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.

1235711

Comments

  • clumsytoes44clumsytoes44 Member UncommonPosts: 463

    EA is really trying to use every excuse in the book for their failure with SWTOR aren't they? Not that it's a bad game, but going F2P in under 1 year from release is not a good thing. Just my 2 cent's.

  • itgrowlsitgrowls Member Posts: 2,951

    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

     

    And you actually believe that those same people throwing garbage at you aren't doing it because of the payment model involved? Who do you think comes up with the payment model? The devs sure don't! It's the people funding the game that do that.

    Let me explain. The very people who fund the game want to squeeze as much out as possible, so in order to achieve their dream they force the devs (in the sub companies usually) to put out rehashed crap as expansions that take up to a year to make that have nothing new to offer players. They also employ a number of time wasters requiring an enormous time sink end game, such as currency gathering, really bad algrithms for drops for gear (gear treadmill), or reputation gathering to access content one wouldn't be able to access normally. So essentially they are working AGAINST the players cutting them off from the content they put in. They then take that money from the subs and convince players it's for the upkeep of the servers and maintenance when it's REALLY just for their bottom line.

    So you see it REALLY is the payment model.

  • kol56kol56 Member Posts: 124

    THIS is what i call insanity.

    People ask for more complex and deep MMOs.

    Developers refuse to do that, instead they keep dumbing down games to the point of having the same depth of a tetris game.

    Instead, now we get games with no open world PVP, soft grouping, soft trinity, soft everything.... lool

    And now that nobody likes those games, it's the PAYMENT MODEL.

     

    LOLOLOOL NOOOOOOO, get this mac donalds developers, YOUR GAMES ARE #$%##%, WAKE UP.

     

    Thank god im not just an MMO gamer, i have plenty of console games to play while i wait for ArcheAge, a true MMO.

    "Dogs are the leaders of the planet. If you see two life forms, one of them's making a poop, the other one's carrying it for him, who would you assume is in charge."

    "The idea behind the tuxedo is the woman's point of view that men are all the same; so we might as well dress them that way. That's why a wedding is like the joining together of a beautiful, glowing bride and some guy"
    -Seinfeld

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 18,719

    Regardless of who says it or why they say it, the monthly-sub MMO model is at the very least deathly ill.

     

    GW2--love it, hate it, be indifferent, it doesn't matter--poses a serious problem for anyone still interested in continuing the sub model. If the GW2 content was visibly less than "full-fledged" AAA MMOs, the monthly sub could continue to be justified for a while longer. But GW2 has content and depth indistinguishable from WOW, SWTOR, RIFT, TSW... any theme park you care to compare it to. It has 1-80 PVE with dungeons and an open world, instanced scenario PVP with competitive ladders and a persistent, 2-week long, 3-sided PVP that looks suspiciously like an updated-for-2012 DAoC RvR model. Add a complex crafting system and you have all the MMO features. Apparently, even raids are in the work.

     

    And it has no sub. Yes it has a cash shop with fluffy crap for fluffy crap afficionados, but it's not crippled in any way like the other current type fof MMO, the "crippled-until-you-pay" or, as it's commonly refered to, F2P.

     

    LIke I said, you can think what you will about GW2, but anyone who thinks this isn't a financial model game changer is just fooling himself. This marks the end of monthly sub MMOs... period.

    "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

  • kol56kol56 Member Posts: 124

    And when F2P WOW clones start dying, it will be the players fault.

    Mark my words.

    "Dogs are the leaders of the planet. If you see two life forms, one of them's making a poop, the other one's carrying it for him, who would you assume is in charge."

    "The idea behind the tuxedo is the woman's point of view that men are all the same; so we might as well dress them that way. That's why a wedding is like the joining together of a beautiful, glowing bride and some guy"
    -Seinfeld

  • Creslin321Creslin321 Member Posts: 5,359
    Originally posted by Iselin

    Regardless of who says it or why they say it, the monthly-sub MMO model is at the very least deathly ill.

     

    GW2--love it, hate it, be indifferent, it doesn't matter--poses a serious problem for anyone still interested in continuing the sub model. If the GW2 content was visibly less than "full-fledged" AAA MMOs, the monthly sub could continue to be justified for a while longer. But GW2 has content and depth indistinguishable from WOW, SWTOR, RIFT, TSW... any theme park you care to compare it to. It has 1-80 PVE with dungeons and an open world, instanced scenario PVP with competitive ladders and a persistent, 2-week long, 3-sided PVP that looks suspiciously like an updated-for-2012 DAoC RvR model. Add a complex crafting system and you have all the MMO features. Apparently, even raids are in the work.

     

    And it has no sub. Yes it has a cash shop with fluffy crap for fluffy crap afficionados, but it's not crippled in any way like the other current type fof MMO, the "crippled-until-you-pay" or, as it's commonly refered to, F2P.

     

    LIke I said, you can think what you will about GW2, but anyone who thinks this isn't a financial model game changer is just fooling himself. This marks the end of monthly sub MMOs... period.

     Despite the fact that I don't think SWTOR failed due to the sub model, I think what you say has merit.  If GW2 winds up being as successful as WoW, then it will likely be the official end of the sub model for mainsteam MMORPGs.  Why would someone pay $15 a month for a product when the industry leader costs you nothing?

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

  • VyethVyeth Member UncommonPosts: 1,461

    Nothing wrong with change..

    Hell one day we may revisit the subscription again, but it will probably be for 3 months minimum and included totally in the box price (meaning the software could cost 15 bucks while the other 40 is your 3 month sub fee).. More bargain which means more people would probably buy..

    But I dunno, we'll see..

     

  • azmundaiazmundai Member UncommonPosts: 1,419

    Sounds like they are desperate to take down Blizzard.

    LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity.
    I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already :)

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Member Posts: 1,832
    Originally posted by tawess
    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.

    Bad examples. Casset-Tapes and VHS became obsolete when competeing technology arrived on the market that offered a genuine QUALITATIVE advantage.

    I don't believe anyone can make a compelling arguement that a game becomes a BETTER game or provides more entertainment simply because you changed the PRICING model. That'd be like saying this car gets an extra 5 MPG when you LEASE it instead of PURCHASE.

    In terms of MMO's, the pricing model really is a bit of a red herring. It might be different if MMO's were like houses or cars, where purchase gave some form of real ownership. However, it's clear that's not the case. You have no ownership over the bits and bytes of data that reside on the publishers servers. They can shut down thier servers tomorrow and delete your characters and whatever you "purchased" from them and you have no legal recourse.

    What you are actualy "purchasing" when you make a micro-transaction is the license to access some item/functionality on thier service....which is exactly the same thing you get with a traditional subscription. The real difference is simply a matter of price.

    What publishers are effectively saying when they say the "subscription model is dead" or however they are trying to spin it, is that they are incapable of producing a product that a large enough number of people consider worth the price of what they want to charge for a monthly subscription. Everything else is pretty much smoke and mirrors.

  • lifeordinarylifeordinary Member Posts: 646

    According to EA's own statement they had around 500K players when they announced F2P model. So their decision to go F2P has more to do with taking advantage of this model than SWTOR not having enough players to support it in P2P category.

    EA knows that they can easily hit 1 mill playerbase by going F2P. it has the playerbase who won't mind payign monthly subs at the same time there is huge market of those players who like F2P games.

    I would say EA is very clever and companies like Trion too should follow EA and go F2P while keeping monthly sub option on for those who prefer it.

  • Vunak23Vunak23 Member UncommonPosts: 633

    Its not dead sorry EA... 

     

    Its just no MMO has really come out to justify the sub...meaning the last 10 years or so we have been getting epicly screwed by studios and there half assed MMO's. 

    "In the immediate future, we have this one, and then we’ve got another one that is actually going to be – so we’re going to have, what we want to do, is in January, what we’re targeting to do, this may or may not happen, so you can’t hold me to it. But what we’re targeting to do, is have a fun anniversary to the Ilum shenanigans that happened. An alien race might invade, and they might crash into Ilum and there might be some new activities that happen on the planet." ~Gabe Amatangelo

  • IPolygonIPolygon Member UncommonPosts: 707
    Good quality games like WoW say hi.
  • azmundaiazmundai Member UncommonPosts: 1,419


    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.


    Honestly, what was their exit strategy?

    Because as I remember it, it wasn't "Would you play come back and play all the time, and make cash shop purchases if there was no subscription cost"

    If I had chosen that option it would have been to say "This game isn't worth paying for beyond the box price and I will never come back because the content isn't very good imo".

    I know exit strategies work in a lot of cases, but I don't think this is one of them.

    Yes there are people who don't want to sub to a game. I can understand that I guess, though not really .. but to each their own I suppose. But that doesn't mean that when someone steps up and includes 6+ months of content along with all of the successful gameplay and UI enhancements from the past decade, that people wont be willing to pay $15 a month.

    This reads to me more like : "We can't release content every month like we talked about, for $15 a month, so we are making the game free and you will get content after everyone has bought enough items from the cash shop"

    LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity.
    I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already :)

  • lifeordinarylifeordinary Member Posts: 646
    Originally posted by IPolygon
    Good quality games like WoW say hi.

    So i guess there is only one good quality MMO in entire  market based purely on sub numbers.

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 18,719
    Originally posted by Creslin321
    Originally posted by Iselin

    Regardless of who says it or why they say it, the monthly-sub MMO model is at the very least deathly ill.

     

    GW2--love it, hate it, be indifferent, it doesn't matter--poses a serious problem for anyone still interested in continuing the sub model. If the GW2 content was visibly less than "full-fledged" AAA MMOs, the monthly sub could continue to be justified for a while longer. But GW2 has content and depth indistinguishable from WOW, SWTOR, RIFT, TSW... any theme park you care to compare it to. It has 1-80 PVE with dungeons and an open world, instanced scenario PVP with competitive ladders and a persistent, 2-week long, 3-sided PVP that looks suspiciously like an updated-for-2012 DAoC RvR model. Add a complex crafting system and you have all the MMO features. Apparently, even raids are in the work.

     

    And it has no sub. Yes it has a cash shop with fluffy crap for fluffy crap afficionados, but it's not crippled in any way like the other current type fof MMO, the "crippled-until-you-pay" or, as it's commonly refered to, F2P.

     

    LIke I said, you can think what you will about GW2, but anyone who thinks this isn't a financial model game changer is just fooling himself. This marks the end of monthly sub MMOs... period.

     Despite the fact that I don't think SWTOR failed due to the sub model, I think what you say has merit.  If GW2 winds up being as successful as WoW, then it will likely be the official end of the sub model for mainsteam MMORPGs.  Why would someone pay $15 a month for a product when the industry leader costs you nothing?

    Oh I agree with you. I don't think the sub-model had anything to do with SWTOR's decline either. I was super-exited about SWTOR, played the heck out of it, lleveled 3 50s and several 40s... I have my own theories as to why SWTOR declined rapidly (lack of dungeon finder in time, too-slow to merge servers, no meaningful open world PvP, ultimately too WOW-like, etc.)

     

    Heck it wasn't even the last major MMO to take a stab at perpetuating the monthly-sub, Tera and TSW cam after SWTOR and they tried it too. I just don't think many devs realized that the WOW cash cow that keeps on giving couldn't be pulled off any more.

     

    I see many posts here and elsewhere that link monthly updates to the monthly sub. Trying to figure out if they got their money's worth this month. That's new thinking. WOW spent many years doing virtually nothing month to month other than the seasonal events and not many were bitching about the sub cost. But times changed and now we're expecting to see something tangible for our $180/year.

     

    The box-cost-only GW2 model just highlights the inherent problem with the monthly sub model... it makes it seem like a greedy, money-grubbing system... which it is.

    "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

  • azmundaiazmundai Member UncommonPosts: 1,419


    Originally posted by lifeordinary
    Originally posted by IPolygon Good quality games like WoW say hi.
    So i guess there is only one good quality MMO in entire  market based purely on sub numbers.

    Rift, TSW, AION lasted a long time. And most of the good f2p games still have a sub option. Wildstar wont be f2p I dont think. Not sure about Arch Age.

    This is just EA trying to tell the customers what they want, once again.

    LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity.
    I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already :)

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Member Posts: 1,832
    Originally posted by Iselin

    Regardless of who says it or why they say it, the monthly-sub MMO model is at the very least deathly ill.

     

    GW2--love it, hate it, be indifferent, it doesn't matter--poses a serious problem for anyone still interested in continuing the sub model. If the GW2 content was visibly less than "full-fledged" AAA MMOs, the monthly sub could continue to be justified for a while longer. But GW2 has content and depth indistinguishable from WOW, SWTOR, RIFT, TSW... any theme park you care to compare it to. It has 1-80 PVE with dungeons and an open world, instanced scenario PVP with competitive ladders and a persistent, 2-week long, 3-sided PVP that looks suspiciously like an updated-for-2012 DAoC RvR model. Add a complex crafting system and you have all the MMO features. Apparently, even raids are in the work.

     

    And it has no sub. Yes it has a cash shop with fluffy crap for fluffy crap afficionados, but it's not crippled in any way like the other current type fof MMO, the "crippled-until-you-pay" or, as it's commonly refered to, F2P.

     

    LIke I said, you can think what you will about GW2, but anyone who thinks this isn't a financial model game changer is just fooling himself. This marks the end of monthly sub MMOs... period.

    Depends on the value they actualy provide, what creeps it's way into the cash shop and the number and price of the content expansions.

    If content expansions are the same cost per content as a typical sub-based game then the business model doesn't really provide much more to the player then a standard subscription model would.

    Really the pricing model is mostly smoke and mirrors, as far as MMO's go. What really matters is value delivered for the dollar.

    If GW2 is able to deliver a better quality service for a cheaper price then it will beat out it's competition. But at the end of the day that really has nothing to do with whatever marketing label they stick on thier pricing model. It has to do with the nuts and bolts of how they build and operate games.

     

  • lifeordinarylifeordinary Member Posts: 646
    Originally posted by azmundai

     


    Originally posted by lifeordinary

    Originally posted by IPolygon Good quality games like WoW say hi.
    So i guess there is only one good quality MMO in entire  market based purely on sub numbers.

     

    Rift, TSW, AION lasted a long time. And most of the good f2p games still have a sub option. Wildstar wont be f2p I dont think. Not sure about Arch Age.

    This is just EA trying to tell the customers what they want, once again.

    And what makes you think SWTOR wouldn't have lasted for same amount of years as Rift and Aion? i already mentioned in last post that according to EA's own statement they had around 500K players which is a very good number and they always said before release that they would need around 500K players to keep the game profitable in long run.

    But since it is EA they want to make more money so they are going with F2P option because they know that with an IP like SW, F2P model is nothign less than a gold mine. Any other company would have been happy with 500K player base but nope not EA.

  • ForumPvPForumPvP Member Posts: 871

    *EA officially determines sub based games are dead.  SIMULATOR v0.4*

    1.You are walking in the forest and you bumb into some invisible force.

    2. You get a message " You must buy next area if you wish  to continue"

    3. you wonder,wee whatta heck,i will build a camp and hunt some animals.

    4. You start reaching your axe because you need it to cut some trees,your hand bumbs into some invisible force.

    5.You get a message "you cant use this epic item ,you must upgrade your account if you wish to use it"

    6. You think,should i play sub based games or free to play™ games?

     

     

    i dont think sub based games goes away ever,heck theres still MUD running with something like 40$ per month,but something might chance like if i log into game then I get that message to my cell phone "you logged in" and when i log out i will get message that i logged out,and they charge me precisely of the time i used to play,or something like that.

     

    Let's internet

  • kalrhaelkalrhael Member Posts: 87

    I'd say he's right, very few games can compete with a P2P model...and that's not even to say that certain games can't exist in that model, Not sure if I remember exactly, but I remember turbine saying they quadruppled their profits when LOTRO went f2p...probably off but yea, F2P is a major cash cow. 

     

    Honestly, while RIFt seems to be doing good, part of me thinks their insane for not maximixing profits, I wouldn't be surprised if they announced a f2p plan soon...they're nuts...simply too much money involved in F2P. If I were their publisher, I'd be stranggling somebody while yelling "I WANT MONEYYYY!!!!111". 

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,855


    Originally posted by kalrhael
    I'd say he's right, very few games can compete with a P2P model...and that's not even to say that certain games can't exist in that model, Not sure if I remember exactly, but I remember turbine saying they quadruppled their profits when LOTRO went f2p...probably off but yea, F2P is a major cash cow.  Honestly, while RIFt seems to be doing good, part of me thinks their insane for not maximixing profits, I wouldn't be surprised if they announced a f2p plan soon...they're nuts...simply too much money involved in F2P. If I were their publisher, I'd be stranggling somebody while yelling "I WANT MONEYYYY!!!!111". 

    But maybe they also believe that a loyal customer base is not to be toyed with. Rift is in a precarious balance. They seem to be doing well, but not phenomenal.

    Also, they have the game EoN coming out that will tap that market.

  • azmundaiazmundai Member UncommonPosts: 1,419


    Originally posted by Kyleran
    They've misunderstood their exit interviews.  They assume that 40% won't pay a subscription, I maintain most of them will (since it really is a small amount of money) if the content is worth the buyers time.Apparently they failed to deliver on engaging long term content, but don't seem to realize it yet.Don't worry, when people don't stick around for the F2P version either, they'll understand the real issue. 

    No they won't .. thier prance some dude up on moneyline and declare the mmo genre to be incapable of turning a profit.

    LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity.
    I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already :)

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Member Posts: 1,832
    Originally posted by lifeordinary

    According to EA's own statement they had around 500K players when they announced F2P model. So their decision to go F2P has more to do with taking advantage of this model than SWTOR not having enough players to support it in P2P category.

    EA knows that they can easily hit 1 mill playerbase by going F2P. it has the playerbase who won't mind payign monthly subs at the same time there is huge market of those players who like F2P games.

    I would say EA is very clever and companies like Trion too should follow EA and go F2P while keeping monthly sub option on for those who prefer it.

    I hate to burst your bubble there, but according to EA's own public statements,  500K subscription sustained was the MINIMUM required for TOR to break even. Outside analysts had placed it even higher (some even more then TWICE that amount). Given that, the trend in thier subscription numbers had been sharply declining and it's unkown where it would have bottomed out...... the decision to go F2P in this case is nothing to do with cleverness....it's simple damage control and desperation.

    They are trying to salvage what they can. Furthmore 1 million players at $7.50 per month would put TOR significantly worse off then 500K players at $15 per month.

    It's Operations 101 for any service based offering (which is what MMO's are). Each USER/PLAYER you have is a COST to you. It's only when that user is making more PURCHASES each month then they cost to keep, that you gain a proffit. You can gain some economies of scale but a large number of operatings costs are inelastic beyond a certain minimal threshold. Basicaly that means you've got to find a way to cut your COSTS per user, often by cutting/reducing your level or quality of service, and hope you get such a big increase in volume that it more then makes up for the higher markup you would have gotten at $15 per month. Clearly that CAN work (and some supposed "F2P" offerings may even be able to push thier average gross revenue higher then $15 per user) but by no means is it a sure thing.

  • EzhaeEzhae Member UncommonPosts: 735
    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.

    Wellto play the devil's advocate. If TOR would launch as F2P titles the expectations would be considerabely lower. It would mean that it could actually have higher retention rate due to simple price:value ratio. Also there is actually quite a lot of people willing to pay more in form of micro transactions that a monthly sub would cost them, and they in part offset all those that only play F2P. 

    Further more, if they would create a good F2P model, something similar to say DDO with passes for content, etc. and then also offer weekend sales for specific content they could actually make decent money with much lowe backlash from community. 

     

    For WoW. 4 to 5 million come from asian market that has different business model (pay per hour). Majority of western subscriptions, at this point are mostly things people do because they've been doing it for so long stopping would feel like waste. They stick around for friends, etc. and once you invested say 300-450$ into it in sub alone (2-3 years) that's the money you ain't getting back. 

    Currently, to release a sub based game you really need something big. Something that would truly change the mmo landscape for better and would build it's playerbase up rather than just pushing all effort on first week sales. 

  • tiefighter25tiefighter25 Member Posts: 937
    Originally posted by Iselin

     I see many posts here and elsewhere that link monthly updates to the monthly sub. Trying to figure out if they got their money's worth this month. That's new thinking. WOW spent many years doing virtually nothing month to month other than the seasonal events and not many were bitching about the sub cost. But times changed and now we're expecting to see something tangible for our $180/year.

     

    The box-cost-only GW2 model just highlights the inherent problem with the monthly sub model... it makes it seem like a greedy, money-grubbing system... which it is.

    That's pretty much revisionist history. Vanilla WoW put out a decent ammount of content. The content released did a decent job of pacing with the players level progression. Call it gear grind or what you will, but they were tweaking their battlegrounds, releasing new 5 (and for a while 10) man instances, adding 40 and 20 man raids, adding tons of gear, quests, reputation factions, etc.

    SWTOR had a dismal record of releasing new content. A pittance of gear, 1 warzone and 1 raid in 10 months. That's it. What's more, progressing in SWTOR was much faster (blame casualization if you want). It was extremeley easy to find yourself essentially done with the all the games content in about a month.

    Love WoW, hate it; Vaniila WoW players were seeing much more content for their $15 a month then 8 years later with SWTOR. (The WoW expansions are a related but a bit of a different topic.)

    The Guild Wars Buy to Play model is intresting. They proved it could work with their heavily instances first title. Things look promising for their second, this time fully fledged MMO title. The long term success can only be determined by how well their expansions sell and are received. The B2P model is certainly different then the P2P monthly sub model but it has a lot more in common with it then the FTP/Freemium/P2W models.

Sign In or Register to comment.