I like ESO's sub fee. You get some nice perks + access to all DLC content and cash shop crowns to spend in the cash shop. I'm old school and I want to have access to everything for my sub and I get that with ESO. But servers are getting so cheap that they are just a foot note on quality reports. So IMO sub fees should be about the $15 buck range.
I like ESO's sub fee. You get some nice perks + access to all DLC content and cash shop crowns to spend in the cash shop. I'm old school and I want to have access to everything for my sub and I get that with ESO. But servers are getting so cheap that they are just a foot note on quality reports. So IMO sub fees should be about the $15 buck range.
You are old school, but then use a mainstream game with a cash shop as an example for a good model? I am a bit confused with your position here.
In my opinion, what has killed most games today is that they have monetized game play. What used to be a requirement of play to progress, excel, and advance has now become a marketable means for play. Modern games are making money on essentially allowing people to cheat game play. From exp potions, mounts and gear, people are paying money for digital advancement, a concept in the early days of MMOs which earned people the label of "idiot" as no reasonable person could see the logic in "buying" their progression in game play (ie why play a game if the person is just going to cheat it?).
We now have had decades of "acceptance" of this form of cheating, to which it is not only widely done, but actually considered a normal form of play.
Pretty soon, people will simply log in and the game will just play itself while they do something else! Oh wait, they already do. Brilliant! /facepalm
Anyway, the only viable model is one that does not trade game play advancement for money. This is why subs tend to be the best model for someone making a game, but if one is looking to make a gimmick casino type cash grab for the bored an inept, well... F2P with cash shops is certainly the way to go, it is very popular on all the mobile games.
I like ESO's sub fee. You get some nice perks + access to all DLC content and cash shop crowns to spend in the cash shop. I'm old school and I want to have access to everything for my sub and I get that with ESO.
We used to get that with ESO with their original post mandatory sub model. But then they went and screwed it up by trying to pass off one DLC per year as something else, a "chapter," and that was the end of the all-inclusive sub.
If they had instead done honest to goodness expansions every 2 or 3 years, that would have remained "old school" but they didn't. They opted for these yearly paid chapters that are no bigger and no better than the DLC (Orsinium, Imperial City, etc.) that used to be fully included with the sub.
"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 like ESO's sub fee. You get some nice perks + access to all DLC content and cash shop crowns to spend in the cash shop. I'm old school and I want to have access to everything for my sub and I get that with ESO.
We used to get that with ESO with their original post mandatory sub model. But then they went and screwed it up by trying to pass off one DLC per year as something else, a "chapter," and that was the end of the all-inclusive sub.
If they had instead done honest to goodness expansions every 2 or 3 years, that would have remained "old school" but they didn't. They opted for these yearly paid chapters that are no bigger and no better than the DLC (Orsinium, Imperial City, etc.) that used to be fully included with the sub.
EQ used to provide a full expansion around 6-12 months a year. They were often full featured with numerous content.
I don't know much about ESO as I thought it was a stupid cash grab the moment I beta tested it before release, so I don't know much about its DLC content other than to know that Bethesda has been screwing over its customers since the release of their cash shop around Morrowind (Horse Armor anyone?).
So, I do understand if the DLCs were nothing more than just a small sale point and did not have any real content, but the speed at which content is released is not the measure to which content is considered worthy. DLCs have always tended to be sub par, content light cash grabs since their inception, often referred as content that was not able to be put into release, and so sold as an "addition" to sucker the low IQ.
It is only due to the fact that people today are brain dead consumers and pay more for less that such tactics have become accepted among the inept masses of mainstream, but as I said, "time" to release content isn't a means to judge quality. Blizzard was horrible for sitting on their product for 2 years before releasing, not because they were making solid content, but because all the talent left their MMO at release and so only half wit, no talent morons were left to produce content at the pace of mentally handicap trying to figure out how a remote control works.
I'm sorry, but my first name isnt Dagobert and my last one isnt Duck. I'm not actually swimming in money.
Even if I was - I want as many other players in the game as possible, and not block out certain people because they're poor.
Long story short:
A new games cost $60, tops.
If I pay $10, I effectively buy a new game from them every 6 months.
If I pay $15, I effectively buy a new game from them ever 4 months.
If I pay $20, I effectively buy a new game from them every 3 months.
And that ignores extras like having to pay for addons, AND the initial cost, which will be the same as for a full game, I'm sure.
But a good offline game can already keep me busy for 3 months. Not to mention I might return to playing said game in future, again for 3 months.
Thus the only way I can see myself paying more than $20 is if:
1. The game is really good, so good I dont rather crave that offline game. After all, that offline game will be a completely new game every three months, while any changes to the online game will always be minimal in comparison.
2. I effectively get the advantages of having two separate accounts. Thus I get a generous number of character slots (at least equal to the number of available classes) and I can login any two characters at the same time.
3. Much like in Vanguard, everyone plays in the same environment, thus there arent addons.
Comments
If they had instead done honest to goodness expansions every 2 or 3 years, that would have remained "old school" but they didn't. They opted for these yearly paid chapters that are no bigger and no better than the DLC (Orsinium, Imperial City, etc.) that used to be fully included with the sub.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
A new games cost $60, tops.
If I pay $20, I effectively buy a new game from them every 3 months.