Subscription is so dead that nearly every F2P game jumped on the band wagon years ago and offered some sort of subscription. Subscription is so dead that ESO launched with a subscription when we were told that made no business sense and thrived on it, sure they went B2P but launching as a subscription can work.
Kyleran's example of Runescape is just further proof that subscription is viable, you could even combine it with that time slot thing he talked about, sort of a sub by the hour.
So how did we get to the point where people think Subscription is not viable? Well firstly players like something for free and those who did not care what effect the new F2P revenue model had on gameplay were the majority. Secondly cash shops made a lot of money, the profit when you looked at how much less F2P cost to make than the big sub MMOs before it was obvious.
So the die was cast, subscription was on its way out. It took years for many players to realise that the lack of quality from most free to play was not down to poor developers but the revenue model. You build cheap you get cheap. You build in gambling game play, you are making a casino game, not a MMO. There is kick back against this now, but don't expect major change while the money keeps rolling in.
Keep in mind, the first F2P MMO's were former subscription model MMO's, so that kinda debunks the whole "Made Cheap" stand that some people like say.
Games like TERA for example, it was a Box+Sub game at lunch, and held on to it's sub for roughly a year, before going F2P. It would be dishonest to say that was a cheap quality game suddenly because it transferred to a F2P payment model when it was built as a sub based game.
Just saying.
True, there was an early stage where former sub based MMOs went F2P, but Asian F2P was already out. It took a long time for players to see the effect of F2P on those MMOs because they had a solid start as a subscription MMO. I think the issues with the new western MMOs that launched as F2P were more obvious from the start. You mentioned TERA, I would not say it was cheap quality for those reasons. But for me TERA had the streamlined, cut everything outside of the core build typical of Asian MMOs, but already part of mainstream for Western MMOs by 2012.
If I remember aright, this was one of the main topics on the internut that used to get your goat. Keep taking the tablets, I do, they work wonders.
Subscription is so dead that nearly every F2P game jumped on the band wagon years ago and offered some sort of subscription. Subscription is so dead that ESO launched with a subscription when we were told that made no business sense and thrived on it, sure they went B2P but launching as a subscription can work.
Kyleran's example of Runescape is just further proof that subscription is viable, you could even combine it with that time slot thing he talked about, sort of a sub by the hour.
So how did we get to the point where people think Subscription is not viable? Well firstly players like something for free and those who did not care what effect the new F2P revenue model had on gameplay were the majority. Secondly cash shops made a lot of money, the profit when you looked at how much less F2P cost to make than the big sub MMOs before it was obvious.
So the die was cast, subscription was on its way out. It took years for many players to realise that the lack of quality from most free to play was not down to poor developers but the revenue model. You build cheap you get cheap. You build in gambling game play, you are making a casino game, not a MMO. There is kick back against this now, but don't expect major change while the money keeps rolling in.
Keep in mind, the first F2P MMO's were former subscription model MMO's, so that kinda debunks the whole "Made Cheap" stand that some people like say.
Games like TERA for example, it was a Box+Sub game at lunch, and held on to it's sub for roughly a year, before going F2P. It would be dishonest to say that was a cheap quality game suddenly because it transferred to a F2P payment model when it was built as a sub based game.
Just saying.
True, there was an early stage where former sub based MMOs went F2P, but Asian F2P was already out. It took a long time for players to see the effect of F2P on those MMOs because they had a solid start as a subscription MMO. I think the issues with the new western MMOs that launched as F2P were more obvious from the start. You mentioned TERA, I would not say it was cheap quality for those reasons. But for me TERA had the streamlined, cut everything outside of the core build typical of Asian MMOs, but already part of mainstream for Western MMOs by 2012.
If I remember aright, this was one of the main topics on the internut that used to get your goat. Keep taking the tablets, I do, they work wonders.
LOL, I am trying a new Zen approach on how I deal with people.
I'll see if it works.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
It’s dead to me, thats for sure. I no longer have the desire to put that much effort or money into one game. Plus, I feel the F2P model gives devs more incentive to put out good content in order to deserve my continued support. I can see what I’m getting before I pay, as it should be, imo.
From what I have seen, that "good content" is flashy skins, silly pets, and stupid mounts. I have yet to play a FTP game that is any better than the older subscription models.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
Subscription is so dead that nearly every F2P game jumped on the band wagon years ago and offered some sort of subscription. Subscription is so dead that ESO launched with a subscription when we were told that made no business sense and thrived on it, sure they went B2P but launching as a subscription can work.
Kyleran's example of Runescape is just further proof that subscription is viable, you could even combine it with that time slot thing he talked about, sort of a sub by the hour.
So how did we get to the point where people think Subscription is not viable? Well firstly players like something for free and those who did not care what effect the new F2P revenue model had on gameplay were the majority. Secondly cash shops made a lot of money, the profit when you looked at how much less F2P cost to make than the big sub MMOs before it was obvious.
So the die was cast, subscription was on its way out. It took years for many players to realise that the lack of quality from most free to play was not down to poor developers but the revenue model. You build cheap you get cheap. You build in gambling game play, you are making a casino game, not a MMO. There is kick back against this now, but don't expect major change while the money keeps rolling in.
Keep in mind, the first F2P MMO's were former subscription model MMO's, so that kinda debunks the whole "Made Cheap" stand that some people like say.
Games like TERA for example, it was a Box+Sub game at lunch, and held on to it's sub for roughly a year, before going F2P. It would be dishonest to say that was a cheap quality game suddenly because it transferred to a F2P payment model when it was built as a sub based game.
Just saying.
Actually....the start of the F2P model in online games is attributed to Nexon in 1999 and the model was rapidly adopted by other Korean Developers and used in a host of arguably lower quality MMOS such as Furcadia, Neopets, RuneScape,[13][14]MapleStory, and text-based dungeons such as Achaea, Dreams of Divine Lands.
The F2P conversion model came later on as gamer playing habits rapidly shifted for several reasons with sub numbers falling much more rapidly than earlier in the decade so monetization models shifted to F2P and other alternatives .
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
Do you think there is a correlation with the sub model dying and the decline of MMORPGs? I dont think its the only reason but part of the problem. But again there are many issues. Personally i love cool cosmetics items, mounts, etc. It makes it fun if i can actually acquire them by playing the game instead of buying them off a store which i never buy stuff off a cash shop. Wish we would go back to the sub model.
This has always been something that baffled me.
I hear players talk about how they would spend upwards to, I think the highest I have heard to date was like 30 a month fee to play a game, where they get nothing but access to the game, which they will lose the second they cease to pay their subscription fee.
But If access to the game is given to them for free, even if they are playing and enjoying the game, they won't spend that self same $30 a month for some extra perks to keep the game going.
Never Understood this to be honest, and I don't think I ever will, and I am not sure if I even want to try.
I pay a sub for ffxiv; it's fine when there is plenty to do. No p2w, no BS. Just a standard mmo. I don't even feel like I need to even look at the Mog store. Most mounts and gear can be obtained playing the game; and no I don't feel like I need a $30 motorcycle.
I think it might have something to do with the tactics some games use to make you feel like you need to buy what they sell to enjoy the game properly. Making inventory an issue is always selling point number one. It just feels scammy and why it's harder to part with money.
One thing to me for me to want to pay a sub the game needs to be worthy of being a service. One of the things I think the genre got wrong was making things single player style. It lost the feel of being an online world or worthy of paying service fee to enjoy.
Subscription is so dead that nearly every F2P game jumped on the band wagon years ago and offered some sort of subscription. Subscription is so dead that ESO launched with a subscription when we were told that made no business sense and thrived on it, sure they went B2P but launching as a subscription can work.
Kyleran's example of Runescape is just further proof that subscription is viable, you could even combine it with that time slot thing he talked about, sort of a sub by the hour.
So how did we get to the point where people think Subscription is not viable? Well firstly players like something for free and those who did not care what effect the new F2P revenue model had on gameplay were the majority. Secondly cash shops made a lot of money, the profit when you looked at how much less F2P cost to make than the big sub MMOs before it was obvious.
So the die was cast, subscription was on its way out. It took years for many players to realise that the lack of quality from most free to play was not down to poor developers but the revenue model. You build cheap you get cheap. You build in gambling game play, you are making a casino game, not a MMO. There is kick back against this now, but don't expect major change while the money keeps rolling in.
Keep in mind, the first F2P MMO's were former subscription model MMO's, so that kinda debunks the whole "Made Cheap" stand that some people like say.
Games like TERA for example, it was a Box+Sub game at lunch, and held on to it's sub for roughly a year, before going F2P. It would be dishonest to say that was a cheap quality game suddenly because it transferred to a F2P payment model when it was built as a sub based game.
Just saying.
Actually....the start of the F2P model in online games is attributed to Nexon in 1999 and the model was rapidly adopted by other Korean Developers and used in a host of arguably lower quality MMOS such as Furcadia, Neopets, RuneScape,[13][14]MapleStory, and text-based dungeons such as Achaea, Dreams of Divine Lands.
The F2P conversion model came later on as gamer playing habits rapidly shifted for several reasons with sub numbers falling much more rapidly than earlier in the decade so monetization models shifted to F2P and other alternatives .
I am not going to argue on the legitimacy of MMO's you listed, as I find such an antic often the tools of purulent little children who just want to argue. So, I am not getting into that and just going to move on.
It was actually in 2009, with Turbine's Dungeons and Dragons Online, that western MMO's legitimately tested the waters of F2P, which gave rise to the phrase "The Turbine Model" and made F2P MMO's Mainstream as we know them today.
Personally, I have not seen a drop in quality among the F2P MMO's of vs the formally sub MMO's. Case in point, I didn't find ESO or FFXIV to be any better than BDO or GW2. or even Trove for that matter. All 5 of them where very good quality MMO's that were fully enjoyable. So, there was no distinction as far as I could see between the quality of any of them, and each did a great job for what they seeking to offer.
As such, In the modern MMO landscape, I simply don't see the viability of this argument.
That is not to say there aren't a legion of shoddy Games out there that are free to play, because they want to tag a few suckers, but there were also a lot of shoddy games back when Subs were the thing as well.
Just like with phone games, you find some trash and you find some treasures, and from my sampling, it's not the payment model that determines what you get.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I think it might have something to do with the tactics some games use to make you feel like you need to buy what they sell to enjoy the game properly. Making inventory an issue is always selling point number one. It just feels scammy and why it's harder to part with money.
Inadequate inventory is the poster child for what I call inconvenience by design. Ridiculously low drop rates for mats and huge mats requirements for crafting is another. And then there's the Korean favorite, item upgrades with a chance to break together with cash shop items that improve the odds.
It's why I hate F2P with a passion: it's much more than just another payment model. It's a model where crappy systems don't get fixed as they would be in B2P or sub games because relief from the crap can be sold instead.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I think the bottom line is, if a game is good people will buy it and people will pay to play it... a lot of people. If it's meh or generic, it will be F2P with a cash shop.
Most games today are meh and generic and most games today are F2P.
Subscription is so dead that nearly every F2P game jumped on the band wagon years ago and offered some sort of subscription.
... on top of everything else there, kinda like a cherry on top.
The "original" sense of sub ain't enough for most companies, exactly for the point Al made earlier, the unlimited spending. Very few games remained with sub-only, Wow maybe (but it was always the exception not the rule), and SoL plans to launch with just a sub - but Renfall is pretty silent lately on the development process...
(FF XIV is sub-only beyond the 30 levels of f2p, but it also has a cash shop on top of that)
What you see as kick-back or rebound is nothing more than the cash-in of some potential extra money. "They're whining on the internet how much more they liked the sub? Lol, if that's what they want... let's slap back some sort of a subscription into the game for those players!"
Cryptic is the perfect example of this, with two sub games turned into f2p they had the chance to make their third (Neverwinter) as f2p from scratch, and they did... and later slapped on top a sub-like VIP programme, which in practice doesn't leviate the shop's presense, only takes a monthly fee from those "I'd rather subscribe in my games, boo f2p" players.
(and as a sad irony they've removed the sub option from STO and CO, so right now the only game of their which offers the chance of monthly sub-like pay is the one which was designed as f2p...)
Subscription is so dead that nearly every F2P game jumped on the band wagon years ago and offered some sort of subscription.
... on top of everything else there, kinda like a cherry on top.
The "original" sense of sub ain't enough for most companies, exactly for the point Al made earlier, the unlimited spending. Very few games remained with sub-only, Wow maybe (but it was always the exception not the rule), and SoL plans to launch with just a sub - but Renfall is pretty silent lately on the development process...
(FF XIV is sub-only beyond the 30 levels of f2p, but it also has a cash shop on top of that)
What you see as kick-back or rebound is nothing more than the cash-in of some potential extra money. "They're whining on the internet how much more they liked the sub? Lol, if that's what they want... let's slap back some sort of a subscription into the game for those players!"
Cryptic is the perfect example of this, with two sub games turned into f2p they had the chance to make their third (Neverwinter) as f2p from scratch, and they did... and later slapped on top a sub-like VIP programme, which in practice doesn't leviate the shop's presense, only takes a monthly fee from those "I'd rather subscribe in my games, boo f2p" players.
(and as a sad irony they've removed the sub option from STO and CO, so right now the only game of their which offers the chance of monthly sub-like pay is the one which was designed as f2p...)
The thing about cash shops is you have to offer everything, it is in the nature of their business design even if you never had any intention of offering more than cosmetic outfits. As a subscription was something gamers would buy it was inevitable that something called a "subscription" would become available. How much that operates like a real subscription depends on the game, but typically it seems used to remove some of the inconvenience from the game, which many cash shops are built around.
Would be interesting to see what posters think the business model of a subscription (offered in a F2P MMO they had played) was all about.
Would be interesting to see what posters think the business model of a subscription (offered in a F2P MMO they had played) was all about.
I agree it heavily depends on the game and the actual model.
In my case (I don't mind pay for my games) and continue Cryptic as example, I usually subbed to CO, and it was a nasty blow when they've removed that option. At the same time I never had VIP in Neverwinter, since it doesn't have anything I really need.
Sure, some convenience of it would be great (or even mildly in the p2w category), but I can live without those...
Former sub games usually have more "real" value behind their subscription above the f2p model. Especially those I called earlier in the other thread as sub-heavy models, like SWTOR, EVE, AoC, or the DBG games under All Access.
Personally I used to sub when I'm there, since -by your quoted question- their sub is all about how you "should" play the game, after a point.
More often I just play AoC and DCUO from that group above, the mentioned point comes fairly soon in DCUO, while in AoC is mostly just at the endgame.
What the sub is all about for the rest of formerly subscription-based games, that's more difficult and up to the player's tastes. I used to sub in CO (while I could), but I used to play free in STO. I sub on and off in LotRO and DDO.
From the f2p games with later added sub/sub-like monthly pay, I usually ignore it. Have to add though, I don't have too many personal experiences in this group, besides Neverwinter only Nexon comes to mind (Mabinogi, Maplestory) which I checked for their music systems, and found their sub-like systems lacklusting and kinda pointless.
Would be interesting to see what posters think the business model of a subscription (offered in a F2P MMO they had played) was all about.
Haven't played many MMOs in recent years, but I've paid three subs in online games which also have a F2P or B2P option.
EVE is one, started offering a F2P model which I call the "cripple-ware" model. Sure you can play, but huge numbers of ships and modules are not available to the Omega player.
While theoretically Omega accounts have access to the full "universe" there is just some content which cannot be survived without using higher tier ships / modules which basically blocks players from doing it, even if indirectly.
Even if a player has the necessary skills and owns higher tier ships from their sub days, they can't access any of them unless they go back to Alpha status.
It is really more of a free to try model making it mostly attractive to new joiners and of no interest to me.
If one wishes to play EVE and really enjoy themselves not only will they pay for an Alpha sub account, they'll do so for more than one account.
Second model is FO76, B2P for full access to the entire game world however the Atom shop offers a plethora of store only cosmetics and a few items of convenience which cannot be traded for or otherwise obtained without direct player purchase.
Inventory space has always been extremely limited in FO76, originally set to 400 lbs at launch and while being doubled to 800 lbs now it is no where near enough as most who play would tell you.
The recently added FO1st sub offers some really good benefits one being access to an "unlimited" Scrap box (holds broken down crafting materials only) which is extremely useful, and I'm told is very similar to the one an ESO sub provides.
It has several downsides, the biggest being if you stop paying a sub you lose it. I have no idea if a player who stops their sub can perhaps still access it to only take materials out, access it again if the sub is restarted or if Bethesda just deletes the materials completely.
This of course "encourages" me to keep paying for it until I'm absolutely sure I'm going to walk away from FO76 forever, as I've really got a lot of hard scavenged materials stored in it and of course, no room in the main "stash" box to hold them.
POE uses this same trick as one of its primary drivers to encourage most to purchase more inventory space which many players do, I spent maybe $60 to $80 on such, but at least I had the option to purchase as much or little as I want, and it required no additional monthly sub to keep it.
FO76 does not offer an unlimited inventory option (stash box) because their DB's can't actually handle players having too many different item type in their inventories.
The unlimited crafting box works because it only holds about 25 or so different items and likely has separate DB tables/servers were stood up for them.
Of course, the other sub benefits like private world access, unique 1st only cosmetics and monthly allotment of Atoms also come to an end without paying.
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
Would be interesting to see what posters think the business model of a subscription (offered in a F2P MMO they had played) was all about.
Cash Shop visitation. As far as I know/heard, F2P subscriptions include "cash shop bucks." These bucks bring subscribers into the cash shop to spend their "free bucks" and then start browsing. Soon, they're spending (if lucky).
It's all about "digital foot traffic"
- 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
Would be interesting to see what posters think the business model of a subscription (offered in a F2P MMO they had played) was all about.
Cash Shop visitation. As far as I know/heard, F2P subscriptions include "cash shop bucks." These bucks bring subscribers into the cash shop to spend their "free bucks" and then start browsing. Soon, they're spending (if lucky).
It's all about "digital foot traffic"
A subscription AND cash shop is a big "stay away" sign for me. I will rue the day that the best MMO option is a game that has both and I am "forced" to play it...lol
Former sub games usually have more "real" value behind their subscription above the f2p model. Especially those I called earlier in the other thread as sub-heavy models, like SWTOR, EVE, AoC, or the DBG games under All Access.
Very true and this shows how gaming ethos is so important to a cash shop, if you don't start with one the cash shop is likely to be fairer and less of a cash cow.
FO76 does not offer an unlimited inventory option (stash box) because their DB's can't actually handle players having too many different item type in their inventories.
Cash shop revenue abuse stopped by the soft/hardware not being up to it, Iove it.
Po_gg said: FO76 does not offer an unlimited inventory option (stash box) because their DB's can't actually handle players having too many different item type in their inventories.
Cash shop revenue abuse stopped by the soft/hardware not being up to it, Iove it.
If you think that is funny, you should have seen how much the "Code Limitations" screwed over the DDO cash shop.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
EVE is one, started offering a F2P model which I call the "cripple-ware" model. Sure you can play, but huge numbers of ships and modules are not available to the Omega player. [...] If one wishes to play EVE and really enjoy themselves not only will they pay for an Alpha sub account, they'll do so for more than one account.
I agree, that's why I call EVE's f2p sub-heavy, or just a trial.
One slight correction, Alpha clones are the restricted, free accounts, and Omega clones are the subscribers
Very true and this shows how gaming ethos is so important to a cash shop, if you don't start with one the cash shop is likely to be fairer and less of a cash cow.
Yep, because switched games (started with Turbine) used f2p as a supplementary next to subscription. The intention wasn't to rely mainly on the shop, not even with DDO and that game was already on the brink of cancel... just to bring in players, who will then subscribe when they like the game enough.
Only later, when turned out a ton of people jump on these f2p games, but almost none of them sub for a longer run (either leave, or just use the shop occasionally), started the devs to add more and more items into the shop, and eventually turn it into the main revenue source.
Except those few games I've listed as sub-heavy, which are still basically subscription games, just hides it well (or in DCUO's case not so well, hitting the money cap an hour after the character creation, really? ) and only ask you for sub when you reach a certain point.
In Kyleran's EVE that point is when you cap everything available for Alphas (even the most unnecessary skills) and you want to fly better ships now, or get better stuff - and you learn no microtransaction can help you, just the sub.
I was digging through Reddit looking for armor ideas and came across this gem.
"Yeah I played the game called 'Black Desert Online', but it seems kinda
boring compared to FFXIV. I mean FFXIV has loads of updates and it's
going on pretty well with many activities to do! At first I thought why
would you be paying for playing games monthly.. but now I realized that
FFXIV is worth the pay lol. Thanks bro, I understood the criteria pretty
well because of the good information. "
Even if you don't like the game you gotta admit FFXIV is by no means shallow like BDO.
Would be interesting to see what posters think the business model of a subscription (offered in a F2P MMO they had played) was all about.
Cash Shop visitation. As far as I know/heard, F2P subscriptions include "cash shop bucks." These bucks bring subscribers into the cash shop to spend their "free bucks" and then start browsing. Soon, they're spending (if lucky).
It's all about "digital foot traffic"
A subscription AND cash shop is a big "stay away" sign for me. I will rue the day that the best MMO option is a game that has both and I am "forced" to play it...lol
Agreed, with one major difference. Video games, especially MMORPGs, will never "force me" to play them. Currently, I'm quite entertained by my glut of single player games and MMOs are so far from my mind, I feel no "urge" to jump in any one of them right now.
I get what you're saying, though, where the only way to play an MMO is a double or triple dip option
- 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
The old subscription model is dead, the one where you either paid the sub or the game was entirely inaccessible and that was it, nowadays practically every game that has a sub also a f2p/b2p option or perhaps more accurately the sub is the option, and a cashshop of some description.
Did anyone like paying the Sub? Like enjoyed the idea of spending $130 annually to play a game and knowing they were always and forever going to need to keep paying that to keep playing the game?
I mean, even back in the heyday of the Sub era, there were many that felt that after a time, they should no longer need to keep paying the sub fee.
As I used in above examples of games like WoW. A Loyal player will have spent near $3,000 in sub fees just to play the game, and still need to keep paying the sub to continue playing, and this does not include Expansions packs or the box game.
Personally, I could never go back to that.
Nothing but love for the people that want, I hope you find that perfect game to support.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Comments
If I remember aright, this was one of the main topics on the internut that used to get your goat. Keep taking the tablets, I do, they work wonders.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
I'll see if it works.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
The F2P conversion model came later on as gamer playing habits rapidly shifted for several reasons with sub numbers falling much more rapidly than earlier in the decade so monetization models shifted to F2P and other alternatives .
"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
It was actually in 2009, with Turbine's Dungeons and Dragons Online, that western MMO's legitimately tested the waters of F2P, which gave rise to the phrase "The Turbine Model" and made F2P MMO's Mainstream as we know them today.
Personally, I have not seen a drop in quality among the F2P MMO's of vs the formally sub MMO's. Case in point, I didn't find ESO or FFXIV to be any better than BDO or GW2. or even Trove for that matter. All 5 of them where very good quality MMO's that were fully enjoyable. So, there was no distinction as far as I could see between the quality of any of them, and each did a great job for what they seeking to offer.
As such, In the modern MMO landscape, I simply don't see the viability of this argument.
That is not to say there aren't a legion of shoddy Games out there that are free to play, because they want to tag a few suckers, but there were also a lot of shoddy games back when Subs were the thing as well.
Just like with phone games, you find some trash and you find some treasures, and from my sampling, it's not the payment model that determines what you get.
It's why I hate F2P with a passion: it's much more than just another payment model. It's a model where crappy systems don't get fixed as they would be in B2P or sub games because relief from the crap can be sold instead.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Ok meant as an alternative. Pay to remove ads.
Would be interesting to see what posters think the business model of a subscription (offered in a F2P MMO they had played) was all about.
EVE is one, started offering a F2P model which I call the "cripple-ware" model. Sure you can play, but huge numbers of ships and modules are not available to the Omega player.
While theoretically Omega accounts have access to the full "universe" there is just some content which cannot be survived without using higher tier ships / modules which basically blocks players from doing it, even if indirectly.
Even if a player has the necessary skills and owns higher tier ships from their sub days, they can't access any of them unless they go back to Alpha status.
It is really more of a free to try model making it mostly attractive to new joiners and of no interest to me.
If one wishes to play EVE and really enjoy themselves not only will they pay for an Alpha sub account, they'll do so for more than one account.
Second model is FO76, B2P for full access to the entire game world however the Atom shop offers a plethora of store only cosmetics and a few items of convenience which cannot be traded for or otherwise obtained without direct player purchase.
Inventory space has always been extremely limited in FO76, originally set to 400 lbs at launch and while being doubled to 800 lbs now it is no where near enough as most who play would tell you.
The recently added FO1st sub offers some really good benefits one being access to an "unlimited" Scrap box (holds broken down crafting materials only) which is extremely useful, and I'm told is very similar to the one an ESO sub provides.
It has several downsides, the biggest being if you stop paying a sub you lose it. I have no idea if a player who stops their sub can perhaps still access it to only take materials out, access it again if the sub is restarted or if Bethesda just deletes the materials completely.
This of course "encourages" me to keep paying for it until I'm absolutely sure I'm going to walk away from FO76 forever, as I've really got a lot of hard scavenged materials stored in it and of course, no room in the main "stash" box to hold them.
POE uses this same trick as one of its primary drivers to encourage most to purchase more inventory space which many players do, I spent maybe $60 to $80 on such, but at least I had the option to purchase as much or little as I want, and it required no additional monthly sub to keep it.
FO76 does not offer an unlimited inventory option (stash box) because their DB's can't actually handle players having too many different item type in their inventories.
The unlimited crafting box works because it only holds about 25 or so different items and likely has separate DB tables/servers were stood up for them.
Of course, the other sub benefits like private world access, unique 1st only cosmetics and monthly allotment of Atoms also come to an end without paying.
"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
It's all about "digital foot traffic"
- 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
A subscription AND cash shop is a big "stay away" sign for me. I will rue the day that the best MMO option is a game that has both and I am "forced" to play it...lol
Cash shop revenue abuse stopped by the soft/hardware not being up to it, Iove it.
I get what you're saying, though, where the only way to play an MMO is a double or triple dip option
- 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
Did anyone like paying the Sub? Like enjoyed the idea of spending $130 annually to play a game and knowing they were always and forever going to need to keep paying that to keep playing the game?
I mean, even back in the heyday of the Sub era, there were many that felt that after a time, they should no longer need to keep paying the sub fee.
As I used in above examples of games like WoW. A Loyal player will have spent near $3,000 in sub fees just to play the game, and still need to keep paying the sub to continue playing, and this does not include Expansions packs or the box game.
Personally, I could never go back to that.
Nothing but love for the people that want, I hope you find that perfect game to support.