One reason for the decline of the subscription model is that some people simply aren't willing to pay a subscription for a game. People who want to buy a game don't like the idea that they're just renting it and will lose access after a while. When you quit a subscription game and consider coming back later, having to pay before you can come back and look around is quite a hassle.
It isn't possible to make a hybrid model. The game designs are just too different. The best you will ever get is a cash shop model that gives special access to subscribers. IMHO, it would be best to just mirror the original cash shop for subscribers, but have it use game currency instead of real currency. If priced correctly it would be benefitial to both parties, by being a huge game currency sink.
I think GGG has an interesting cash shop model implemented, but I wonder how well it will do in the long run. They just sell cosmetics, stashtabs, player created unique items, and in the future plan to sell player created ladders.
I would play such a game simply because it does not exclude me from a game or content I already purchased. Anything thereafter I would expect to be charged for (not including bug fixes or balancing as I expect that from any game I buy).
I'd like to consider myself a very "outside the box" yet logical kind've thinker is most respect. Thus, I will have to bring up the potential "pay to win" scenario that many will no doubt spout even if a game in particular doesn't have it. In that, I'd like to bring attention to what was considered Pay to Win in the past, and has since then been my definition of such.
Pay to win has been essentially buying actual power in game; there has been acceptable cases whereby people don't mind such if in fact you are able to acquire said power through normal gameplay means. WIthin this payment model we will see someone paying for the ability to become the most powerful, without any possibility of someone who doesn't pay to become as strong as they are. In such a situation, by hard definition, this could be called pay to win and technically be correct. That is to say, this type is something I would be okay with on purely business sense and knowing how the market is (at least somewhat).
Though I do say acceptable in the most loose of terms, as compromises that attack one's morals is something that I normally do not allow; for me to say I think it's okay for a game to allow others to become more powerful than I simply because they pay a monthly fee just irks me the wrong way. Why should I allow this behavior to continue and perhaps spawn a host of anti consumer attacks just to compromise a change to something (in this case a payment model) that is archaic and will eventually cease to exist within the next decade (within reason as I don't expect any model to just go away completely)?
How has it come to the point where I would even think it a good idea? Am I one who perceives that I am being ripped off so monumentally by P2P games that I would simply welcome a new model no matter what it is? By studying the past, we could see that lot of people are very receptive to new models right now, especially when great games are being released under what is becoming popular now (B2P/F2P) or where P2P games usually head after about a year of service.
Will this game in question host world PvP? Will people who don't subscribe still be with people who pay for their extra levels each month? Might there be the ability to unlock these levels for those who are dedicated in the game (buying game time with in game feats and the like as some others did)? I'm down with the premise, understand the business aspects, but at the same time also acknowledge that perception will also play a part in finance. Such a model -- and any game associated with it -- could be condemned as anti consumerist and thus the developers won't get the money that is due to them. It will need to be handled with the utmost care, answer questions, make alterations based on feedback and over all win the community over to successfully incorporate such a change.
I typically upgrade my computer every 18 months with the latest GPU (sometimes SLI), and every 32 months or so I upgrade the mobo/cpu/ram to match with the current generation. It's a costly procedure, but I do it because I enjoy compute gaming. But with the new specs of the PS4, the focus on interconnectivity and social aspects, and the core improvement of technologies (8GB DDR5 RAM and desktop CPU architecture?) I foresee consoles starting to put the focus on social gaming moreso than the solo experiences we get now with only forced grouping in dungeons. Barring the potential of console MMORPGS becoming a reality with new systems (heck Defiance and FFXIV will already be able to do it), the focus on team play on new games (and potentially hundreds of players in said games), we may lose quite a bit of potential MMORPGers if something is not done soon.
In that I mean that I myself am considering just buying a console hardware, save thousands on my computer upgrades, and just the social aspects of B2P games on the consoles and how well they say that such systems can support such things. I'll quite literally save thousands on MMOs as well, as to date I've probably spent $15,000 on P2P MMOs ranging from keeping my UO account active for over a decade, playing FFXI since it came out, WoW since it came out and owning multiple accounts of WoW and having those active (not to mention box prices and expansions to everything, in addition to trying out nearly every MMO that comes out to give it a fair chance up to a few months ago when I swore of P2P games).
The amount I've spent on B2P and F2P MMO games? Maybe $250 (not including box prices and stretching out since Ultima Online). How easy we hear and believe the rhetoric "You can just not go to Mcdonalds twice a month and you'll have enough" that has been spewed since 1997; how so many believed that when it was matched with excuses of bandwidth costs and balancing. How I have just recently read this statement again, an attempt to direct our easily influenced counter parts in the gaming industry to get the massive to believe such. It's business, and many do not know they are being manipulated. Many do not realize that we're being trained to accept the "next thing", such as console gamers started to accept and even crave "DLC" micro transactions and how the future of online play and connectivity is shaping around it.
They know the imminent fall of their cash cow P2P schematics MMO wise. What people will expect on the console side. What people will believe unless internet sensations tell them otherwise and say "wake up"; yet they even start to blindly follow these personalities as well.
P2P is dying; it is archaic. It is old and it is a scam. MMOs in general have been made to be nearly on par with facebook games in terms of rushing to create cash cows or the next "wow". This is why a new model is so needed at this time. It is needed to save the genre from itself; we need someone to stand up and say "hey... this is BS, let us show you this model instead".
We are thinking in terms of "how can we get the developers more money", you and I. But if we keep on sticking to old schemes and don't think "outside the box" the genre will cave in on itself, lose players and miss an opportunity to get a huge influx of MMO gamers that could see the potential of the genre (on their new systems) if they feel like they are treated well and don't have to rent the games they buy as a -requirement- to even play them.
Consumer good will is key at this intervention. This transition into a new generation. The P2P (and potentially poor F2P and B2P systems) payment type will cannibalise everything if it is not stopped, if new models are not presented in a positive light. Then what will happen to developers past, present and those who already invested much into their games? This does not advocate F2P or B2P as a replacement, but rather that we need something... different as a whole.
Due to frequent travel in my youth, English isn't something I consider my primary language (and thus I obtained quirky ways of writing). German and French were always easier for me despite my family being U.S. citizens for over a century. Spanish I learned as a requirement in school, Japanese and Korean I acquired for my youthful desire of anime and gaming (and also work now). I only debate in English to help me work with it (and limit things). In addition, I'm not smart enough to remain fluent in everything and typically need exposure to get in the groove of things again if I haven't heard it in a while. If you understand Mandarin, I know a little, but it has actually been a challenge and could use some help.
Also, I thoroughly enjoy debates and have accounts on over a dozen sites for this. If you wish to engage in such, please put effort in a post and provide sources -- I will then do the same with what I already wrote (if I didn't) as well as with my responses to your own. Expanding my information on a subject makes my stance either change or strengthen the next time I speak of it or write a thesis. Allow me to thank you sincerely for your time.
You underestimate the tenacity of gamers... if it is possible to level to 50 in a day, they will do it. If that then opens up the possibility of 10 more levels at an addition fee, on day 2 they will be level 60... and so on. The reason players get stuck with the same content for months on end has more to do with the fact that they consume the content at a level exponentially faster than it can be created. None the less, the issue with games has little to do with cost as much as content. People will gladly pay for new content, what they won't pay for is recycled content. Most of these games have little to no replay value... so they have to rely on things like dailies, achievements, et al to give you the sense that you aren't just running in circles for 3 to 9 months straight.
I prefer the asian sub model, if there's going to be a sub model. You only pay for how long you play. If they can't keep me entertained for more than 4 hours, 4 hours is all they will see from my wallet. No more of this getting paid for a month because I happen to want to log in once during the month. In essence, they are making a mint off of the base subscription model because most people don't play 30 days straight. It's like filling up your car with gas and having it evaporate while the engine isn't on.
I prefer the asian sub model, if there's going to be a sub model. You only pay for how long you play. If they can't keep me entertained for more than 4 hours, 4 hours is all they will see from my wallet. No more of this getting paid for a month because I happen to want to log in once during the month. In essence, they are making a mint off of the base subscription model because most people don't play 30 days straight. It's like filling up your car with gas and having it evaporate while the engine isn't on.
I was against the Asian model in the past simply because I was led to believe it was bad. But nowadays I see that it is the least scam like version for the reasons you described (which I realized a half year ago or so). The main thing that got me was the rhetoric from companies and players that it may cost you more if you played the game often. Though so long as it doesn't exceed the premium (or has the limit thereof), then I'm okay with it. Honestly, I'm against all types of P2P nowadays after sinking tens of thousands of dollars in it simply because I didn't want to lose access to characters or that I wanted to play once or twice a month on different games.
It won't help matters in getting new customers to the market as the whole issue of "renting" will still be there, but it would've saved me thousands if we did this in the west.
Due to frequent travel in my youth, English isn't something I consider my primary language (and thus I obtained quirky ways of writing). German and French were always easier for me despite my family being U.S. citizens for over a century. Spanish I learned as a requirement in school, Japanese and Korean I acquired for my youthful desire of anime and gaming (and also work now). I only debate in English to help me work with it (and limit things). In addition, I'm not smart enough to remain fluent in everything and typically need exposure to get in the groove of things again if I haven't heard it in a while. If you understand Mandarin, I know a little, but it has actually been a challenge and could use some help.
Also, I thoroughly enjoy debates and have accounts on over a dozen sites for this. If you wish to engage in such, please put effort in a post and provide sources -- I will then do the same with what I already wrote (if I didn't) as well as with my responses to your own. Expanding my information on a subject makes my stance either change or strengthen the next time I speak of it or write a thesis. Allow me to thank you sincerely for your time.
One reason for the decline of the subscription model is that some people simply aren't willing to pay a subscription for a game. People who want to buy a game don't like the idea that they're just renting it and will lose access after a while.
Bingo. This is why I hate sub games. I only realized how stupid it was after years of paying one lol
Pay to win has been essentially buying actual power in game; there has been acceptable cases whereby people don't mind such if in fact you are able to acquire said power through normal gameplay means. WIthin this payment model we will see someone paying for the ability to become the most powerful, without any possibility of someone who doesn't pay to become as strong as they are. In such a situation, by hard definition, this could be called pay to win and technically be correct. That is to say, this type is something I would be okay with on purely business sense and knowing how the market is (at least somewhat).
If paying doesn't offer any in-game advantages, then why would anyone pay? Some people like to say you can sell cosmetic stuff and that's okay--but they say that because they won't pay for it for the same reasons that most other people won't pay for it. There isn't that much revenue to be had there.
To me, the problem of "pay to win" is not when someone who pays $15/month has big advantages over someone who pays nothing. Someone who never pays anything is essentially a trial account, and the reasons why you don't give everything away in a free trial should be obvious. Rather, the problem is when someone who pays $15/month is at a huge disadvantage as compared to someone who pays $50/month, who in turn cannot compete with someone who pays $100/month, and so forth.
The problem with expecting to earn everything purely by what you do in-game is that companies don't particularly care what you earn in-game. They don't need a bunch of players to have a bunch of achievements unlocked. They need money. About the only way to make it possible for players to be get access to everything without ever paying is if you trade in-game stuff for what someone else paid for. I think that Puzzle Pirates' doubloon system was the first to do this, but it has since been picked up by EVE's PLEX and TERA's Chronoscrolls. Yet that creates an entirely different sort of "pay to win" problem, as people who pay hundreds of dollars per month once again have an advantage from it, as they get whatever people trade to them for PLEX or whatever.
Originally posted by Theocritus The subscription model just needs to go away period.
It is going away. There are fewer and fewer games use it. And frankly there are enough F2P games that i will never pay a sub again.
We are in a good place.
No, it's not. It's going to remain a viable option as a revenue model.
People have been saying "subs are on their way out!" for what, 3-4 years now? Longer?
I remember reading predictions several years ago that within a couple years, subs would be a thing of the past; that no new MMO would ever use that model because it was "inferior", "archaic", "outdated", "a ripoff", etc. etc. etc.
Yet they are still around. New MMOs are still being developed using that model. People are still playing them. People are still paying sub-fees. MMOs that go from full P2P to a F2P model still maintain the option for a "membership" (aka subscription), because a significant number of people still prefer it to F2P and/or Cash Shop alternatives.
People are still willing to pay them - even eager to do so. The popularity of them is, as of the last numbers I saw, hovering around 50/50 between P2P and F2P. ~50% of the MMO community preferring subscriptions is not indicative of "a dying revenue model".
The only thing that "needs to die" is this fallacy that "subs are dying" some people are clinging to and seem unwilling to let go of.
Subs have been, are still and will continue to be a viable revenue model. They will remain a viable option, just like F2P/Cash Shop, B2P/Cash Shop, Freemium and other variations. Developers will decide which model best suits the type of game experience they wish to provide to their players. Each model has its place. None of them need to "go away".
Just let it go already. You "subs are dying!" folks have been wrong for several years now, and you'll still be wrong several years down the road. No matter how much you want to believe or insist they are, subs aren't going anywhere.
And really, it begs the question: With all the F2P options out there right now for you people to play. Why do you even care that P2P options exist? Does it offend you so much to think that there are still games out there using a revenue model you don't like? Would you prefer to see all palyers forced to use the revenue model you prefer, simply because you think it's better? Don't wanna pay a sub? Play a F2P MMO and don't pay a sub. Want to play a B2P MMO? Buy a B2P MMO and don't pay a sub. Want to pay a sub? Look for a game that offers that option, and have fun.
Are you so intolerant that the idea of people playing a MMO with a revenue model you hate might actually prefer it? Are offended that people could pay a sub-fee, feel it's well worth their money and be having fun with it? What's your deal?
I don't enjoy F2P MMOs... So guess what? I don't play them! Insane concept, right?
And what of the people who prefer F2P and only play them? Great! Good for them! I hope they're having a blast! I personally can't stand the revenue model and wouldn't spend a dime in one of their cash shops. But if others are fine with that, then more power to them.
Do I go into forums with my head on fire calling for their demise? No. I think it's great there are more options out there for people. Are you "anti-Sub" people incapable of doing the same?
And what of people saying "F2P has to die"? I disagree with those people as well. Again, I think there should be options for everyone.
if playing games is just a far sub-hobby and aren't inclined to spend a dinner's worth of value on it... ..then, don't play a game with a monthly subscription & choose one that suits your level of enthusiasm.
Quiz poses a long winded question, however I find simple always trumps sophisticated. Why not simply choose a subscription NOT on a /per month bases.. but on a /per hour basis...?
Instead of paying $15/month... that same $15 bucks, can get you 250hours of gameplay...
Simple..
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
Quiz poses a long winded question, however I find simple always trumps sophisticated. Why not simply choose a subscription NOT on a /per month bases.. but on a /per hour basis...?
Instead of paying $15/month... that same $15 bucks, can get you 250hours of gameplay...
Because if you're paying on an hourly basis, $15 won't get you 250 hours of playing the game. It might get you 30 hours. And then the really hard-core players could end up spending $50 or $100 per month for the hourly "subscription", and they'll squawk about that, loudly.
People who propose paying at an hourly rate as you just have often assume that the rate will be calibrated such that the super hardcore players who practically live in the game still pay only $15/month, and nearly everyone else pays vastly less. That may make it seem like a good deal to players, but no game developer would go for that. People who aren't willing to pay a monthly subscription probably wouldn't be willing to pay an hourly subscription for the same reasons, so it wouldn't attract many additional players. But it would mean that you get vastly less revenue from the players that you do get.
Quiz poses a long winded question, however I find simple always trumps sophisticated. Why not simply choose a subscription NOT on a /per month bases.. but on a /per hour basis...?
Instead of paying $15/month... that same $15 bucks, can get you 250hours of gameplay...
Because if you're paying on an hourly basis, $15 won't get you 250 hours of playing the game. It might get you 30 hours. And then the really hard-core players could end up spending $50 or $100 per month for the hourly "subscription", and they'll squawk about that, loudly.
People who propose paying at an hourly rate as you just have often assume that the rate will be calibrated such that the super hardcore players who practically live in the game still pay only $15/month, and nearly everyone else pays vastly less. That may make it seem like a good deal to players, but no game developer would go for that. People who aren't willing to pay a monthly subscription probably wouldn't be willing to pay an hourly subscription for the same reasons, so it wouldn't attract many additional players. But it would mean that you get vastly less revenue from the players that you do get.
720 hours at .02 cents per hour = $15/month. Technically that is what we are paying now.
As I understand it, the chinese pay .06 cents per hour. If you played a full 720 hours (unlikely), you'd pay $43.20. If you played 12 hours , a mere .72 cents as opposed to $15. Honestly, I doubt anyone plays more than 20 hours a week... that's $4.20/month. You're giving them $10.80 for nothing. We're paying more than the chinese to play the same game for the same number of hours. This is why the sub model is losing it's lustre... we're not getting new content, just paying for old content... at an inflated rate.
True, players don't like the idea of renting their games... so even the asian model won't appease us... the reality is, the game is what is flawed, not the payment model. If people are willing to pledge $500 on a kickstarter game, they're willing to mortgage their homes for a good game... the problem is, their aren't any good games... just mediocre ones all milking us for our time and money. Based on that, I'd rather only pay for what I play (hourly) or not at all since I bought the damn game to begin with.
Quiz poses a long winded question, however I find simple always trumps sophisticated. Why not simply choose a subscription NOT on a /per month bases.. but on a /per hour basis...?
Instead of paying $15/month... that same $15 bucks, can get you 250hours of gameplay...
Because if you're paying on an hourly basis, $15 won't get you 250 hours of playing the game. It might get you 30 hours. And then the really hard-core players could end up spending $50 or $100 per month for the hourly "subscription", and they'll squawk about that, loudly.
People who propose paying at an hourly rate as you just have often assume that the rate will be calibrated such that the super hardcore players who practically live in the game still pay only $15/month, and nearly everyone else pays vastly less. That may make it seem like a good deal to players, but no game developer would go for that. People who aren't willing to pay a monthly subscription probably wouldn't be willing to pay an hourly subscription for the same reasons, so it wouldn't attract many additional players. But it would mean that you get vastly less revenue from the players that you do get.
720 hours at .02 cents per hour = $15/month. Technically that is what we are paying now.
As I understand it, the chinese pay .06 cents per hour. If you played a full 720 hours (unlikely), you'd pay $43.20. If you played 12 hours , a mere .72 cents as opposed to $15. Honestly, I doubt anyone plays more than 20 hours a week... that's $4.20/month. You're giving them $10.80 for nothing. We're paying more than the chinese to play the same game for the same number of hours. This is why the sub model is losing it's lustre... we're not getting new content, just paying for old content... at an inflated rate.
True, players don't like the idea of renting their games... so even the asian model won't appease us... the reality is, the game is what is flawed, not the payment model. If people are willing to pledge $500 on a kickstarter game, they're willing to mortgage their homes for a good game... the problem is, their aren't any good games... just mediocre ones all milking us for our time and money. Based on that, I'd rather only pay for what I play (hourly) or not at all since I bought the damn game to begin with.
People in China tend to have a lot less money than people in the US. $15/month isn't so bad if your job pays you $100/day, but it's more of a problem if you only get paid $100/month. The goal of game developers is not to figure out what's fair in some abstract, cosmic sense, but rather, to maximize their revenue for the game they have. If that means charging more in wealthier countries, they will.
Remember the outlandishly expensive item mall in Allods Online when it was first introduced? What I think they did was to start by assuming that Americans were willing to spend the same fraction of their income on the game as the poorer countries where the game initially launched, and simply scaled their item mall prices accordingly.
All you've really proved there is that they are overcharging the chinese as well. If they can still make a substantial profit at .06/hr in China, (and this is in U.S. currency mind you), then why does it cost $15/month in the U.S.? It doesn't. So if you're worried about inflated costs... they're already inflated... but at an hourly rate, they aren't going to get away with $1/hr. .06/hr in China is inflated... but not nearly as inflated as paying $15/month when you only play for 20 hours. There is a difference.
All you've really proved there is that they are overcharging the chinese as well. If they can still make a substantial profit at .06/hr in China, (and this is in U.S. currency mind you), then why does it cost $15/month in the U.S.? It doesn't. So if you're worried about inflated costs... they're already inflated... but at an hourly rate, they aren't going to get away with $1/hr. .06/hr in China is inflated... but not nearly as inflated as paying $15/month when you only play for 20 hours. There is a difference.
And how many AAA games come out of China again? If you're not going to be able to get much revenue, then you have to keep production costs way down.
For games developed elsewhere and then sold cheaply in China, the options are to sell it cheaply in China or not to sell it at all in China. Try to charge a lot for it and hardly anyone plays it. But those rely mostly on revenue from wealthier countries to pay for the game.
And really, it begs the question: With all the F2P options out there right now for you people to play. Why do you even care that P2P options exist? Does it offend you so much to think that there are still games out there using a revenue model you don't like? Would you prefer to see all palyers forced to use the revenue model you prefer, simply because you think it's better? Don't wanna pay a sub? Play a F2P MMO and don't pay a sub. Want to play a B2P MMO? Buy a B2P MMO and don't pay a sub. Want to pay a sub? Look for a game that offers that option, and have fun.
I don't. That is the point. I wouldn't care less.
But it is still interesting to discuss industry trends.
All you've really proved there is that they are overcharging the chinese as well. If they can still make a substantial profit at .06/hr in China, (and this is in U.S. currency mind you), then why does it cost $15/month in the U.S.? It doesn't. So if you're worried about inflated costs... they're already inflated... but at an hourly rate, they aren't going to get away with $1/hr. .06/hr in China is inflated... but not nearly as inflated as paying $15/month when you only play for 20 hours. There is a difference.
And how many AAA games come out of China again? If you're not going to be able to get much revenue, then you have to keep production costs way down.
For games developed elsewhere and then sold cheaply in China, the options are to sell it cheaply in China or not to sell it at all in China. Try to charge a lot for it and hardly anyone plays it. But those rely mostly on revenue from wealthier countries to pay for the game.
So basically, what you are saying is it's okay for the U.S. or EU to cover the costs of gaming in China or elsewhere because they aren't as financially able to? So Bill Gates should be paying 150 million per month because he can afford to? I hope you can see the flaw with that model and why it has nothing to do with actual game costs... only profits.
All you've really proved there is that they are overcharging the chinese as well. If they can still make a substantial profit at .06/hr in China, (and this is in U.S. currency mind you), then why does it cost $15/month in the U.S.? It doesn't. So if you're worried about inflated costs... they're already inflated... but at an hourly rate, they aren't going to get away with $1/hr. .06/hr in China is inflated... but not nearly as inflated as paying $15/month when you only play for 20 hours. There is a difference.
And how many AAA games come out of China again? If you're not going to be able to get much revenue, then you have to keep production costs way down.
For games developed elsewhere and then sold cheaply in China, the options are to sell it cheaply in China or not to sell it at all in China. Try to charge a lot for it and hardly anyone plays it. But those rely mostly on revenue from wealthier countries to pay for the game.
So basically, what you are saying is it's okay for the U.S. or EU to cover the costs of gaming in China or elsewhere because they aren't as financially able to? So Bill Gates should be paying 150 million per month because he can afford to? I hope you can see the flaw with that model and why it has nothing to do with actual game costs... only profits.
And gaming is pretty big in the asian market...
They actually charge quite a bit more for games in Japan than they do in the US. They pay a good bit in South Korea, too. I don't know about Taiwan, but I'd be surprised if games are especially cheap there, either.
With computer software in general, including but not limited to online games, it costs a lot of money to make the first copy of a game, but then subsequent copies are very cheap. There may or may not be any games at all that have to spend even $1/month per player for server maintenance, bandwidth, customer support, and other such costs that scale with the size of your playerbase. Covering those costs is fairly trivial, and just about any model will do.
The real problem is how to also cover the costs of developing the game and then make a profit. If charging more in market A than in market B will bring in more combined revenue than increasing the market B price to match market A or decreasing the market A price to match market B, then that's what companies will do.
For a similar (and heavily maligned) situation, look at prescription drugs. It costs hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a new drug and test it for effectiveness and safety. Once that testing is done, the per-dose costs of actually producing the drug are often trivially cheap. You charge a lot for the drug in wealthier areas so that you can cover the costs of developing it and hope to make a profit. But in poorer parts of the world, there is no revenue to be had by charging prices that no one can afford. You can either charge much less in poorer areas, get a little bit of revenue, and (depending on the drug) maybe save some lives, or you can simply decline to sell the drug in poorer areas at all and possibly let people die as a result.
But just because they can sell a drug cheaply in poorer areas of the world doesn't mean that they can sell it cheaply everwhere. If they had to sell it cheaply everywhere, then there would be no way to cover the research and testing costs. In that case, many life-saving drugs wouldn't be developed at all, and rather than facing the question of whether some people in poorer areas will unnecessarily die, you'd face the certainty that people in all areas of the world regardless of wealth would unnecessarily die.
Now, computer games aren't a life-and-death matter like medicine sometimes is. But the economics is basically the same even if the ethics aren't. In poorer areas of the world, you can either sell your game cheaply or not at all. But if selling your game cheaply in poorer areas obligated you to do the same in wealthier areas, you'd have no hope of recouping the cost of production on anything but a very low budget game. In that world, big-budget AAA games wouldn't exist, and all we'd have is a handful of indie games on shoestring budgets that were mostly garbage. Is that really want you want?
Now, that does leave open the possibility of games simply saying, if you live in China, you can't play this game, period. And a lot of games do that. But why mandate that all Western games should have to do that?
Quiz poses a long winded question, however I find simple always trumps sophisticated. Why not simply choose a subscription NOT on a /per month bases.. but on a /per hour basis...?
Instead of paying $15/month... that same $15 bucks, can get you 250hours of gameplay...
Because if you're paying on an hourly basis, $15 won't get you 250 hours of playing the game. It might get you 30 hours. And then the really hard-core players could end up spending $50 or $100 per month for the hourly "subscription", and they'll squawk about that, loudly.
People who propose paying at an hourly rate as you just have often assume that the rate will be calibrated such that the super hardcore players who practically live in the game still pay only $15/month, and nearly everyone else pays vastly less. That may make it seem like a good deal to players, but no game developer would go for that. People who aren't willing to pay a monthly subscription probably wouldn't be willing to pay an hourly subscription for the same reasons, so it wouldn't attract many additional players. But it would mean that you get vastly less revenue from the players that you do get.
Sorry Quiz, but you go out on a limb, with a blanket assumption to make your point.
Each.. person will have to make a cost determination/cost analysis for themelves. Do I choose option:
A) $15/month, or option
$15 for 40~250hours of gameplay (btw there are 730h in a month)
Easy is as easy does. Now each MMORPG will have to value their pricing accordingly to their worth. But is simple-logic trumps out here and it will be the business model of the future. <--fact
Simple...
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
All you've really proved there is that they are overcharging the chinese as well. If they can still make a substantial profit at .06/hr in China, (and this is in U.S. currency mind you), then why does it cost $15/month in the U.S.? It doesn't. So if you're worried about inflated costs... they're already inflated... but at an hourly rate, they aren't going to get away with $1/hr. .06/hr in China is inflated... but not nearly as inflated as paying $15/month when you only play for 20 hours. There is a difference.
And how many AAA games come out of China again? If you're not going to be able to get much revenue, then you have to keep production costs way down.
For games developed elsewhere and then sold cheaply in China, the options are to sell it cheaply in China or not to sell it at all in China. Try to charge a lot for it and hardly anyone plays it. But those rely mostly on revenue from wealthier countries to pay for the game.
So basically, what you are saying is it's okay for the U.S. or EU to cover the costs of gaming in China or elsewhere because they aren't as financially able to? So Bill Gates should be paying 150 million per month because he can afford to? I hope you can see the flaw with that model and why it has nothing to do with actual game costs... only profits.
And gaming is pretty big in the asian market...
And what is wrong with that? It is not like we are not paying a lot more for the same drugs here in the US compared to Africa. And we are paying for the R&D.
If you can get Bill Gates to pay $150M per month for a game, you should .. more power to you. As it stands now, US players are willing, and are paying more. A business will be insane to not charge people who are willing to pay more, if there is a way to do so.
Quiz poses a long winded question, however I find simple always trumps sophisticated. Why not simply choose a subscription NOT on a /per month bases.. but on a /per hour basis...?
Instead of paying $15/month... that same $15 bucks, can get you 250hours of gameplay...
Because if you're paying on an hourly basis, $15 won't get you 250 hours of playing the game. It might get you 30 hours. And then the really hard-core players could end up spending $50 or $100 per month for the hourly "subscription", and they'll squawk about that, loudly.
People who propose paying at an hourly rate as you just have often assume that the rate will be calibrated such that the super hardcore players who practically live in the game still pay only $15/month, and nearly everyone else pays vastly less. That may make it seem like a good deal to players, but no game developer would go for that. People who aren't willing to pay a monthly subscription probably wouldn't be willing to pay an hourly subscription for the same reasons, so it wouldn't attract many additional players. But it would mean that you get vastly less revenue from the players that you do get.
Sorry Quiz, but you go out on a limb, with a blanket assumption to make your point.
Each.. person will have to make a cost determination/cost analysis for themelves. Do I choose option:
A) $15/month, or option
$15 for 40~250hours of gameplay (btw there are 730h in a month)
Easy is as easy does. Now each MMORPG will have to value their pricing accordingly to their worth. But is simple-logic trumps out here and it will be the business model of the future. <--fact
Simple...
Given a choice between paying $15/month to play a game or paying $5/month to play exactly the same game and get all of the benefits of paying $15/month, of course you'd choose the latter. But that's why games don't give you that choice. They're trying to make money, and charging everyone 1/3 as much only works if you can more than triple the number of paying players that you get at the lower price. The odds that you'd get even 50% more players by charging 1/3 as much aren't very good. People who object to paying a $15/month subscription for a game are rarely objecting only to that it's $15 rather than $10 or that it's monthly rather than hourly.
#4. Unique Services: Pay to have your very own unique item created. You don't get the item, but the item has a chance to drop for anyone. You can name the items and give basic attributes etc.
The above works great for the consumer. I'm not sure how much profit is brought in, but I don't ever feel at a disadvantage. When companies do what EQ2 and SWTOR do, that's when it's just not fun, e.g., pay for the ability to hold money, pay for the ability to /hide hood, pay for the ability to hold certain items, pay to use auction house etc....
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
#4. Unique Services: Pay to have your very own unique item created. You don't get the item, but the item has a chance to drop for anyone. You can name the items and give basic attributes etc.
The above works great for the consumer. I'm not sure how much profit is brought in, but I don't ever feel at a disadvantage. When companies do what EQ2 and SWTOR do, that's when it's just not fun, e.g., pay for the ability to hold money, pay for the ability to /hide hood, pay for the ability to hold certain items, pay to use auction house etc....
Yeah .. PoE is nicely done in many ways. TOR's model is horrible. However, STO, DDO & DCUO are all fine with their F2P set up.
#4. Unique Services: Pay to have your very own unique item created. You don't get the item, but the item has a chance to drop for anyone. You can name the items and give basic attributes etc.
The above works great for the consumer. I'm not sure how much profit is brought in, but I don't ever feel at a disadvantage. When companies do what EQ2 and SWTOR do, that's when it's just not fun, e.g., pay for the ability to hold money, pay for the ability to /hide hood, pay for the ability to hold certain items, pay to use auction house etc....
Yeah .. PoE is nicely done in many ways. TOR's model is horrible. However, STO, DDO & DCUO are all fine with their F2P set up.
What makes you so sure that they're not going to add more stuff that they charge for later? Plenty of games have started with a more generous payment model to try to attract players, then tightened up what you'd have to pay for later. Item malls that end up flagrantly pay-to-win don't always start that way.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Comments
It isn't possible to make a hybrid model. The game designs are just too different. The best you will ever get is a cash shop model that gives special access to subscribers. IMHO, it would be best to just mirror the original cash shop for subscribers, but have it use game currency instead of real currency. If priced correctly it would be benefitial to both parties, by being a huge game currency sink.
I think GGG has an interesting cash shop model implemented, but I wonder how well it will do in the long run. They just sell cosmetics, stashtabs, player created unique items, and in the future plan to sell player created ladders.
I would play such a game simply because it does not exclude me from a game or content I already purchased. Anything thereafter I would expect to be charged for (not including bug fixes or balancing as I expect that from any game I buy).
I'd like to consider myself a very "outside the box" yet logical kind've thinker is most respect. Thus, I will have to bring up the potential "pay to win" scenario that many will no doubt spout even if a game in particular doesn't have it. In that, I'd like to bring attention to what was considered Pay to Win in the past, and has since then been my definition of such.
Pay to win has been essentially buying actual power in game; there has been acceptable cases whereby people don't mind such if in fact you are able to acquire said power through normal gameplay means. WIthin this payment model we will see someone paying for the ability to become the most powerful, without any possibility of someone who doesn't pay to become as strong as they are. In such a situation, by hard definition, this could be called pay to win and technically be correct. That is to say, this type is something I would be okay with on purely business sense and knowing how the market is (at least somewhat).
Though I do say acceptable in the most loose of terms, as compromises that attack one's morals is something that I normally do not allow; for me to say I think it's okay for a game to allow others to become more powerful than I simply because they pay a monthly fee just irks me the wrong way. Why should I allow this behavior to continue and perhaps spawn a host of anti consumer attacks just to compromise a change to something (in this case a payment model) that is archaic and will eventually cease to exist within the next decade (within reason as I don't expect any model to just go away completely)?
How has it come to the point where I would even think it a good idea? Am I one who perceives that I am being ripped off so monumentally by P2P games that I would simply welcome a new model no matter what it is? By studying the past, we could see that lot of people are very receptive to new models right now, especially when great games are being released under what is becoming popular now (B2P/F2P) or where P2P games usually head after about a year of service.
Will this game in question host world PvP? Will people who don't subscribe still be with people who pay for their extra levels each month? Might there be the ability to unlock these levels for those who are dedicated in the game (buying game time with in game feats and the like as some others did)? I'm down with the premise, understand the business aspects, but at the same time also acknowledge that perception will also play a part in finance. Such a model -- and any game associated with it -- could be condemned as anti consumerist and thus the developers won't get the money that is due to them. It will need to be handled with the utmost care, answer questions, make alterations based on feedback and over all win the community over to successfully incorporate such a change.
I typically upgrade my computer every 18 months with the latest GPU (sometimes SLI), and every 32 months or so I upgrade the mobo/cpu/ram to match with the current generation. It's a costly procedure, but I do it because I enjoy compute gaming. But with the new specs of the PS4, the focus on interconnectivity and social aspects, and the core improvement of technologies (8GB DDR5 RAM and desktop CPU architecture?) I foresee consoles starting to put the focus on social gaming moreso than the solo experiences we get now with only forced grouping in dungeons. Barring the potential of console MMORPGS becoming a reality with new systems (heck Defiance and FFXIV will already be able to do it), the focus on team play on new games (and potentially hundreds of players in said games), we may lose quite a bit of potential MMORPGers if something is not done soon.
In that I mean that I myself am considering just buying a console hardware, save thousands on my computer upgrades, and just the social aspects of B2P games on the consoles and how well they say that such systems can support such things. I'll quite literally save thousands on MMOs as well, as to date I've probably spent $15,000 on P2P MMOs ranging from keeping my UO account active for over a decade, playing FFXI since it came out, WoW since it came out and owning multiple accounts of WoW and having those active (not to mention box prices and expansions to everything, in addition to trying out nearly every MMO that comes out to give it a fair chance up to a few months ago when I swore of P2P games).
The amount I've spent on B2P and F2P MMO games? Maybe $250 (not including box prices and stretching out since Ultima Online). How easy we hear and believe the rhetoric "You can just not go to Mcdonalds twice a month and you'll have enough" that has been spewed since 1997; how so many believed that when it was matched with excuses of bandwidth costs and balancing. How I have just recently read this statement again, an attempt to direct our easily influenced counter parts in the gaming industry to get the massive to believe such. It's business, and many do not know they are being manipulated. Many do not realize that we're being trained to accept the "next thing", such as console gamers started to accept and even crave "DLC" micro transactions and how the future of online play and connectivity is shaping around it.
They know the imminent fall of their cash cow P2P schematics MMO wise. What people will expect on the console side. What people will believe unless internet sensations tell them otherwise and say "wake up"; yet they even start to blindly follow these personalities as well.
P2P is dying; it is archaic. It is old and it is a scam. MMOs in general have been made to be nearly on par with facebook games in terms of rushing to create cash cows or the next "wow". This is why a new model is so needed at this time. It is needed to save the genre from itself; we need someone to stand up and say "hey... this is BS, let us show you this model instead".
We are thinking in terms of "how can we get the developers more money", you and I. But if we keep on sticking to old schemes and don't think "outside the box" the genre will cave in on itself, lose players and miss an opportunity to get a huge influx of MMO gamers that could see the potential of the genre (on their new systems) if they feel like they are treated well and don't have to rent the games they buy as a -requirement- to even play them.
Consumer good will is key at this intervention. This transition into a new generation. The P2P (and potentially poor F2P and B2P systems) payment type will cannibalise everything if it is not stopped, if new models are not presented in a positive light. Then what will happen to developers past, present and those who already invested much into their games? This does not advocate F2P or B2P as a replacement, but rather that we need something... different as a whole.
You underestimate the tenacity of gamers... if it is possible to level to 50 in a day, they will do it. If that then opens up the possibility of 10 more levels at an addition fee, on day 2 they will be level 60... and so on. The reason players get stuck with the same content for months on end has more to do with the fact that they consume the content at a level exponentially faster than it can be created. None the less, the issue with games has little to do with cost as much as content. People will gladly pay for new content, what they won't pay for is recycled content. Most of these games have little to no replay value... so they have to rely on things like dailies, achievements, et al to give you the sense that you aren't just running in circles for 3 to 9 months straight.
I prefer the asian sub model, if there's going to be a sub model. You only pay for how long you play. If they can't keep me entertained for more than 4 hours, 4 hours is all they will see from my wallet. No more of this getting paid for a month because I happen to want to log in once during the month. In essence, they are making a mint off of the base subscription model because most people don't play 30 days straight. It's like filling up your car with gas and having it evaporate while the engine isn't on.
I was against the Asian model in the past simply because I was led to believe it was bad. But nowadays I see that it is the least scam like version for the reasons you described (which I realized a half year ago or so). The main thing that got me was the rhetoric from companies and players that it may cost you more if you played the game often. Though so long as it doesn't exceed the premium (or has the limit thereof), then I'm okay with it. Honestly, I'm against all types of P2P nowadays after sinking tens of thousands of dollars in it simply because I didn't want to lose access to characters or that I wanted to play once or twice a month on different games.
It won't help matters in getting new customers to the market as the whole issue of "renting" will still be there, but it would've saved me thousands if we did this in the west.
Bingo. This is why I hate sub games. I only realized how stupid it was after years of paying one lol
If paying doesn't offer any in-game advantages, then why would anyone pay? Some people like to say you can sell cosmetic stuff and that's okay--but they say that because they won't pay for it for the same reasons that most other people won't pay for it. There isn't that much revenue to be had there.
To me, the problem of "pay to win" is not when someone who pays $15/month has big advantages over someone who pays nothing. Someone who never pays anything is essentially a trial account, and the reasons why you don't give everything away in a free trial should be obvious. Rather, the problem is when someone who pays $15/month is at a huge disadvantage as compared to someone who pays $50/month, who in turn cannot compete with someone who pays $100/month, and so forth.
The problem with expecting to earn everything purely by what you do in-game is that companies don't particularly care what you earn in-game. They don't need a bunch of players to have a bunch of achievements unlocked. They need money. About the only way to make it possible for players to be get access to everything without ever paying is if you trade in-game stuff for what someone else paid for. I think that Puzzle Pirates' doubloon system was the first to do this, but it has since been picked up by EVE's PLEX and TERA's Chronoscrolls. Yet that creates an entirely different sort of "pay to win" problem, as people who pay hundreds of dollars per month once again have an advantage from it, as they get whatever people trade to them for PLEX or whatever.
No, it's not. It's going to remain a viable option as a revenue model.
People have been saying "subs are on their way out!" for what, 3-4 years now? Longer?
I remember reading predictions several years ago that within a couple years, subs would be a thing of the past; that no new MMO would ever use that model because it was "inferior", "archaic", "outdated", "a ripoff", etc. etc. etc.
Yet they are still around. New MMOs are still being developed using that model. People are still playing them. People are still paying sub-fees. MMOs that go from full P2P to a F2P model still maintain the option for a "membership" (aka subscription), because a significant number of people still prefer it to F2P and/or Cash Shop alternatives.
People are still willing to pay them - even eager to do so. The popularity of them is, as of the last numbers I saw, hovering around 50/50 between P2P and F2P. ~50% of the MMO community preferring subscriptions is not indicative of "a dying revenue model".
The only thing that "needs to die" is this fallacy that "subs are dying" some people are clinging to and seem unwilling to let go of.
Subs have been, are still and will continue to be a viable revenue model. They will remain a viable option, just like F2P/Cash Shop, B2P/Cash Shop, Freemium and other variations. Developers will decide which model best suits the type of game experience they wish to provide to their players. Each model has its place. None of them need to "go away".
Just let it go already. You "subs are dying!" folks have been wrong for several years now, and you'll still be wrong several years down the road. No matter how much you want to believe or insist they are, subs aren't going anywhere.
And really, it begs the question: With all the F2P options out there right now for you people to play. Why do you even care that P2P options exist? Does it offend you so much to think that there are still games out there using a revenue model you don't like? Would you prefer to see all palyers forced to use the revenue model you prefer, simply because you think it's better? Don't wanna pay a sub? Play a F2P MMO and don't pay a sub. Want to play a B2P MMO? Buy a B2P MMO and don't pay a sub. Want to pay a sub? Look for a game that offers that option, and have fun.
Are you so intolerant that the idea of people playing a MMO with a revenue model you hate might actually prefer it? Are offended that people could pay a sub-fee, feel it's well worth their money and be having fun with it? What's your deal?
I don't enjoy F2P MMOs... So guess what? I don't play them! Insane concept, right?
And what of the people who prefer F2P and only play them? Great! Good for them! I hope they're having a blast! I personally can't stand the revenue model and wouldn't spend a dime in one of their cash shops. But if others are fine with that, then more power to them.
Do I go into forums with my head on fire calling for their demise? No. I think it's great there are more options out there for people. Are you "anti-Sub" people incapable of doing the same?
And what of people saying "F2P has to die"? I disagree with those people as well. Again, I think there should be options for everyone.
Or..
if playing games is just a far sub-hobby and aren't inclined to spend a dinner's worth of value on it... ..then, don't play a game with a monthly subscription & choose one that suits your level of enthusiasm.
Quiz poses a long winded question, however I find simple always trumps sophisticated. Why not simply choose a subscription NOT on a /per month bases.. but on a /per hour basis...?
Instead of paying $15/month... that same $15 bucks, can get you 250hours of gameplay...
Simple..
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
-Nariusseldon
Because if you're paying on an hourly basis, $15 won't get you 250 hours of playing the game. It might get you 30 hours. And then the really hard-core players could end up spending $50 or $100 per month for the hourly "subscription", and they'll squawk about that, loudly.
People who propose paying at an hourly rate as you just have often assume that the rate will be calibrated such that the super hardcore players who practically live in the game still pay only $15/month, and nearly everyone else pays vastly less. That may make it seem like a good deal to players, but no game developer would go for that. People who aren't willing to pay a monthly subscription probably wouldn't be willing to pay an hourly subscription for the same reasons, so it wouldn't attract many additional players. But it would mean that you get vastly less revenue from the players that you do get.
720 hours at .02 cents per hour = $15/month. Technically that is what we are paying now.
As I understand it, the chinese pay .06 cents per hour. If you played a full 720 hours (unlikely), you'd pay $43.20. If you played 12 hours , a mere .72 cents as opposed to $15. Honestly, I doubt anyone plays more than 20 hours a week... that's $4.20/month. You're giving them $10.80 for nothing. We're paying more than the chinese to play the same game for the same number of hours. This is why the sub model is losing it's lustre... we're not getting new content, just paying for old content... at an inflated rate.
True, players don't like the idea of renting their games... so even the asian model won't appease us... the reality is, the game is what is flawed, not the payment model. If people are willing to pledge $500 on a kickstarter game, they're willing to mortgage their homes for a good game... the problem is, their aren't any good games... just mediocre ones all milking us for our time and money. Based on that, I'd rather only pay for what I play (hourly) or not at all since I bought the damn game to begin with.
People in China tend to have a lot less money than people in the US. $15/month isn't so bad if your job pays you $100/day, but it's more of a problem if you only get paid $100/month. The goal of game developers is not to figure out what's fair in some abstract, cosmic sense, but rather, to maximize their revenue for the game they have. If that means charging more in wealthier countries, they will.
Remember the outlandishly expensive item mall in Allods Online when it was first introduced? What I think they did was to start by assuming that Americans were willing to spend the same fraction of their income on the game as the poorer countries where the game initially launched, and simply scaled their item mall prices accordingly.
All you've really proved there is that they are overcharging the chinese as well. If they can still make a substantial profit at .06/hr in China, (and this is in U.S. currency mind you), then why does it cost $15/month in the U.S.? It doesn't. So if you're worried about inflated costs... they're already inflated... but at an hourly rate, they aren't going to get away with $1/hr. .06/hr in China is inflated... but not nearly as inflated as paying $15/month when you only play for 20 hours. There is a difference.
And how many AAA games come out of China again? If you're not going to be able to get much revenue, then you have to keep production costs way down.
For games developed elsewhere and then sold cheaply in China, the options are to sell it cheaply in China or not to sell it at all in China. Try to charge a lot for it and hardly anyone plays it. But those rely mostly on revenue from wealthier countries to pay for the game.
I don't. That is the point. I wouldn't care less.
But it is still interesting to discuss industry trends.
So basically, what you are saying is it's okay for the U.S. or EU to cover the costs of gaming in China or elsewhere because they aren't as financially able to? So Bill Gates should be paying 150 million per month because he can afford to? I hope you can see the flaw with that model and why it has nothing to do with actual game costs... only profits.
And gaming is pretty big in the asian market...
They actually charge quite a bit more for games in Japan than they do in the US. They pay a good bit in South Korea, too. I don't know about Taiwan, but I'd be surprised if games are especially cheap there, either.
With computer software in general, including but not limited to online games, it costs a lot of money to make the first copy of a game, but then subsequent copies are very cheap. There may or may not be any games at all that have to spend even $1/month per player for server maintenance, bandwidth, customer support, and other such costs that scale with the size of your playerbase. Covering those costs is fairly trivial, and just about any model will do.
The real problem is how to also cover the costs of developing the game and then make a profit. If charging more in market A than in market B will bring in more combined revenue than increasing the market B price to match market A or decreasing the market A price to match market B, then that's what companies will do.
For a similar (and heavily maligned) situation, look at prescription drugs. It costs hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a new drug and test it for effectiveness and safety. Once that testing is done, the per-dose costs of actually producing the drug are often trivially cheap. You charge a lot for the drug in wealthier areas so that you can cover the costs of developing it and hope to make a profit. But in poorer parts of the world, there is no revenue to be had by charging prices that no one can afford. You can either charge much less in poorer areas, get a little bit of revenue, and (depending on the drug) maybe save some lives, or you can simply decline to sell the drug in poorer areas at all and possibly let people die as a result.
But just because they can sell a drug cheaply in poorer areas of the world doesn't mean that they can sell it cheaply everwhere. If they had to sell it cheaply everywhere, then there would be no way to cover the research and testing costs. In that case, many life-saving drugs wouldn't be developed at all, and rather than facing the question of whether some people in poorer areas will unnecessarily die, you'd face the certainty that people in all areas of the world regardless of wealth would unnecessarily die.
Now, computer games aren't a life-and-death matter like medicine sometimes is. But the economics is basically the same even if the ethics aren't. In poorer areas of the world, you can either sell your game cheaply or not at all. But if selling your game cheaply in poorer areas obligated you to do the same in wealthier areas, you'd have no hope of recouping the cost of production on anything but a very low budget game. In that world, big-budget AAA games wouldn't exist, and all we'd have is a handful of indie games on shoestring budgets that were mostly garbage. Is that really want you want?
Now, that does leave open the possibility of games simply saying, if you live in China, you can't play this game, period. And a lot of games do that. But why mandate that all Western games should have to do that?
Sorry Quiz, but you go out on a limb, with a blanket assumption to make your point.
Each.. person will have to make a cost determination/cost analysis for themelves. Do I choose option:
A) $15/month, or option
Easy is as easy does. Now each MMORPG will have to value their pricing accordingly to their worth. But is simple-logic trumps out here and it will be the business model of the future. <--fact
Simple...
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
-Nariusseldon
And what is wrong with that? It is not like we are not paying a lot more for the same drugs here in the US compared to Africa. And we are paying for the R&D.
If you can get Bill Gates to pay $150M per month for a game, you should .. more power to you. As it stands now, US players are willing, and are paying more. A business will be insane to not charge people who are willing to pay more, if there is a way to do so.
Given a choice between paying $15/month to play a game or paying $5/month to play exactly the same game and get all of the benefits of paying $15/month, of course you'd choose the latter. But that's why games don't give you that choice. They're trying to make money, and charging everyone 1/3 as much only works if you can more than triple the number of paying players that you get at the lower price. The odds that you'd get even 50% more players by charging 1/3 as much aren't very good. People who object to paying a $15/month subscription for a game are rarely objecting only to that it's $15 rather than $10 or that it's monthly rather than hourly.
Path of Exile has the best cash system.
#1. Free Game.
#2. Items: Only aesthetic items for sale. No xp potions, drop rate potions, etc.
#3. Services: Server Transfers, Name Changing
#4. Unique Services: Pay to have your very own unique item created. You don't get the item, but the item has a chance to drop for anyone. You can name the items and give basic attributes etc.
The above works great for the consumer. I'm not sure how much profit is brought in, but I don't ever feel at a disadvantage. When companies do what EQ2 and SWTOR do, that's when it's just not fun, e.g., pay for the ability to hold money, pay for the ability to /hide hood, pay for the ability to hold certain items, pay to use auction house etc....
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Yeah .. PoE is nicely done in many ways. TOR's model is horrible. However, STO, DDO & DCUO are all fine with their F2P set up.
What makes you so sure that they're not going to add more stuff that they charge for later? Plenty of games have started with a more generous payment model to try to attract players, then tightened up what you'd have to pay for later. Item malls that end up flagrantly pay-to-win don't always start that way.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.