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.

15791011

Comments

  • tiefighter25tiefighter25 Member Posts: 937
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by tiefighter25
    The Vanilla WoW players were constantly calling into question if the sub was worth the money. People weren't bitching about it much because most agreed it was worth the money because Blizz was releasing new content in a timely fashion.

     

    They never said it where I could read it...in WOW, in DAoC, in AC, in EQ in UO. People just paid the sub because that's the way it was...period. Any other way of remembering that really is revisionist.

     

    Because you didn't read it you think people weren't wondering if the sub was worth paying?

    You think people just mindlessly fork over money because that's the way it is?

    What?

    People were always evaluating new content release.

    If people thought the new conttent wasn't worth the money, they unsubbed.

    The reason why WoW grew in Vanilla is because the majority of players, both from launch and those who joined soon afterwards, thought WoW was worth to continue subscribing to.

    Just for the record, WoW has had far more people play it for a significant anmmount of time and unsub then the 8 million or so who currently play it now.

    Those that unsubbed in 2009 didn't unsub because of all the exciting new FTP games.

    Just as in 2012, those 2 million people who bought a SWTOR box knowing of the sub didn't spontaneously unsub because of all the exciting FTP alternatives. (LOTRO has not had a sudden 2 million jump in players this year.)

  • Creslin321Creslin321 Member Posts: 5,359
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    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?

    If your talking about standard rehashed theme park MMO's, then yes, I agree, no one will pay a sub for them especially if they end up clones of GW2.

    But GW2 isn't the ultimate game, it has several key gaming designs it did not chose to implement that I'm looking for and if sonmeone creates a game with those features I'll gladly pay a sub, because in the end, it is a small fee.

     

    Agreed :)!  I will gladly pay a sub for an awesome AAA sandbox game.

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

  • roo67roo67 Member Posts: 402
    It depends how you catagorise success .  In terms of pre-WoW many games around today could be described as successful . The problem is most of the games released in the last 8 years have lacked something or other . Its not that they are bad ( although some really were ) its just they didnt have the scope to attract a larger audiance . I've played a lot of the games people  call bad and enjoyed them for what they are . ToR isn't an awful game for instance but it should have been buy to play as its essentially a single player linear game with mmo elements . TSW tried to even increase the average subscription fee in Europe at a time when a game like GW2 was just around the corner and has had to cut staff . These companys need to be competative and honest with themselves as to what thier product is really worth . I can only think of three games I would term worth a sub a the moment WoW , Rift and EvE .  Even many of the new games that are indevelopment at the moment sound like they should be buy to play . I would think lots of companys are eyeing Guild Wars 2 to see how well it performs in the coming year . I personally think it will break records and if it does we can expect a buy to play revolution . When that happens all sub and even freemium games may have to rethink thier buisness models . 
  • SpiiderSpiider Member RarePosts: 1,135

    EA are simply clueless. Sub based model does not work if you pump 100 million in a game. It works for niche games like EVE.

    I repeat EA is clueless.

    No fate but what we make, so make me a ham sandwich please.

  • mmoguy43mmoguy43 Member UncommonPosts: 2,770

    They made a primarily singleplayer game with little reason to subscribe, what did they expect?

    What EA does is beyond dumbfounding.

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 18,719
    Originally posted by tiefighter25
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by tiefighter25
    The Vanilla WoW players were constantly calling into question if the sub was worth the money. People weren't bitching about it much because most agreed it was worth the money because Blizz was releasing new content in a timely fashion.

     

    They never said it where I could read it...in WOW, in DAoC, in AC, in EQ in UO. People just paid the sub because that's the way it was...period. Any other way of remembering that really is revisionist.

     

    Because you didn't read it you think people weren't wondering if the sub was worth paying?

    You think people just mindlessly fork over money because that's the way it is?

    What?

    People were always evaluating new content release.

    If people thought the new conttent wasn't worth the money, they unsubbed.

    The reason why WoW grew in Vanilla is because the majority of players, both from launch and those who joined soon afterwards, thought WoW was worth to continue subscribing to.

    Just for the record, WoW has had far more people play it for a significant anmmount of time and unsub then the 8 million or so who currently play it now.

    Those that unsubbed in 2009 didn't unsub because of all the exciting new FTP games.

    Just as in 2012, those 2 million people who bought a SWTOR box knowing of the sub didn't spontaneously unsub because of all the exciting FTP alternatives. (LOTRO has not had a sudden 2 million jump in players this year.)

    Yup. I just have my hundreds of guildmates and player posts to go buy. I don't read minds. Apparently you do image

     

    People unsubbed because they were bored or wanted to spend their money somewhere else just like they always do.

    "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

  • tiefighter25tiefighter25 Member Posts: 937
    Islen, you kind of lost me there. So I clearly don't read minds.
  • AmbrosiaAmorAmbrosiaAmor Member Posts: 915

    I think what E.A. meant to say was that:

     

    Triple-AAA-MMO-gaming-companies-and/or-large-companies-that-spend-tens-of-millions-or-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars-that-copy-90%-of-EQ/EQ2/WOW-while-adding-1-or-2-new-things-to-the-MMO-table-and-use-strictly-the-P2P-model-are-dead.

     

    It's dead Jim.

    I don't see The Secret World lasting more than a year with the P2P model intact.

    I don't see TERA Online lasting another 3-6 months with the P2P model intact.

    I could see Blade & Soul lasting a year or two as a P2P model, but that heavily depends on how NCSoft handles relations with the West... again.

    Too little info on World of Darkness but chances are it will be P2P.

    I will laugh if The Elder Scrolls has the gall to go strictly P2P.

    I could see ArcheAge going in the long run as either a B2P or a P2P Model.

    There are about a dozen or so other MMORPG games out there that have a good amount of hype or following that will go F2P.

     

    So yeah... it's dead Jim.

    If you are only going to bring in 1 or 2 brand new things to the MMO table while copying everything else from WOW... I would say... don't even bother releasing the product.

    image

  • spizzspizz Member UncommonPosts: 1,971
    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.

     

    The sub based model is not dead they want to have it changed  in believing you it is allegedly outdated. When reading the article it can be also seen as an excuse for their own missconcept of Swtor itself as a game. 

    "Forty percent of people said, I just don't want to pay $15 a month. I love the game, but I'm just not into the subscription business." - soo....40% of the players buy the game without knowing that it is based on a monthly sub ?

    They rather did acknowledge that  a different type of  a distribution system offers more possibilities. Microtransactions offer a lot more options, wheras monthly subs are less flexible when it comes to profit gains.

    Just look at this video, EA CEO is talking about Battlefield 3 and Microtransactions, and you will get at least a small view on the marketing and business in the game genre.

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR6-u8OIJTE

  • tiefighter25tiefighter25 Member Posts: 937

    I find it hilarious that on the same day that EA blames the end of P2P as a workable business model as to why it's MMO went FTP; Ubisoft blames a 95% piracy rate on its games as to why it is going to FTP.

    http://www.slashgear.com/ubisoft-claims-93-95-piracy-rate-on-its-pc-games-22243667/

    It's as though Ford in the 70's blamed low sales on Pintos to a decline in gasoline prices making sub-compact wagons less popular; and not to customers looking unfavorable on cars that had a tendency to explodee in a fireball if their bumpers werre looked at wrong..

    Two different ends of the gaming spectrum coming to the same conclusion:

    The customer is in the wrong, it's not our fault; this explains why we are going to a cheaper production model that releases crappier quality married with lowered consumer expectations.

    The main difference is that very few are buying Ubisoft's spin, quite a few are buying into EA's spin.

  • xr00t3dxxr00t3dx Member Posts: 275

    Sub Based games aren't dead. Just goes to show you why all these recent titles failed. It's because the suits have no clue. What is dead is charging 15/month for the same old shit with a different skin. It's gonna have to be fresh and fun and far enough left from the last 10 years to make it work. 

    It doesn't matter what the model is. If it's the same old shit or sucks out of the box, then it's dead.

     

  • VesaviusVesavius Member RarePosts: 7,908
    Originally posted by Nephaerius
    Originally posted by tiefighter25

    I see a lot of people saying that WoW is a bad example of a succesful sub model. Some arguing that its sub numbers are inflated due to Asian time played based subs, some arguing that it is an anomoly, some arguing that people are just over invested in their charcters.

    Fine, let's assume that is all true. We will disregard WoW's 8 years as a succesful sub-based model with a new expansion looming around the corner.

    What about Eve? I expect to hea that Eve doesn't count because it's a niche game. Fine, let's discount Eve.

    Unfortunately that doesn't explain RIft.

    Before you argue that it has less subscribers then SWTOR, I would remind you that it turns a profit and is adding content at a voracious rate. Also, it is not a niche game. Rift is many regards the King Daddy of all WoW clones.

    Just as an intresting asside, in general, I see several people knocking Rift for its smallish player base, and a few moments later state that SWTOR is the second most popular MMO in the West and that haing a WoW sized playerbase isn't the measuring stick for success.  How they reconcile having two divergent opinions simultaneously, I'm not sure.

    Rift is easily explained by venture capital.  Trion just borrowed $80 million from a Canadian teacher's pension fund last year.  They also have venture capital for their games in development - EoN, Defiance, Warface, etc.  So the subs for Rift are just icing on the cake.  They are far from the sole force funding development of the title.  Also all that sub money everyone paid sure didn't earn them a free expansion.  You get to pay for the content you already paid for the development of. 

     

    oh, GTFO.

    You are suggesting that Rift is only a success, which it clearly is, because it is supported by VC money on an ongoing basis? What a load of tosh. I do not think you understand the ongoing revenue that is generated by the sub model at all.  

     

    You are saying that subs cannot turn profit, fund development, and finance an X Pack? You might want to tell that to the devs that made a LOT of money off their MMOs in that exact same way for years and years before the F2P sales push started.

    Look, the sub model is being moved away from by the industry not because it isn't profitable, because it clearly is and has been proven to be so for around a decade. It is moving away from simply because the cash shop model is MORE profitable. But the shame is that EXTRA profit only benefits the shareholders, usually at the expense of the games and definitely at the expense of the players (because that extra profit has to come from somewhere, right?).

    TBH, I am not sure if you are just looking for knowingly disingenuous ways to just desperatly explain away the obvious viability of the sub model or if you actually believe the point you are making because you have been sucked in so deeply by the modern industry spin to promote cash shops.

     

    On a side note though, I really do not think there is anyone out there that says Rift has not delivered value for money for their sub. Who cares if they are now selling their new X Pack? As a gamer I would rather pay extra for actual playable content then bullshit sunglasses or hats. besides, if you broke down the contents of their X Pack into cash shop sized chunks can you imagine how much it would cost? MUCH more then what Trion are asking, thats for sure.

  • tiefighter25tiefighter25 Member Posts: 937
    Originally posted by Nephaerius
     

    Rift is easily explained by venture capital.  Trion just borrowed $80 million from a Canadian teacher's pension fund last year.  They also have venture capital for their games in development - EoN, Defiance, Warface, etc.  So the subs for Rift are just icing on the cake.  They are far from the sole force funding development of the title.  Also all that sub money everyone paid sure didn't earn them a free expansion.  You get to pay for the content you already paid for the development of. 

     

    Golly. Rift has pumped out more content on a consistent basis then anyone else around. SWTOR has added nearly no content since launch. Now that SWTOR is going FTP, it is also finally adding a smallish amount of content. That small content update is more then likely going to be an additional charge for SWTOR's current subscribers.

    While I'm not a huge fan of expansions in general, Rift's expansion is huge. The expansion tripples the size of their game world. Also, if a subscriber signs up for an additional 12 months, the expansion is free. Contrast that to SWTOR which has had barely any new content and now that it is adding one new planet, EA is going to charge their subscribers additional money for it.

    All that aside, how does Rift's venture capital funding make their profitable sub-based game invalid? Because they are selling an expansion pack? Seems an odd argument since SWTOR will be selling a new planet in the Cash Shop.

  • AlrondAlrond Member UncommonPosts: 7
    It's not so much the subscription model that is dead but rather the imagination and innovation of game designers. Just take last years overhyped SWTOR: so much time and money spent on development, absolutely nothing new or remotely interesting delivered...
  • ForumPvPForumPvP Member Posts: 871


    Originally posted by Alrond It's not so much the subscription model that is dead but rather the imagination and innovation of game designers. Just take last years overhyped SWTOR: so much time and money spent on development, absolutely nothing new or remotely interesting delivered...
     

    I try to imagine this EAware meeting with investors few years back 'now we have this idea,brilliant idea,we are going ro make 200-400million dollars free to play game" lets roll!

    Let's internet

  • wolffinwolffin Member UncommonPosts: 193
    I played SWTOR and enjoyed a lot of it. However the problem for me was not the subscription. But that it lacked the MMO feel. I never saw  that many people as I was leveling or went to use the Auction etc etc. To me it just didn't have enough social interaction to be worth the sub fee.

    image
  • HurvartHurvart Member Posts: 565

    Sub based EA games are dead. They know and understand nothing about other games. I dont think they could recognize what makes a game fun if their lifes depended on it...

    This is all a joke. They would say anything that could justifie whatever they intend to do. And that can explain why they fail in a way that makes them appear less incompetent. Im not surprised at all. Who or what will they blame next? The weather? The customers?...

    Its all spin and bad excuses...

  • DSWBeefDSWBeef Member UncommonPosts: 789
    Im sorry sub based games arnt dead but WoW copies sure as hell are. Rift still substains subs that trion is pleased with so you are wrong there. Subs games work if they arnt a PoS game.

    Playing: FFXIV, DnL, and World of Warships
    Waiting on: Ashes of Creation

  • AsboAsbo Member UncommonPosts: 812
    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.

     Someone needs to tell wow this as they not gonna be happy chappies when this finaly hits home...Evil grin.

    Bandit

    Asbo

  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441

    TOR went a lot worse than the EA bosses thought, the problem must be its payment model...

  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919

    Yep much easier than to say "we failed". However if they believe it will UO , DAoC and WAR be going F2P?

    CoD introduced an annual sub and has over 2 million people; the sub was worth it.

    Rift has a sub model but has never attempted to charge the same as WoW, and for some the lower sub is worth it. The annual pass for WoW works out at $7.50/month when you factor in $60 for Diablo; any bets new annual subscribers will get MoP free?

    And in other news:

    EA announced massive reductions at PopCap on the 21st August. But wait? Don't PopCap make F2P games? Sadly for EA there is no evidence that F2P in and of itself does not equal profit.

    Most people will only pay for something if it is worth it. And most decided that the sub for SWTOR wasn't worth it.  

     

  • lifeordinarylifeordinary Member Posts: 646
    Originally posted by IPolygon
    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.

    Don't put words into my mouth. Keyword here is "like".

    Like WOW..ok so what other games like WOW wtih 10 million subs exist? since we are looking at this purely from sub numbers? fact is that P2P games are on decline.  It is really hard to believe for me that all other MMOS are of poor quality compared to wow and that is the only reason why they have low popultion or going F2P.

    RIFT, WOW, WAR, TSW that is 4  P2P MMOS of  AAA category that are P2P. Is that a good sign for P2P MMOS? i don't think so. Most of the future releases if anything trying to get away from P2P model.

    However i do find it hilarous that WOW usually bashed to hell and back on this site  is convenintely put on high pedstal to show how other games suck and is instantly hailed as the best quality MMO on market.

    Got to love the double standards.

  • ThaneThane Member EpicPosts: 3,534
    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.

    well.. you cant promote a game with the words "we have the best pvp designers working on ToR" and then give us some standart BG principles and a screwed zerg planet :)

    "I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"

  • lifeordinarylifeordinary Member Posts: 646
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2
    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.

    You haven't burst my bubble because you are saying exactly what i said. EA mentioned before SWTOR release that they need 500K subs to keep things going on profitable rate. But since it is EA they will never be satisfied with this. If any other company was involved they would be veyr happy with that many players and try to improve game further while tryign to make sure that they maintain those numbers.

    But i don't blame them going F2P is lot more profitable considering that monthly sub option is still there and they will rake in even more cash through in game item shop. This combo never fails.

    I guess Turbine was also desperate when they made LOTRO F2P right? what you call desperaton is what i call 'grabbing the opprtunity when you see it'.

     

     

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,855


    Sub based gamers officially determine EA games are dead.

    There, I fixed it.

Sign In or Register to comment.