Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

EA officially determines sub based games are dead.

1246711

Comments

  • grimalgrimal Member UncommonPosts: 2,935
    One of the reasons for the P2P model was due to the newness of the technology.  The WWW just became mainstream, online gaming was just starting.  We're almost twenty years since that time.  The model wasn't going to last indefinitely.
  • grimalgrimal Member UncommonPosts: 2,935
    Originally posted by ForumPvP

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_Kesmai

     

    Price to play

    The game was available on CompuServe for no additional charge. However, CompuServe cost $6 per hour for 300 baud or $12 per hour for 1200 baud access rates. The game processed one command every 10 seconds, which equates to 1? cents per command.

    --------------------------------------------------------------

    just saying that people are ready to pay anything if they feel that product is good,by the way theres something interesting at the end "In 1999 Electronic Arts bought Kesmai and in 2000 closed the business.[1][3]"

    That reminds me.  Back in the days of dial-up modems, chat rooms (not triple XXX, just chat) used to cost extra to participate in.   I think it came to like $.60 per minute.  Now this feature is so ingrained in so many applications, it's hard to think of paying for it.

  • Creslin321Creslin321 Member Posts: 5,359
    Originally posted by grimal
    Originally posted by Creslin321

     I see it a different way.

    I believe that when you have a product, but there exists a similar, but superior product already on the market...then you have to lower the price of your product to compete.  So in my mind, F2P games are successful because they have done this.  WoW is viewed as the superior product, so all other games get relegated to the bargain bin (F2P).

    So basically, I think WoW has everything to do with the "sub model being dead" for other games.  It's not that the sub model is dead...it's just that hardly any of them are good/different enough to compete directly with WoW, so they have to lower their price to survive.

    You are going with the assumption WoW is a superior product to any other MMO.  This is where the basis of your argument lies.  I don't assume that.

     Whatever you or I personally think is immaterial.  The vast majority of the market clearly thinks WoW is the superior product because they choose to spend their money there as opposed to in other games.

    Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?

  • desirieldesiriel Member Posts: 98

     

    So why are EvE players still paying a monthly sub ? or even WoW ?

    Maybe, just maybe, they're quality products and people are just getting tired to be milked of their money for unfinished, buggy, boring, cloned games after years of failures and unfulfilled hype.

    But I'm just a dilettante: SWTOR's problems are related to its revenue model for sure...

  • NephaeriusNephaerius Member UncommonPosts: 1,671
    Originally posted by desiriel

     

    So why are EvE players still paying a monthly sub ? or even WoW ?

    Maybe, just maybe, they're quality products and people are just getting tired to be milked of their money for unfinished, buggy, boring, cloned games after years of failures and unfulfilled hype.

    But I'm just a dilettante: SWTOR's problems are related to its revenue model for sure...

    I'll say this again.  Eve and WoW are both established titles that launched when subs were completely acceptable and expected.  At this point their playerbase has almost 10 years invested.  Their core players are not going to go any where ever.  CCP also clearly indicated they would like to move Eve F2P last year with the whole monocle gate disaster.

    Furthermore, WoW is tied to a ridiculously famous IP.

    Eve offers a singular experience that cannot be found any place else.

    Current CCP and Blizzard MMO titles in development are all rumored to be F2P.  It also has a built in F2P model through the PLEX system.  This can allow some players to play without spending money.  Of course all PLEX has to originate from somewhere.

    Also, let's not forget how Vivendi tried to shed itself of Activision/Blizzard.  Or how their subs have dropped by over 3 million in the last year or two.  I also did not see a rise of 3 million subs elsewhere in the MMO space.  Where did they all go?  Maybe WoW subs indicate players that are willing to pay a sub for a Warcraft MMO.  Not players that are willing to pay subs for any MMO.

    Steam: Neph

  • lifeordinarylifeordinary Member Posts: 646
    Originally posted by Creslin321

    Denial.

    SWTOR couldn't have possibly failed because it wasn't a very good game...it HAD to be the business model, that's the ticket!

    If the sub model were dead, WoW would not still have like 8 million active players.

    Tip for you. if you want to give an example to prove your point make sure to mention norm not exception. WOW is an anomaly of MMO world.

  • Creslin321Creslin321 Member Posts: 5,359
    Originally posted by lifeordinary
    Originally posted by Creslin321

    Denial.

    SWTOR couldn't have possibly failed because it wasn't a very good game...it HAD to be the business model, that's the ticket!

    If the sub model were dead, WoW would not still have like 8 million active players.

    Tip for you. if you want to give an example to prove your point make sure to mention norm not exception. WOW is an anomaly of MMO world.

     Just like how Microsoft is the anomoly of the computer operating system world and must be ignored whenever you talk about computer operating systems.

    Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?

  • lifeordinarylifeordinary Member Posts: 646
    Originally posted by Creslin321
    Originally posted by lifeordinary
    Originally posted by Creslin321

    Denial.

    SWTOR couldn't have possibly failed because it wasn't a very good game...it HAD to be the business model, that's the ticket!

    If the sub model were dead, WoW would not still have like 8 million active players.

    Tip for you. if you want to give an example to prove your point make sure to mention norm not exception. WOW is an anomaly of MMO world.

     Just like how Microsoft is the anomoly of the computer operating system world and must be ignored whenever you talk about computer operating systems.

    Wow...really? comparing Microsoft with WOW to prove your point? 

    /facepalm

  • grimalgrimal Member UncommonPosts: 2,935
    Originally posted by Creslin321
     

     Just like how Microsoft is the anomoly of the computer operating system world and must be ignored whenever you talk about computer operating systems.

    And by your logic, everyone using WIndows does so because they truly believe it to be the superior product.

  • tiefighter25tiefighter25 Member Posts: 937
    Originally posted by Nephaerius

    Furthermore, WoW is tied to a ridiculously famous IP.

    Are you suggesting WoW's IP is larger then Star Wars?

  • NephaeriusNephaerius Member UncommonPosts: 1,671
    Originally posted by Creslin321
    Originally posted by lifeordinary
    Originally posted by Creslin321

    Denial.

    SWTOR couldn't have possibly failed because it wasn't a very good game...it HAD to be the business model, that's the ticket!

    If the sub model were dead, WoW would not still have like 8 million active players.

    Tip for you. if you want to give an example to prove your point make sure to mention norm not exception. WOW is an anomaly of MMO world.

     Just like how Microsoft is the anomoly of the computer operating system world and must be ignored whenever you talk about computer operating systems.

    Both of you are right.  You don't just throw outlier data in the trash can and ignore it altogether.  At the same time you do not use it as your primary evidence to prove a point. 

    Steam: Neph

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Member Posts: 1,832

    When a business can't compete on quality, it has no choice but to try to compete on price. Of course, very few executives are willing to publicly admit their business is unable to compete on quality. You'll note though that;   " $15 a month is too expensive to play TOR" and  "TOR doesn't provide enough value to warrant $15 per month."  are functionaly identical statements.

    Clearly the 2 million + people who bought TOR had no problem with the concept of a subscription based business model when they purchased it (many of whom bought collectors edition or bought multi-month's worth of play time, upfront). It wasn't until they actualy got thier hands on the product and played it for awhile thay they decided it wasn't worth the price of subscribing. What does that tell you?

     

     

  • Preacher26Preacher26 Member UncommonPosts: 381
    Originally posted by tiefighter25

    http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/08/22/ea-coo-maintains-confidence-in-bioware/

    According to EA the sub based model is dead. Perhaps this occured on Feb. 29th of 2012? In which case leap years are bad for sub based MMO's? I'm not sure, EA didn't go into details but they have exit surveys which definitively proove their assertion.

    In all seriousness, it's spin statements like this, and their subsequent industry media bylines and articles that keep an unhealthy ammount of ire and discussion going about this title.

     

    maybe because most EA games are bad these days...

    Its not the payment models that are the problems with mmos these days, its the mmos themselves and same rehashed crap the devs are throwing at us.

  • grimalgrimal Member UncommonPosts: 2,935
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    When a business can't compete on quality, it has no choice but to try to compete on price. Of course, very few executives are willing to publicly admit their business is unable to compete on quality. You'll note though that;   " $15 a month is too expensive to play TOR" and  "TOR doesn't provide enough value to warrant $15 per month."  are functionaly identical statements.

    Clearly the 2 million + people who bought TOR had no problem with the concept of a subscription based business model when they purchased it (many of whom bought collectors edition or bought multi-month's worth of play time, upfront). It wasn't until they actualy got thier hands on the product and played it for awhile thay they decided it wasn't worth the price of subscribing. What does that tell you?

     

     

    I think it's more telling to find out at what point they quit playing.  Was it right off the bat?  Was it when they maxed their first character and encountered the inevitable end-game grind?  No one knows.  EA is putting out whatever message they want us to believe, but truly we are just speculating at this point.

  • Creslin321Creslin321 Member Posts: 5,359
    Originally posted by grimal
    Originally posted by Creslin321
     

     Just like how Microsoft is the anomoly of the computer operating system world and must be ignored whenever you talk about computer operating systems.

    And by your logic, everyone using WIndows does so because they truly believe it to be the superior product.

     Good job avoiding the point.  Here are some other examples, you can either argue against the point, or try to avoid all of them:

    EA with Sports video games.

    Apple with MP3 players and tablets.

    Firaxis with 4X strategy games.

    NFL with professional football.

    Sooo...when doing analysis on any of the markets above, should I just ignore the clearly dominant player, because they are "an outlier?"

    EDIT:

    Also, I think that you can't just apply the "statistical outlier" argument to any topic.  Ignoring outliers makes sense if you're trying to determine something like average IQ or average height.  It would be stupid if I tried to argue that most people have an IQ above 100 by bringing up some lady that has an IQ from 220.

    But what we're talking about here...analyzing industry trends, you can't just ignore the big player.  The big player sets the tone of the game, and has a HUGE influence on all the little players.  If WoW lowered its sub to $10, what do you think the little players would do?  Do you think they would keep a $15 sub?  I doubt it.

     

    Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?

  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 43,372
    Originally posted by Preacher26
    Originally posted by tiefighter25

    http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/08/22/ea-coo-maintains-confidence-in-bioware/

    According to EA the sub based model is dead. Perhaps this occured on Feb. 29th of 2012? In which case leap years are bad for sub based MMO's? I'm not sure, EA didn't go into details but they have exit surveys which definitively proove their assertion.

    In all seriousness, it's spin statements like this, and their subsequent industry media bylines and articles that keep an unhealthy ammount of ire and discussion going about this title.

     

    maybe because most EA games are bad these days...

    Its not the payment models that are the problems with mmos these days, its the mmos themselves and same rehashed crap the devs are throwing at us.

    Bingo, has actually been said by several others in this thread, but no one is reading their responses, just spouting off their own thoughts.

     

    "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






  • tawesstawess Member EpicPosts: 4,227
    I'd toss my 2 cent in to this... It is dead.. or perhaps dead is the wrong thing to say.. but it have gone the way of casset-tapes adn VHS -video... Evolution have made it obsolete and there is no undoing that.

    This have been a good conversation

  • WicoaWicoa Member UncommonPosts: 1,637

    Its not the payment models that are the problems with mmos these days, its the mmos themselves and same rehashed crap the devs are throwing at us.

    Winner

    This is also the reason why WoW eats and spits out the competition because they try to copy it and make a worse product.

  • stevebmbsqdstevebmbsqd Member Posts: 448
    Originally posted by Teala
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Originally posted by Creslin321

    Denial.

    SWTOR couldn't have possibly failed because it wasn't a very good game...it HAD to be the business model, that's the ticket!

    If the sub model were dead, WoW would not still have like 8 million active players.

    Shhh.... don't bring factual evidence into our hyperbole filled discussions.  image

    Exactly.   Subscription based games are not dead.   Look at EVE, people that play EVE and pay for two and three accounts at a time?   Subscription based games are not dead.   The only reason so many games fail is not because they have a sub...it is because they are bad games.   

    This.... +10

  • dageezadageeza Member Posts: 578

    Truth of the matter is i would be seriously reluctant to buy even an B2P game with EAs moniker on it..

    I am glad that the monthly sub model is dying not because of the model itself but because of the cloned, uncreative garbage these fools throw at us, most of the current games arent even worth the box price let alone a sub with CS to add salt to the wound..

    WoW will be the last dinosaur to fall but it will happen likely sooner than many of us think possible..

    Bring to me a truly innovative great game that in 2015 is worthy of $15 a month and i will gladly pay it, otherwise there is going to be to much other good stuff out there that costs nothing or only the cost of the box..

    Playing GW2..

  • grimalgrimal Member UncommonPosts: 2,935
    Originally posted by Creslin321

    EA with Sports video games.

    Apple with MP3 players and tablets.

    Firaxis with 4X strategy games.

    NFL with professional football.

    Sooo...when doing analysis on any of the markets above, should I just ignore the clearly dominant player, because they are "an outlier?"

    With the exception of Applie, I am not versed in any of those other markets so how can I?  Also, what point am I avoiding?  You're the one arguing WoW dominates the market due to its superiority (which you paralleled with Microsoft).  I don't agree with that reasoning.  It's very naive to believe something succeeds as a business purely because it offers a superior product.

    If this is the case, how do you explain VHS beating out Betamax for one?  That's besides the point, but I don't see what point I am avoiding.  You and I have very opposing views.  What else is there to discuss?  If GW2 doesn't do as well as you have touted, will you do a reversal and say it failed because it was poorly designed?  Do you always NEED to be on the winning team?

  • MardukkMardukk Member RarePosts: 2,222

    I'm a bit suprised more sub games haven't at least dropped their sub price from the $14.99 standard.  You would think they would want the edge up on the competition. 

     

    I think sub based games are becoming more rare and for good reason.  Especially if your product isn't the best of the best and you still want people to inhabit the world you've created.  Obviously SWTOR didn't fail due to sub alone but I would log in time to time if it was free.  They will never see me again with the sub fee. 

     

    My question to people that deny that sub games are going away.  Have you ever quit a middling type game (you could take it or leave it) where the sub pushed you over the edge to quit? 

     

    Sidenote:  I would also like to thank the cash shop obsessed suckers who are allowing me to play some of my favorite side MMO's for free.

  • itgrowlsitgrowls Member Posts: 2,951

    So when EA finally does surveys to learn that this business model isn't sound at the end of the game instead of at the beginning they are heralded as a sensable business company.

    When Arenanet presents this as a fact years before they launch their title and backs their claims up with evidence of how companies with subs typically handle content updates, server loads, server upkeep Arenanet is described as full of nonsense in these very same forums. 

    Am I the only one noticing the bias here?

    For some reason, many in our human race will try to hold onto something that they can't sustain monetarily in order to feel more comfortable.

  • TheocritusTheocritus Member LegendaryPosts: 9,737
         Tera and TSW fully support EAs position.
  • Creslin321Creslin321 Member Posts: 5,359
    Originally posted by grimal
    Originally posted by Creslin321

    EA with Sports video games.

    Apple with MP3 players and tablets.

    Firaxis with 4X strategy games.

    NFL with professional football.

    Sooo...when doing analysis on any of the markets above, should I just ignore the clearly dominant player, because they are "an outlier?"

    With the exception of Applie, I am not versed in any of those other markets so how can I?  Also, what point am I avoiding?  You're the one arguing WoW dominates the market due to its superiority (which you paralleled with Microsoft).  I don't agree with that reasoning.  It's very naive to believe something succeeds as a business purely because it offers a superior product.

    If this is the case, how do you explain VHS beating out Betamax for one?  That's besides the point, but I don't see what point I am avoiding.  You and I have very opposing views.  What else is there to discuss?  If GW2 doesn't do as well as you have touted, will you do a reversal and say it failed because it was poorly designed?  Do you always NEED to be on the winning team?

     I never said that.

    That is a strawman argument.  All I said was that I don't think the business model was the primary reason SWTOR failed.  That does not translate to highlighted above. 

    I'm not going to respond to your VHS/Betamax thing because that is just more strawman.  And as for the GW2 thing, if it doesn't do well, and I think it is poorly designed, then yes I will say that.  If I think it was well designed, then I will state whatever reason I think it did poorly...maybe it was the cash shop, maybe it was lack of marketing, all hypothetical.  You have to analyze things on a case by case basis.  And in the case of SWTOR, I think the business model had little to do with its failure.

    And as for "what's my point..."  My point is that you can't ignore the dominant player in an industry when analyzing that industry because it's an outlier.  That's stupid.  That's ignoring THE MOST IMPORTANT PLAYER.  This isn't one dude out of 2 million that is 8.5 feet tall.  This is one company that owns like eighty percent of the market.  Get the difference?

     

    Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?

Sign In or Register to comment.