With a subscription model, it is in the developer's best interest to make the game last as long as possible which means the first priority is NOT to make the game fun. Players are catching on finally.
Ah yes, because not fun = player retention.
The reality there is that even F2P games aim for player retention and do whatever works to keep a player investing. They are openly more harsh about it too at times with the use of xp penalty/boosters and tailoring progression so that it's simply way more convenient to pay to play the game. What stands true as a criticism of P2P in this case is equally applicable to F2P.
Speaking of not fun game monetization strategies, how many F2P games use lockboxes and gambling to increase revenue?
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Sub model how it's is now need to change in the way they do updates or content if not even if free to play just the same with a sub model with out a silly fee. Even if the free to play cost more if people want to rush to end game as fast they can, It's just people like to take there time even with no money or with money. People just end up still enjoy the time in the game, unless they are the endgame rusher need everything now.
Whether a subscription model works for a game or not, is really down to its longevity, if its a good enough game that players are likely to stick around for 6+ months, then a subscription model is ideal. However, if players are not expected to play for more than 3 months, then a B2P or F2P option probably makes more sense, as players are unlikely to baulk at paying out for various cash shop items or commodities in the short term, particularly if the items being bought are effective for the lifetime of the game, that the same players often move to another game after a few months is probably viewed as a good thing as long as the churn rate is high, so is income, for the most part though, the only way to profit from longer term players is to have a multitude of single use/limited duration cash shop items that have some kind of 'necessary' or 'desired' function in the game itself.
With a subscription model, it is in the developer's best interest to make the game last as long as possible which means the first priority is NOT to make the game fun. Players are catching on finally.
Or it could be that gameplay is so shallow and stale, community so far removed you can barely get player to play for free let alone for a fee.
MMORPG have mediocre gameplay, always have. The online play was it's strength which lost its luster and been marginalized. I mean really who wants to play a mediocre single player game with a monthly fee attached?
The "online play" as you put it, has never been worth is, as far as I'm concerned. And that includes the old school MMORPGs.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Because a large section of the player base likes anything with the word "free" in it. Even though F2P MMOs are rigged so you get a poor mans game if you don't pay through the nose at the cash shop.
Many people like the idea they are getting something for free so much it blinds them to the awful elements in what they are playing.
We pay subscription for many other forms of entertainment, but F2P was seen as a revolution when it came out. Many of us realised that it was only going to be a revolution in poor quality and limited gameplay, but it was seen by so many as the march of progress.
For companies it is a tricky one, you need a superior product these days to even charge for the "box", let alone a subscription. And AAA as mentioned elsewhere is a rare beast now.
But MMOs are now about making as much money as you can, every which way. So don't worry, F2P MMOs brought the subscription back. As a form of cash shop status, gold player etc. But there was no disenable increase in the quality of the games. After all cash shops turned MMOs into cash cows. When your designers are spending time working on casino gameplay for the cash shop, you know the ethos of gaming has been shot to hell.
Thanks for the all the great, well thought out answer guys! Does anyone have cohort level retention data for an MMO (or multiple MMOs)? I found this article: https://www.superdataresearch.com/blog/understanding-mmo-retention/ which has overall retention data for free to play MMOs and talks some about differences in cohorts, as they discuss earlier adopters generally being easier to retain. I'd love to see some data for a game that shows retention curves for each monthly cohort.
Took a ‘short break’ from MMORPGs after the initial
excitement about the launch of Ultima Online wore off. Beginning to reacquaint myself with the genre
in anticipation of Chronicles of Elyria (friend code E1E266).
With a subscription model, it is in the developer's best interest to make the game last as long as possible which means the first priority is NOT to make the game fun. Players are catching on finally.
Or it could be that gameplay is so shallow and stale, community so far removed you can barely get player to play for free let alone for a fee.
MMORPG have mediocre gameplay, always have. The online play was it's strength which lost its luster and been marginalized. I mean really who wants to play a mediocre single player game with a monthly fee attached?
The "online play" as you put it, has never been worth is, as far as I'm concerned. And that includes the old school MMORPGs.
The online play with others has always been the strongest reason to play MMORPGs, which is why modern titles are deficient in so many ways.
Another way to look at it is MMORPGs provide the "opportunity" to interact with other players, something single player titles obviously cant do.
The more opportunities a game offers, both good and bad, the better the MMORPG is at succeeding in its primary strength.
Old school titles were superior in this regard, can't be argued, as they included so many interaction points.
Grouping was strongly encouraged and rewarded, game play was slow and laden with forced downtimes which gave players time to text chat during and in between fights.
Long travel times, either together on a boat, or solo giving players time again to chat with their brethern while riding or flying to their destination were key to increasing socialization.
Griefing mechanics were part of it, training (to zone) others, kill tagging/stealing, and others were (perhaps unintentional) interaction mechanics which added to the core gameplay.
LFG/LFR, Auction houses all served to reduce player interactions which certainly made them more convenient, but I don't feel it was worth the tradeoffs.
But those other things aren't "fun" people argue, or I don't want to interact with others.
Too bad, suck it up folks and learn to play these titles the way they were meant to, (referencing the upcoming indie titles, not the crap already out there) or GTFO of the genre please so Devs go back to making MMORPGs the way they were meant to be played.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
F2P is more flexible, has higher spending caps and lower barriers for entry. Its attractive to people with irregular spending habits, because you won't lose access to your game if you didn't want to spend 15 this month, and the choose to spend 30 or 50 the next month.
It is so flexible it offers an easy entrance for massive RMT. Also if you want to try a game,that option should always be there with free trials.
It is like the FREE trial system has completely disappeared because developers are afraid of what we migth see before purchasing the game.Now they are actually charging us to trial unfinished work ,lmao man have times changed for the worse.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
The F2P model is simply stronger. When you choose one of two things, you don't always reject the other option because of a strong dislike of it.
There were an awful lot of forum post complaints back then of subscriptions, during the time of UO and EQ, but looking back I imagine it was the same generic change-fearing that players have with F2P. It's new, so it's disliked ("rock and roll is the devil's music", etc.) So this seems like a non-factor even though I had believed it was legit back at the time.
The biggest factor is F2P simply makes more money. Other factors include things players care about: like getting to try a game before money changes hands, and not being financially obligated to stick with any particular game (which leaves you free to choose your game based on what you want to play, rather than what you're currently subscribed to.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I honestly would love to see if a timed based subscription like in korea would work here.
To explain what that means, it's pretty much instead of paying 15 dollars a month, you pay 15 dollars for xxx amount of hours. Those hours get used only when you are playing and thus people that work long hours or don't have much time to play can use those 15 dollars they spent in a longer time span.
I'm sure some companies would obviously try to be greedy but I believe a system like this if done fairly, it could work.
Companies dont like the Sub Model because they can get foolish people to throw money they dont have at a game. Because of that Companies instead of making a good game that people will pay a sub for but will have a lower margin in the profit will make the game F2P because foolish people think its better yet will spend way more than they ever spend in a sub based game.
Depends on the side you're sitting on. Subscriptions offer a bit more stability in terms of profit for the company, but cash shops and microtransactions are what most players are clamoring for . Players, like the lure of optional payout of cash is a draw for many. How often have you heard 'I won't play a game if I have to pay anything' Unfortunately, with the large amount of freeloaders... ummmm.... frugal, cash shops and microtransaction prices will reflect the requirement for profit.
The F2P model is simply stronger. When you choose one of two things, you don't always reject the other option because of a strong dislike of it.
There were an awful lot of forum post complaints back then of subscriptions, during the time of UO and EQ, but looking back I imagine it was the same generic change-fearing that players have with F2P. It's new, so it's disliked ("rock and roll is the devil's music", etc.) So this seems like a non-factor even though I had believed it was legit back at the time.
The biggest factor is F2P simply makes more money. Other factors include things players care about: like getting to try a game before money changes hands, and not being financially obligated to stick with any particular game (which leaves you free to choose your game based on what you want to play, rather than what you're currently subscribed to.)
F2P does not make more money. But it created a business climate in which it became more difficult to make money unless you were F2P. Its was like having cheap car insurance launch, which when you need it turns out to be rather poor, but it is hard to sell more expensive insurance after that.
You are right about the concerns that were raised right back in the day. But it started more in the immediate post WoW era, not sure there were that many F2P MMOs until then. And for so many of us they have been born out.
The top ten MMOs by revenue 2014 are mostly subscription, or were subscription and became Sub/F2P hybrids. The data confirms that subscription revenue is in decline but I would suggest it has become impossible to say to what extent. For example, if you are a gold subscription member in a MMO, how many extra cash shop items are you buying? In other words of all the revue generated in a cash shop how much is additional purchases from subscribers?
So while I accept that up to the point subscriptions became part of the cash shop they were a falling proportion. Once you have subscriptions in cash shops the situation becomes so blurred it is hard to tell what is happening.
Companies prefer F2P over subs because it nets them more revenue, specially if the game is bad. A small yet extremely vocal minority of gamers also support F2P because either they can't afford monthly subs (jobless or too young to have a CC) or they like to play 15 MMOs at the same time and can't afford all that subscription money for games they only play 30 mins a month. I think most adults who know what they're talking about agree that sub w/o cash shop is the fairest, most transparent payment model...but one that requires a game to be good in order to last, unlike with the F2P model where any turd with cash shop shinies will guarantee at least some return....Because you'll always have "whales" who need to express their financial domination over the "scrubs" and "freeloaders" by spending truckloads of cash on P2W items.
As for the adults who condone cash shops because their job + family life doesn't allow them to be competitive anymore, I say go find another hobby. MMOs are no longer for you. Supporting the corruption of an entire genre just so you can keep enjoying it is very selfish.
Companies dont like the Sub Model because they can get foolish people to throw money they dont have at a game. Because of that Companies instead of making a good game that people will pay a sub for but will have a lower margin in the profit will make the game F2P because foolish people think its better yet will spend way more than they ever spend in a sub based game.
Don't think many companies don't like sub model. It's sub model can be good or bad it's just sub model need to have a high standard. People in general hold up to a company to a another company the way they are doing things mostly never work out.
Is why most company will end up going F2P or B2P, it takes away that gate from stopping someone logging in to check out any new content.
People do end up spending more on free to play, and they are people that spend more on sub game with all the small fee. That people don't like to talk about the dark part of sub model as dark as free to play is they always a small catch to get people to spend more money out side that $15 fee and the box cost.
F2P does not make more money. But it created a business climate in which it became more difficult to make money unless you were F2P. Its was like having cheap car insurance launch, which when you need it turns out to be rather poor, but it is hard to sell more expensive insurance after that.
You are right about the concerns that were raised right back in the day. But it started more in the immediate post WoW era, not sure there were that many F2P MMOs until then. And for so many of us they have been born out.
The top ten MMOs by revenue 2014 are mostly subscription, or were subscription and became Sub/F2P hybrids. The data confirms that subscription revenue is in decline but I would suggest it has become impossible to say to what extent. For example, if you are a gold subscription member in a MMO, how many extra cash shop items are you buying? In other words of all the revue generated in a cash shop how much is additional purchases from subscribers?
So while I accept that up to the point subscriptions became part of the cash shop they were a falling proportion. Once you have subscriptions in cash shops the situation becomes so blurred it is hard to tell what is happening.
No, F2P makes more money. Games posted 200%-500% more revenue after switching. (Which is an apples to apples comparison, and not the fallacious "WOW makes the most so F2P isn't best" argument you're presenting. If WOW had been F2P it'd have made a lot more money.)
The concerns I referred to were complaints about subscription games which started in the UO era and were at their loudest in the EQ era. It's possible you weren't paying attention to what general gamers were saying back then, but on general gaming forums it was a frequent complaint anytime EQ was mentioned.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The concerns I referred to were complaints about subscription games which started in the UO era and were at their loudest in the EQ era. It's possible you weren't paying attention to what general gamers were saying back then, but on general gaming forums it was a frequent complaint anytime EQ was mentioned.
Ah, you mean in the era when there wasn't another large monetization model to complain about.
Of course they'd be at their loudest when it's the only thing to yell about. Nothing magical about that revelation.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
F2P does not make more money. But it created a business climate in which it became more difficult to make money unless you were F2P. Its was like having cheap car insurance launch, which when you need it turns out to be rather poor, but it is hard to sell more expensive insurance after that.
You are right about the concerns that were raised right back in the day. But it started more in the immediate post WoW era, not sure there were that many F2P MMOs until then. And for so many of us they have been born out.
The top ten MMOs by revenue 2014 are mostly subscription, or were subscription and became Sub/F2P hybrids. The data confirms that subscription revenue is in decline but I would suggest it has become impossible to say to what extent. For example, if you are a gold subscription member in a MMO, how many extra cash shop items are you buying? In other words of all the revue generated in a cash shop how much is additional purchases from subscribers?
So while I accept that up to the point subscriptions became part of the cash shop they were a falling proportion. Once you have subscriptions in cash shops the situation becomes so blurred it is hard to tell what is happening.
No, F2P makes more money. Games posted 200%-500% more revenue after switching. (Which is an apples to apples comparison, and not the fallacious "WOW makes the most so F2P isn't best" argument you're presenting. If WOW had been F2P it'd have made a lot more money.)
The concerns I referred to were complaints about subscription games which started in the UO era and were at their loudest in the EQ era. It's possible you weren't paying attention to what general gamers were saying back then, but on general gaming forums it was a frequent complaint anytime EQ was mentioned.
Yeah but most games that go F2P are struggling. If F2P makes them 200% more money isnt exactly saying much if their bottom line was really low. Or your game already very successful and opening a flood gate to greed like WOW and STWOR.
F2P does not make more money. But it created a business climate in which it became more difficult to make money unless you were F2P. Its was like having cheap car insurance launch, which when you need it turns out to be rather poor, but it is hard to sell more expensive insurance after that.
You are right about the concerns that were raised right back in the day. But it started more in the immediate post WoW era, not sure there were that many F2P MMOs until then. And for so many of us they have been born out.
The top ten MMOs by revenue 2014 are mostly subscription, or were subscription and became Sub/F2P hybrids. The data confirms that subscription revenue is in decline but I would suggest it has become impossible to say to what extent. For example, if you are a gold subscription member in a MMO, how many extra cash shop items are you buying? In other words of all the revue generated in a cash shop how much is additional purchases from subscribers?
So while I accept that up to the point subscriptions became part of the cash shop they were a falling proportion. Once you have subscriptions in cash shops the situation becomes so blurred it is hard to tell what is happening.
No, F2P makes more money. Games posted 200%-500% more revenue after switching. (Which is an apples to apples comparison, and not the fallacious "WOW makes the most so F2P isn't best" argument you're presenting. If WOW had been F2P it'd have made a lot more money.)
The concerns I referred to were complaints about subscription games which started in the UO era and were at their loudest in the EQ era. It's possible you weren't paying attention to what general gamers were saying back then, but on general gaming forums it was a frequent complaint anytime EQ was mentioned.
Yeah but most games that go F2P are struggling. If F2P makes them 200% more money isnt exactly saying much if their bottom line was really low. Or your game already very successful and opening a flood gate to greed like WOW and STWOR.
Those big increases in revenue are for the period right after the switch; then it's usually all hush hush from there.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
"About 5% of the players are willing to spend enormous amounts of money. A
flat subscription (or even a tiered one) forces those big spenders into
spending a lot less than they would. It is often more manageable to
have 10 people spending $1000 a month, than 1000 people spending $10 a
month."
This.
In my software business, a $2 billion a year company, 80% of the revenue comes from a small minority of customers, perhaps 10-12 big spenders. Another 10% comes from mid-range customers, maybe 50 or so. And the other 10% comes from the thousands of remaining small customers.
Supporting a small number of whales is a lot more profitable than getting a penny from a million minnows.
so in a $2,000,000,000 / year company 80% or $1,600,000,000 is spent by a dozen people or $133,333,333 per "whale" ?
I know that if I had an extra 133 million of throwing around money that I would be spending it in a video game instead of actually having fun with flying around in my own personal jet, or taking out the yacht for a cruise with the family. I'm sure that I would be sitting around in my basement playing some videogame trying desperately to find that rare dungeon helm of Dumphuqueri. Because that is what the uber-rich do.
I work in the IC CAD field, for a major CAD software company. Customers are companies like Intel, IBM, Samsung, etc. 80% of our revenue comes from 10-15 companies.
I think it is similar in the gaming business, a few whales provide as much revenue as many many minnows.
As long as my 15 a month gets me everything the game offers I have no problem paying the sub and also don't care about shops in game. I do care about P2W, that shouldn't be something the game should sell.
Now the worse F2P game that takes it too far is LOTRO. Great game but they try and get players to sub and still have to use store for certain things. If I sub no matter what it is I should be able to get it in game with gold or quests. For example Stone of the Tortoise, I would rather not get Turbine points and not need Mithril coins for things. I like SWTOR F2P a lot more than LOTRO. They respect the monthly sub and right now they look like they want to return to the monthly sub for the newer content.
Supporting a small number of whales is a lot more profitable than getting a penny from a million minnows.
This is why i stopped supporting free games monetarily. If i pay X amount of money and then the whales decide to move on to another game, it shuts down and i effectively wasted my money. Not going to happen.
It is unfortunate how these things work. We wouldn't be going through all this if the F2P model wasn't based on exploitation, or just didn't exist at all.
As for the subscription model on topic, as good as it may sound, if i purchase a game i expect to play whenever i want to play. I would be ok paying monthly to access a game if there was no box price. That would make sense. Paying for a product and not being able to use it unless i keep paying does not make sense.
Supporting a small number of whales is a lot more profitable than getting a penny from a million minnows.
This is why i stopped supporting free games monetarily. If i pay X amount of money and then the whales decide to move on to another game, it shuts down and i effectively wasted my money. Not going to happen.
It is unfortunate how these things work. We wouldn't be going through all this if the F2P model wasn't based on exploitation, or just didn't exist at all.
As for the subscription model on topic, as good as it may sound, if i purchase a game i expect to play whenever i want to play. I would be ok paying monthly to access a game if there was no box price. That would make sense. Paying for a product and not being able to use it unless i keep paying does not make sense.
The other way to look at it is, you get to play a game that was developed and paid for by a few "whales". You are getting the benefit of their spending.
Comments
The reality there is that even F2P games aim for player retention and do whatever works to keep a player investing. They are openly more harsh about it too at times with the use of xp penalty/boosters and tailoring progression so that it's simply way more convenient to pay to play the game. What stands true as a criticism of P2P in this case is equally applicable to F2P.
Speaking of not fun game monetization strategies, how many F2P games use lockboxes and gambling to increase revenue?
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
However, if players are not expected to play for more than 3 months, then a B2P or F2P option probably makes more sense, as players are unlikely to baulk at paying out for various cash shop items or commodities in the short term, particularly if the items being bought are effective for the lifetime of the game, that the same players often move to another game after a few months is probably viewed as a good thing as long as the churn rate is high, so is income, for the most part though, the only way to profit from longer term players is to have a multitude of single use/limited duration cash shop items that have some kind of 'necessary' or 'desired' function in the game itself.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Because a large section of the player base likes anything with the word "free" in it. Even though F2P MMOs are rigged so you get a poor mans game if you don't pay through the nose at the cash shop.
Many people like the idea they are getting something for free so much it blinds them to the awful elements in what they are playing.
We pay subscription for many other forms of entertainment, but F2P was seen as a revolution when it came out. Many of us realised that it was only going to be a revolution in poor quality and limited gameplay, but it was seen by so many as the march of progress.
For companies it is a tricky one, you need a superior product these days to even charge for the "box", let alone a subscription. And AAA as mentioned elsewhere is a rare beast now.
But MMOs are now about making as much money as you can, every which way. So don't worry, F2P MMOs brought the subscription back. As a form of cash shop status, gold player etc. But there was no disenable increase in the quality of the games. After all cash shops turned MMOs into cash cows. When your designers are spending time working on casino gameplay for the cash shop, you know the ethos of gaming has been shot to hell.
Took a ‘short break’ from MMORPGs after the initial excitement about the launch of Ultima Online wore off. Beginning to reacquaint myself with the genre in anticipation of Chronicles of Elyria (friend code E1E266).
Another way to look at it is MMORPGs provide the "opportunity" to interact with other players, something single player titles obviously cant do.
The more opportunities a game offers, both good and bad, the better the MMORPG is at succeeding in its primary strength.
Old school titles were superior in this regard, can't be argued, as they included so many interaction points.
Grouping was strongly encouraged and rewarded, game play was slow and laden with forced downtimes which gave players time to text chat during and in between fights.
Long travel times, either together on a boat, or solo giving players time again to chat with their brethern while riding or flying to their destination were key to increasing socialization.
Griefing mechanics were part of it, training (to zone) others, kill tagging/stealing, and others were (perhaps unintentional) interaction mechanics which added to the core gameplay.
LFG/LFR, Auction houses all served to reduce player interactions which certainly made them more convenient, but I don't feel it was worth the tradeoffs.
But those other things aren't "fun" people argue, or I don't want to interact with others.
Too bad, suck it up folks and learn to play these titles the way they were meant to, (referencing the upcoming indie titles, not the crap already out there) or GTFO of the genre please so Devs go back to making MMORPGs the way they were meant to be played.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Also if you want to try a game,that option should always be there with free trials.
It is like the FREE trial system has completely disappeared because developers are afraid of what we migth see before purchasing the game.Now they are actually charging us to trial unfinished work ,lmao man have times changed for the worse.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
There were an awful lot of forum post complaints back then of subscriptions, during the time of UO and EQ, but looking back I imagine it was the same generic change-fearing that players have with F2P. It's new, so it's disliked ("rock and roll is the devil's music", etc.) So this seems like a non-factor even though I had believed it was legit back at the time.
The biggest factor is F2P simply makes more money. Other factors include things players care about: like getting to try a game before money changes hands, and not being financially obligated to stick with any particular game (which leaves you free to choose your game based on what you want to play, rather than what you're currently subscribed to.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
To explain what that means, it's pretty much instead of paying 15 dollars a month, you pay 15 dollars for xxx amount of hours. Those hours get used only when you are playing and thus people that work long hours or don't have much time to play can use those 15 dollars they spent in a longer time span.
I'm sure some companies would obviously try to be greedy but I believe a system like this if done fairly, it could work.
I self identify as a monkey.
F2P does not make more money. But it created a business climate in which it became more difficult to make money unless you were F2P. Its was like having cheap car insurance launch, which when you need it turns out to be rather poor, but it is hard to sell more expensive insurance after that.
You are right about the concerns that were raised right back in the day. But it started more in the immediate post WoW era, not sure there were that many F2P MMOs until then. And for so many of us they have been born out.
The top ten MMOs by revenue 2014 are mostly subscription, or were subscription and became Sub/F2P hybrids. The data confirms that subscription revenue is in decline but I would suggest it has become impossible to say to what extent. For example, if you are a gold subscription member in a MMO, how many extra cash shop items are you buying? In other words of all the revue generated in a cash shop how much is additional purchases from subscribers?
So while I accept that up to the point subscriptions became part of the cash shop they were a falling proportion. Once you have subscriptions in cash shops the situation becomes so blurred it is hard to tell what is happening.
http://www.polygon.com/2014/7/20/5920815/list-of-mmos-by-revenue-warcraft-old-republic
A small yet extremely vocal minority of gamers also support F2P because either they can't afford monthly subs (jobless or too young to have a CC) or they like to play 15 MMOs at the same time and can't afford all that subscription money for games they only play 30 mins a month.
I think most adults who know what they're talking about agree that sub w/o cash shop is the fairest, most transparent payment model...but one that requires a game to be good in order to last, unlike with the F2P model where any turd with cash shop shinies will guarantee at least some return....Because you'll always have "whales" who need to express their financial domination over the "scrubs" and "freeloaders" by spending truckloads of cash on P2W items.
As for the adults who condone cash shops because their job + family life doesn't allow them to be competitive anymore, I say go find another hobby. MMOs are no longer for you.
Supporting the corruption of an entire genre just so you can keep enjoying it is very selfish.
Is why most company will end up going F2P or B2P, it takes away that gate from stopping someone logging in to check out any new content.
People do end up spending more on free to play, and they are people that spend more on sub game with all the small fee. That people don't like to talk about the dark part of sub model as dark as free to play is they always a small catch to get people to spend more money out side that $15 fee and the box cost.
The concerns I referred to were complaints about subscription games which started in the UO era and were at their loudest in the EQ era. It's possible you weren't paying attention to what general gamers were saying back then, but on general gaming forums it was a frequent complaint anytime EQ was mentioned.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Of course they'd be at their loudest when it's the only thing to yell about. Nothing magical about that revelation.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I think it is similar in the gaming business, a few whales provide as much revenue as many many minnows.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
Now the worse F2P game that takes it too far is LOTRO. Great game but they try and get players to sub and still have to use store for certain things. If I sub no matter what it is I should be able to get it in game with gold or quests. For example Stone of the Tortoise, I would rather not get Turbine points and not need Mithril coins for things. I like SWTOR F2P a lot more than LOTRO. They respect the monthly sub and right now they look like they want to return to the monthly sub for the newer content.
Star Citizen – The Extinction Level Event
4/13/15 > ELE has been updated look for 16-04-13.
http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/04/star-citizen-the-ele/
Enjoy and know the truth always comes to light!
It is unfortunate how these things work. We wouldn't be going through all this if the F2P model wasn't based on exploitation, or just didn't exist at all.
As for the subscription model on topic, as good as it may sound, if i purchase a game i expect to play whenever i want to play. I would be ok paying monthly to access a game if there was no box price. That would make sense. Paying for a product and not being able to use it unless i keep paying does not make sense.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.