fee's has a place, particularly for multiple game subs from the same company and I respect of play time. Also a B2P model with cashshop DLC, that way you pay for actual content rather than promised content on sub fee.I don't have a problem with cosmetic cashshop items, but it never ends there and I won't play P2W, as there's no challenge in it. Why play if there's no challenge?
So, would you say that a game that charges $100 a month to play has a better community than one that only charges $15 a month? It does, after all, keep the lesser invested away... clearly they wouldn't spend so much merely to grief other players... or would they?The argument that subscriptions keep the near-do-well away is a fallacy. There are just as many asshats with money as there are without.
While it is true that asshats are everywhere, it "feels" like the number is less of a percentage when there is money involved
That could be total BS, for sure, but it seems that I run into fewer asshats in MMOs that require some form of monetary output then in MMOs with no "gate to entrance." Maybe it is just the difference in the sheer numbers of players?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Comments
NCSoft has datacenters in EU and NA that they house themselves
Zenimax has their own datacenters in EU and NA that they house themselves
Ubisoft has their own
EA Games has their own
Since when codemasters have MMOs? They have few rally games some of which closed off their multiplayer aspect (Race Driver: GRID), and how popular are they
Yes, co-locations are datacenters, but they are datacenters made to be shared among various clients. Obviously it is going to be more expensive to maintain, given every single client has very specific set of requirements. Also your infrastructure has to be a lot more robust.
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2010/06/16/closer-look-eve-onlines-new-server-cluster/
CCP's EvE runs on its own datacenter. What IBM is doing for them is supplying them with blade servers.
And I'm fairly confident that AT&T is providing networking for WoW, if they still run together.
But yeah, I'm done explained things to self-proclaimed professionals who claim that cosmic rays put hard drives out of order
P.S: My god you "proved" your point with a 10 year old article again. Get real dude ... 10 years in computing is a lifetime.
Are you sure about this? The last time that I had checked Blizzard housed their servers in AT&T datacenters in the US. So AT&T is actually the one responsible for the majority of physical maintenance. Blizz does have their own server software that runs on the boxes, but they don't necessarily have an employee sitting there power cycling these machines.
As I said, if you know something I don't, I'd love to hear about it. That's just the last I know of, which is probably a couple years out of date. However, I don't see any reason that they'd set up their own datacenters around the country, and world.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Corrected my post after some more in-depth search.
With a sub game I have "consumer surplus". (google it to understand)
With F2P/B2P cash shop, there is NO consumer surplus.
I am a consumer and like surplus. You should too.
PS. it is a fallacy to think that a handful of "whales" support your F2P experience. That same as it isn't the "whales" that keep Las Vegas in business. But feel free to displace as much as you like.
Sorry, I think that you're missing the point. If Blizzard isn't managing their own datacenter, it's unlikely that these other companies are. In fact, I'm fairly certain Ubisoft isn't, either. I did a quick internet search and it looks like EA actually uses a company called PlanNet (ooo, that's catchy) for their datacenters. It's really not all that surprising. I mean it's about knowing your strengths. They are not a networking company, they're a game publisher. However, if anyone was to host their own datacenter, I saw it being EA. If they aren't then I doubt anyone would.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
If an mmo you wanted to play was f2p or b2p it would generate a higher consumer surplus if you were willing to pay a sub for it.
For example if you are willing to pay $15/month + box price ($60), but it only costs you $60 to buy the game and play it indefinitely there would be a consumer surplus of $15/month.
By your own logic you would be much happier with f2p or b2p, which makes sense since most people like to think they are getting a good deal and not paying a premium for the things they buy.
PlanNet also designs and constructs data centers.
You are assuming all games are together in the same market. But in fact that is not the case. Sure when you initially choose which game to play they are together, but once inside a game it is a monopoly in that games marketplace. A Perfectly Price Discrimination Monopoly. Where there is no consumer surplus.
You also assume that there is a MMORPG that I would want to play that is F2P/B2P. While many are happy to get "exactly what the pay for", In a market only a very small minority should be getting exactly what they pay for. Those at the intersection of Supply and Demand. Those whose exact willingness to pay matches the market equilibrium. Everyone else who is willing to pay should, receive consumer surplus. Demand is downward slopping after all.
Except in the case of a Perfectly Price Discriminating Monopoly. By breaking up the transactions in to micro-transactions, the game companies are able to make demand flat. Seems great right? Everyone paying exactly what they want for exactly what they want. But that isn't the whole picture. Only the top half. You see Supply still slopes upward. Making everything below the flat demand curve Supplier Surplus.
In a competitive market, Supply slopes up, while Demand slopes down. Where they meet is the price, and market equilibrium. Everything to the left of the intersection is surplus. The consumer gets what is above, the supplier gets what is below the intersection. But if demand is flat the consumer gets none.
TL:DR Take some economics classes. The Game companies have staff that has, Giving them an advantage.
As of December 2013 they are saying EA uses Equinix
It's possible they build their own datacenter in 2014, I suppose, but it's unlikely. Again, there is a big difference between building a datacenter and understanding how to manage that datacenter. You are not a networking company. Why suffer all of the horrible deaths and outages others have, when you could invest in something more mature?
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Only very large companies build their own data centers. Examples of this are Google and Amazon. Even banks don't build their own datacenters, but rather lease space from other providers. There is no need for gaming companies to have their own centers, as what they need is a distributed network, and not centralized locations.
I haven't checked but "big" / "diverse" companies could use more than one. Different countries / continents - especially if there have been take-overs etc. may result in more than one. And when you have maybe have SAP, BaaN etc. issues,licences issues and maybe agreements with different partners (IBM, CSC, Microsoft etc.) well the journey towards consolidation can be interesting.
Personally I don't think so. I feel it is the most fair model out there that ensures there are not advantages given in the game (unless they try sub + cash shop). If anything, I think the premium model is one of the most fair (again given no cash shop BS) giving the sub fee as an option giving all the content while paying the subscription otherwise maybe buying each part seperate. DnD Online managed this model extremely well as far as its Subscription and module system, granted its not likely all games can support the same model.
Premium I feel is the best system for F2P to use with cash shop being minimal, ideally focused on cosmetics (and not ALL good cosmetics, leave stuff for in game to earn).
marvel heroes does this too .. namely the item to be sold are heroes & their costumes.
Server rental is fine as well. In a co-location you pay the electricity bill and every feature that they may or may not have. Server rentals have completely different business models. For example, my company has over 30 servers in Germany, housing all our projects.
The host we use is powered by solar/wind/coal facilities
30 TB traffic for each server @ ;1 GBit/s-Port
Daily backup of each server on their end.
Once that traffic is sucked out, we pay 1.5 euro per terabyte. Although I'm not sure how that charging works because frankly we've never hit that threshold. And we are rather small company. I'm sure there will be special offers and special treatment for the likes of EA/Ubi/Blizzard/Anyone popular, because when such companies want something, they dont but 1 or 2 servers, they buy them by the hundreds.
Suffice to say, our servers are paying for themselves just by serving ads. Hardware swaps happen for no additional cost (broken ethernet adapter, broken HDD, broken SSD, faulty RAM). All of this is included in the rental fee
The monthly price for all the servers is a little over 3000 euro. And those are servers with 40 gigs of ram each, because as Leon1e earlier explained, some of our software works only in RAM. Even our database clusters use huge RAM pools.
The traffic between servers is not charged. Only the outgoing traffic is.
This is nowhere near the early crazy number of 30k/mo. for networking alone.
Just checked, they offer co-location as well, but prices are double for advanced rack. So ... plenty of room of the aforementioned $30k sum (only for networking as he said) . That's not cloud computing either. Real physical dedicated servers and racks.
I think I read that Ubisoft was using cloud computing, but can't say 100%
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Nothing wrong with cloud computing either. Its even cheaper. Although the hardware is questionable since its a virtualization tech. We already know that specs do not mean performance. In cloud environment you buy specs. Still do, if it works for them, good for them!
There is a key difference.
Players here *can* play f2p games all day ... but unless you shelf out $$$, you are not going to drive a Ferrari every day.
There is no demanding ... f2p games are there for you to play. You don't have to demand.
People have always complained about subs.
It's a model that works really well for games that aren't shitty WoW clones. The number of MMOs outside that category in the past 12 years is almost nonexistent.
And no, FF has less than 1 million subs. Hell, all 3 of that company's MMOs ammounts to less than 1 million subs.
i dont have problem with subscription in games. But i hate when the subscriptions defines the access for you into the game ...
i prefer even the so called p2w ArcheAge model than the WoWs subscription ...
Ferrari owners "can" drive a Prius all day.
Most hobbies involve spending your own money and not expecting someone else to pay for you.
In short no. However I do think the subscription model needs to evolve.
The idea that a subscription should cost $15 and allow 1 month (30 days) of access regardless of how much time is actually spent playing the game is outdated. Publishers really need to consider $5 or $10 a month subscriptions, and even the option to pay by the hour.
I am a fan of the Sub model, keeps F2P terrorists away
by that I mean those who's only enjoyment seems to be griefing others. Communities based on sub models have generally been much friendly a cooperative, which is kinda of the point of anMMO. I would say that varying sub fee's has a place, particularly for multiple game subs from the same company and I respect of play time. Also a B2P model with cashshop DLC, that way you pay for actual content rather than promised content on sub fee.
I don't have a problem with cosmetic cashshop items, but it never ends there and I won't play P2W, as there's no challenge in it. Why play if there's no challenge?
So, would you say that a game that charges $100 a month to play has a better community than one that only charges $15 a month? It does, after all, keep the lesser invested away... clearly they wouldn't spend so much merely to grief other players... or would they?
The argument that subscriptions keep the near-do-well away is a fallacy. There are just as many asshats with money as there are without.
That could be total BS, for sure, but it seems that I run into fewer asshats in MMOs that require some form of monetary output then in MMOs with no "gate to entrance." Maybe it is just the difference in the sheer numbers of players?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR