Which is better, being forced to spend money after buying a game, or having the option of spending money? I would pick the freedom of a (non-Pay2Win) cash shop any day.
And yes, you do need to spend money on the bug fixes over time, but if you make a good game to begin with, those costs aren't probably going to be very high and could easily be recouped by even a cosmetic only cash shop.
However, this isn't really about subs or cash shops being good or bad, it's more about the OP's idea being terrible (IMO) for the player.
Sorry, this post was in response to Drakxii....I hit the wrong "Quote" button!
Edit: clearing up who the response was to.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Well gu357u53r, from what I gather from your posts, you clearly favour subscribers over non-subscribers.
If you want to make a game that is targeted at subscribers, why not just scrap the "pay for the boxset but get half the game" scheme and just slap a monthly sub fee on it? If people think your game has promise they'll sub. Nobody will pay an initial fee to play an incomplete version of the game. In fact I think most non-subscribers would rather just play a F2P game with a cash shop. At least that way they know they didn't spend money, and won't expect to be favoured over subscribers/cash item buyers.
All I have to say is it would really piss me off to spend $50 on a game, play all the way through, just to get to the end and have it say "Sorry, you can't do this because you haven't been paying $15/month.
Wouldn't it also piss you off if you had to unsubscribe, then come back later only to find out your world is empty? Or no one will help you even though they easily have the power to do so?
If I buy a game, I'm spending my money to buy the beginning, middle, and END of the game. For anyone who pays a sub for a game, I will always ask: Why would you continue to pay for the privilege of playing a game you already paid for? And then, your model treats those who paid for the box like deadbeats. Basically, "Yes, you gave us money, but not enough for our greedy pockets, so you don't get the end of the game or many other basic aspects of it"
In an MMO game there is no end. At least those deadbeats can play it, otherwise it will just rot in the corner space of the hard drive.
I would much rather play a B2P game with a cash shop without Pay2Win items (meaning better gear, weapons, etc. than can be found in the game itself - not boosters)....as long as I was able to play to the end of the game.
I also would prefer this, but if a game had to be subscription I would prefer this way. I am done playing subscription based games, they are fatally flawed. F2P is also fine, but I will never pay a dime so gaming companies really shouldn't do this sort of thing. They would be better off having free weekends every so often like what Steam does.
As for subs, I don't mind the hybrid model akin to LotRO, the sub players get some extras and access to everything, plus points every month to buy boosters, etc. Then the F2P people can play the core game (to the end, mind you), have the ability to earn points in game and have the ability to use real money to buy points for content, etc. if they want. To me, that's a win-win for everyone.
Again the only reason LotRO is F2P without the box fee is because they had people pay a ton of cash for a lifetime subscription during release so you really cannot use that argument here. There are MMO games that have died, Tabula Rasa and Auto Assault. They are being very generous to allow people to play for free in my opinion.
So, basically, I'm disagreeing that your idea is the fairest way to run an MMO. Like sub only game, I would stay very far away from any game using your model.
Of course it isn't fair, nothing in life is fair. I disagree with subscription, F2P, & RMT type games. I am just trying to think of another way to do it if it absolutely required subscription revenue. Which do you like better B2P or subscription based game? And I will also stay very far away from subscription based games.
"in an MMO game there is no end"....isn't that what you said the F2P players don't get without a sub? The end of the game?
Also, LotRO is a good example, it wasn't the lifetime subs that allowed them to go to a hybrid model, it was that they found that that model works very well. (Turbine had success with it with DDO, if I remember correctly).
And if a game "requires" subscription revenue (I personally don't believe that any game does), why not just make it a sub-based game and be done with it?
I personally think the best way is B2P, followed by the hybrid model. I don't play subscription games, period, because I personally think charging me to play a game I've paid for is nothing better than ripping me off.
Why shouldn't it be fair? The B2P model, even with a (non-Pay2Win) cash shop is completely fair for everyone involved - the devs and players. The hybrid model, in many cases is also very fair for everyone involved IMO.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
This model and the rift model will never work in real life since its inherently counter productive.
Nothing counter productive about it if you subscribe. No different than an MMO trying to thrive when no one is subscribing. The game was created after all to be filled with real players over an ethernet cable.
You never in a game will be able for force people to pay for somthing they dont enjoy, if the game isn't compelling enough for them to pay for a sub they wont pay for a sub to get the full extent of the game in the first place.
You are never forced to subscribe this is a moot point.
If some one doesnt enjoys driving a sports car they wont buy one becasue the dickhead at their office drives one and their jealous, if they have the money theyll buy a boat or build a pool.
Exactly this is giving people more options beyond the B2P, F2P, and subscription based game.
Also you will never convince some one that the game is good enough to be worth their money by making the feel like 2nd class citizens and limiting their every move, it will mostlikely make them quit rather than buy a sub.
So you are going to jump into an already aging world that has been going on for lets say a year, and subscribe? Do you realize you will be isolated, and spit on by other players in the world? You will also never catch up to those players so if your friend is one of them well good luck because you won't catch him. Why would anyone even play the game if no one is going to help them?
Also for people who were planning to sub either way such as system will bascially mean "free game time till max level" and if it takes longer than the free month to reach max level theyll just wont sub till that since just about every thing in a Theme Park styled game untill max level is beyond level grinding is a waste of time.
News flash all games are a waste of time. People are still playing De_Dust in Counter-Strike 1.6.
The last group of people are the people who don't give a fuck about subs, or cash shops either because all they do is troll and bot the game or cant afford to pay the sub in the first place, as with most other players such system wont have a single possitive effect on the game.
Doesn't really have much to do with the discussion. All games are going to suffer from those types of players. In this model it won't suffer from the trolls, and the gold farmers.
I dont belive that the RIFT system did them any good except maybe retaining some subs due to the fact that non-paying players increased or atleast decreased the population drop of the game slightly.
You might be right here because I didn't have to pay anything to get in there and take up bandwidth, and server space. That is the risk they took. I am just basing my pricing model off of it, took inspiration from it.
Such system will never work in a Theme Park MMO due to it being in complete contrast with the core game mechanics of the game. And in sandboxes people mostlikely wont like the fact that you are limiting their ability to create their own experience.
If you have access to all the content, even end game just not completion you are getting all of the core mechanics.
What i belvie many companies need to starting doing is family subs, i cant belive that Blizzard still havent jumped on that bandwaggon, with the amount of couples and whole families playing MMO's today having discounts based on on the amount of players are bound to the same special account of credit card can yield you allot of shared house holds who cant afford spening 30-90 US a month on a game. They allready doing things like that in korea and some other asain markets..
What I believe companies need to stop doing is to stop with the subscription only, cash shop, & rmt types of games.
Also what might work is that MMO's might want start selling timed demos even on launch, let people pay 10US to try the game for a week if they like it they can buy a digital copy for 10US less and get 3 weeks instead of 4 of game time.
That design is worse than mine as I am limited in content access, I wouldn't spend money on it. You must be a troll. Pay for a demo.... You are funny.
I think the first company that does that might actually survive the first 2 months since even if it gets mixed or bad reviews allot of people might be willing to spend 10US to try it out instead of givving up on it right away.
You need box sales to survive, is that so hard to see?
Shees i've read all you other "counter arguments" on other posts and you really dont know how to "argue", if you think some one is wrong then put either facts or a decent theory to prove other wise saying "you're wrong and im right" is not the way to go.
Your system cuts out content and exprience, makes the game a hell of allot more complicate to design, and instead of renforcing people to subscribe by letting them exprience the game to the fullest with all its aspects is just reducing the quality of life of its playability and will mostlikly only makes them frustrated.
Before you try to intreduce a new capitalization system you need to evaluate several things
1) what are you going to capialize on
2) who is your target audience
When you intreducing an alternative system you need to go even deeper and think how am im going to convince some one to pay for somthing they either can get for free or werent that intrested about it in the first place.
Making them expreince the game in with limitation isnt the way to go, every thing you want to remove from them are the most basic machanics in any MMORPG. For that "recruit your friend" and free weekends work much better.
Also if you want to add more players to the game that were not normally play it by making the basic version free in hoping those who were on the fence will move to the sub camp you are risking that just as many players who were subs switching the "free" camp.
Also you don't seem to comprehand most of what people are saying, for example paying 10US for a week of play time isn't any less of a demo than buying a box of a sub based MMO is. You pay you get to play for 1 week you want to play it more pay for the box minus the inital fee and get that week reduced from your initial free time. If timed properly that can generate more income after the dust from the initial launch have settled and even if no one of the people who payed for that week will buy the game it is still an income generator unlike a free week or a weekend.
Also i have no idea what flash games and CS have to do with it, with Theme Parks as they are designed to day leveling is a means to a goal which in any Theme Park is the end game. Spending time on crafting, and buying gear while leveling is a waste of time and while some people still do that just about every player these days learned not too.
When you intreduce a new system for income generation you need to figure out how to insentivise the player to pay, thats why cash shops in many cases with f2p games turn them into p2w games since if you can expreicne the game completly and be on top with out spending a dime with ease you wont get as much sales as you would if you forced them to play.
As for your system you need to look at insentives to pay, not insentives to stop playing.
All I have to say is it would really piss me off to spend $50 on a game, play all the way through, just to get to the end and have it say "Sorry, you can't do this because you haven't been paying $15/month.
Wouldn't it also piss you off if you had to unsubscribe, then come back later only to find out your world is empty? Or no one will help you even though they easily have the power to do so?
If I buy a game, I'm spending my money to buy the beginning, middle, and END of the game. For anyone who pays a sub for a game, I will always ask: Why would you continue to pay for the privilege of playing a game you already paid for? And then, your model treats those who paid for the box like deadbeats. Basically, "Yes, you gave us money, but not enough for our greedy pockets, so you don't get the end of the game or many other basic aspects of it"
In an MMO game there is no end. At least those deadbeats can play it, otherwise it will just rot in the corner space of the hard drive.
I would much rather play a B2P game with a cash shop without Pay2Win items (meaning better gear, weapons, etc. than can be found in the game itself - not boosters)....as long as I was able to play to the end of the game.
I also would prefer this, but if a game had to be subscription I would prefer this way. I am done playing subscription based games, they are fatally flawed. F2P is also fine, but I will never pay a dime so gaming companies really shouldn't do this sort of thing. They would be better off having free weekends every so often like what Steam does.
As for subs, I don't mind the hybrid model akin to LotRO, the sub players get some extras and access to everything, plus points every month to buy boosters, etc. Then the F2P people can play the core game (to the end, mind you), have the ability to earn points in game and have the ability to use real money to buy points for content, etc. if they want. To me, that's a win-win for everyone.
Again the only reason LotRO is F2P without the box fee is because they had people pay a ton of cash for a lifetime subscription during release so you really cannot use that argument here. There are MMO games that have died, Tabula Rasa and Auto Assault. They are being very generous to allow people to play for free in my opinion.
So, basically, I'm disagreeing that your idea is the fairest way to run an MMO. Like sub only game, I would stay very far away from any game using your model.
Of course it isn't fair, nothing in life is fair. I disagree with subscription, F2P, & RMT type games. I am just trying to think of another way to do it if it absolutely required subscription revenue. Which do you like better B2P or subscription based game? And I will also stay very far away from subscription based games.
"in an MMO game there is no end"....isn't that what you said the F2P players don't get without a sub? The end of the game?
If I did quote it, I won't be mad. It is late, but I don't remember saying that about F2P.
Also, LotRO is a good example, it wasn't the lifetime subs that allowed them to go to a hybrid model, it was that they found that that model works very well. (Turbine had success with it with DDO, if I remember correctly).
In this instance it was probably the IP that allowed it they make money off of other goods.
And if a game "requires" subscription revenue (I personally don't believe that any game does), why not just make it a sub-based game and be done with it?
If you believe that any game shouldn't require a subscription revenue than why would you want the game to be subcription based?
I personally think the best way is B2P, followed by the hybrid model. I don't play subscription games, period, because I personally think charging me to play a game I've paid for is nothing better than ripping me off.
Exactly, I am basically doing this to show how retarded they are, and trying to get MMO gamers to wise up. We make the worlds thrive stop playing subscription games, let them die already. They don't want you back, so why do you keep subscribing?
Why shouldn't it be fair? The B2P model, even with a (non-Pay2Win) cash shop is completely fair for everyone involved - the devs and players. The hybrid model, in many cases is also very fair for everyone involved IMO.
I apologize I think my train of thought here is more after giving reason to have a hierarchy of power amongst players. B2P everybody can be at the top, which works fine for that model but I feel there needs to be limitations to give the world a more true feeling without making it completely subscription required.
This model and the rift model will never work in real life since its inherently counter productive.
Nothing counter productive about it if you subscribe. No different than an MMO trying to thrive when no one is subscribing. The game was created after all to be filled with real players over an ethernet cable.
You never in a game will be able for force people to pay for somthing they dont enjoy, if the game isn't compelling enough for them to pay for a sub they wont pay for a sub to get the full extent of the game in the first place.
You are never forced to subscribe this is a moot point.
If some one doesnt enjoys driving a sports car they wont buy one becasue the dickhead at their office drives one and their jealous, if they have the money theyll buy a boat or build a pool.
Exactly this is giving people more options beyond the B2P, F2P, and subscription based game.
Also you will never convince some one that the game is good enough to be worth their money by making the feel like 2nd class citizens and limiting their every move, it will mostlikely make them quit rather than buy a sub.
So you are going to jump into an already aging world that has been going on for lets say a year, and subscribe? Do you realize you will be isolated, and spit on by other players in the world? You will also never catch up to those players so if your friend is one of them well good luck because you won't catch him. Why would anyone even play the game if no one is going to help them?
Also for people who were planning to sub either way such as system will bascially mean "free game time till max level" and if it takes longer than the free month to reach max level theyll just wont sub till that since just about every thing in a Theme Park styled game untill max level is beyond level grinding is a waste of time.
News flash all games are a waste of time. People are still playing De_Dust in Counter-Strike 1.6.
The last group of people are the people who don't give a fuck about subs, or cash shops either because all they do is troll and bot the game or cant afford to pay the sub in the first place, as with most other players such system wont have a single possitive effect on the game.
Doesn't really have much to do with the discussion. All games are going to suffer from those types of players. In this model it won't suffer from the trolls, and the gold farmers.
I dont belive that the RIFT system did them any good except maybe retaining some subs due to the fact that non-paying players increased or atleast decreased the population drop of the game slightly.
You might be right here because I didn't have to pay anything to get in there and take up bandwidth, and server space. That is the risk they took. I am just basing my pricing model off of it, took inspiration from it.
Such system will never work in a Theme Park MMO due to it being in complete contrast with the core game mechanics of the game. And in sandboxes people mostlikely wont like the fact that you are limiting their ability to create their own experience.
If you have access to all the content, even end game just not completion you are getting all of the core mechanics.
What i belvie many companies need to starting doing is family subs, i cant belive that Blizzard still havent jumped on that bandwaggon, with the amount of couples and whole families playing MMO's today having discounts based on on the amount of players are bound to the same special account of credit card can yield you allot of shared house holds who cant afford spening 30-90 US a month on a game. They allready doing things like that in korea and some other asain markets..
What I believe companies need to stop doing is to stop with the subscription only, cash shop, & rmt types of games.
Also what might work is that MMO's might want start selling timed demos even on launch, let people pay 10US to try the game for a week if they like it they can buy a digital copy for 10US less and get 3 weeks instead of 4 of game time.
That design is worse than mine as I am limited in content access, I wouldn't spend money on it. You must be a troll. Pay for a demo.... You are funny.
I think the first company that does that might actually survive the first 2 months since even if it gets mixed or bad reviews allot of people might be willing to spend 10US to try it out instead of givving up on it right away.
You need box sales to survive, is that so hard to see?
Your system cuts out content and exprience, makes the game a hell of allot more complicate to design, and instead of renforcing people to subscribe by letting them exprience the game to the fullest with all its aspects is just reducing the quality of life of its playability and will mostlikly only makes them frustrated.
I will keep using World of Warcrack as the example. If you could play it all the way to end game but not kill the last boss would you play?
Before you try to intreduce a new capitalization system you need to evaluate several things
1) what are you going to capialize on
box sales
2) who is your target audience
gamers
When you intreducing an alternative system you need to go even deeper and think how am im going to convince some one to pay for somthing they either can get for free or werent that intrested about it in the first place.
I am just after a pricing model not creating a game. I don't have any experience doing that sort of thing. Well maybe I could model in Maya or 3DSMax.
Making them expreince the game in with limitation isnt the way to go, every thing you want to remove from them are the most basic machanics in any MMORPG. For that "recruit your friend" and free weekends work much better.
Free weekends are for advertisement, and recruit a friend some what works. They will still be behind in gear in the end game so why will they keep subscribing? It sort of works, but I am not buying into it anymore. Right now it works because of the upcoming expansion, but give it a few months and bring back those figures for people doing recruit a friend. Who's going to bother wasting time doing recruit a friend when they have a max panda monk doing raid content?
Also if you want to add more players to the game that were not normally play it by making the basic version free in hoping those who were on the fence will move to the sub camp you are risking that just as many players who were subs switching the "free" camp.
That is why the game has to stay at $49.99, this is what requires it to keep running.
Also you don't seem to comprehand most of what people are saying, for example paying 10US for a week of play time isn't any less of a demo than buying a box of a sub based MMO is. You pay you get to play for 1 week you want to play it more pay for the box minus the inital fee and get that week reduced from your initial free time. If timed properly that can generate more income after the dust from the initial launch have settled and even if no one of the people who payed for that week will buy the game it is still an income generator unlike a free week or a weekend.
You keep talking about not being able to access content, but you wouldn't be able to access it after one week so why waste $10 dollars?
Also i have no idea what flash games and CS have to do with it, with Theme Parks as they are designed to day leveling is a means to a goal which in any Theme Park is the end game. Spending time on crafting, and buying gear while leveling is a waste of time and while some people still do that just about every player these days learned not too.
MMO games are designed to be ever evolving, there is no, 'The End, You Win'. That is why I say people still play Counter-Strike 1.6 still because it is fun, and they can access it. But if you stop and think why do I keep playing this De_Dust2 map over, and over, chances are you will tell yourself it's either fun because others are playing it, or it sucks because you are the last one left in the server. But the underlying point I need to drive home is Valve or whoever created Counter-Strike respects it's customers, gamers, and doesn't require them to pay the piper to keep playing. Or entice you back with free game time only to say oh sorry here's the door, we don't want you back.
When you intreduce a new system for income generation you need to figure out how to insentivise the player to pay, thats why cash shops in many cases with f2p games turn them into p2w games since if you can expreicne the game completly and be on top with out spending a dime with ease you wont get as much sales as you would if you forced them to play.
Nobody forces anyone to do anything.
As for your system you need to look at insentives to pay, not insentives to stop playing.
This is just a pricing model, I don't actually have a game that I am creating unfortunately.
I'm not going to quote this whole thing, you cant create an income generating system with out having a game which its core mechanics are built around it if your system is based on insentivising people to sub, or buy items from a cash shop, or any other revenue stream.
When people desided to interduce microstransactions they built their games around it some did a better job in making a game some did better job at making a proffit some did a terrible job at both.
People who play sub based MMO's expect several things in return usually in terms of long term support, and free additional content for the forseeable future.
If you are going to make a game which is a sub/f2p hybrid you need to figure what the game is going to offer and how the game mechanics are going to effect paying and non paying players.
For example how's the 1st free month going to look like if that system of yours also has box sales as revenue model(which complicates things allot).
Say i've reached the max level with in the first month of the game which is what you pretty much get these days. Since i was in the free month i get all the benefits of the sub right?
K i got my level 80 gear but if i dont wanna pay i can only use 79? What happens to all that special currency i've gathered during leveling? what happens to my auctions when the month expires? what happens to my mail? what if i made more chars then what the free version allows? a system like that wont fly well with most people because if nothing it will seem more as blackmail than any thing else.
If you really dont understand all the wholes and downsides of that systems especially when you combine them with initiall 50-60US box sales and the fact that when you design somthing so complex and important as the entire revenue system for your product that you cant make it and then figure out how to sell it then im sorry but your whole way of thinking is incorrect.
I'm not going to quote this whole thing, you cant create an income generating system with out having a game which its core mechanics are built around it if your system is based on insentivising people to sub, or buy items from a cash shop, or any other revenue stream.
Anything is possible. How is trying to get players to keep subscribing to subscription based games any different? The subscription based games still have to have incentives to keep players, but the problem is when the world starts to deteriorate in players you are left trying to pick up the pieces wondering what did I do to drive away players. Well hello you are charging them to access something they built. They don't build the playerbases that is all up to you and I.
When people desided to interduce microstransactions they built their games around it some did a better job in making a game some did better job at making a proffit some did a terrible job at both.
People who play sub based MMO's expect several things in return usually in terms of long term support, and free additional content for the forseeable future.
If you are going to make a game which is a sub/f2p hybrid you need to figure what the game is going to offer and how the game mechanics are going to effect paying and non paying players.
That is what I was trying to do with my original post, but it is a work in progress.
For example how's the 1st free month going to look like if that system of yours also has box sales as revenue model(which complicates things allot).
Say i've reached the max level with in the first month of the game which is what you pretty much get these days. Since i was in the free month i get all the benefits of the sub right?
I don't think there could be access to a free month of subscription that would cause added server maintenance cost which wouldn't be covered through retail box sales. This is to keep the servers going as long as possible for everybody.
K i got my level 80 gear but if i dont wanna pay i can only use 79? What happens to all that special currency i've gathered during leveling? what happens to my auctions when the month expires? what happens to my mail? what if i made more chars then what the free version allows? a system like that wont fly well with most people because if nothing it will seem more as blackmail than any thing else.
Simple, it freezes until you subscribe.
If you really dont understand all the wholes and downsides of that systems especially when you combine them with initiall 50-60US box sales and the fact that when you design somthing so complex and important as the entire revenue system for your product that you cant make it and then figure out how to sell it then im sorry but your whole way of thinking is incorrect.
And you know all the ups and downs of these systems?
Your way is not the end all be all answer either. I am here brainstorming ideas to get players back into the games they love. Of course it will never come to fruition, but this is a forum where we can come to discuss things MMORPG related. What is so wrong about that? All you keep doing is driving home how awesome it is to buy a game and on top of that pay a subscription only to find out when you don't pay that next monthly fee you don't get access to it. At least with my method you can still access all content that requires skill. I'm not here to fight with you, I am here to help you and the other MMO subscribers break free of the subscription is the only way mindset.But also to show that cash shops, RMT, and subscription based games are the cesspool of the gaming industry.
Sub are the cesspool of the industry? well considering every beloved game since the first online MUD's were out there had one thats like basically saying that all those people are...
And do you realize that "simple its freezes till your resub" isnt simple? what freezes am i going to be naked? what about my bank char that i cant get too? what about all the mails i had which i didn't get to open? a system like that is the fear and parody of DLC, its basically going back to the days of the arcade "insert coin to continue" people paid for a box and got content it says on the box that it wont require a sub or that a sub will be optional you cant then take away features from them. If you take away features and lockout abilities you are not insentivising people to sub, you are punishing your costumers and that never works well on no one. If you want to make a hybrid model instead of thinking what people that dont pay wont have you need to think about what people that do pay will, and in that case it is very hard to impossible to insetivise people to pay 15US extra with out handycapping those who don't.
There is a reason why cash shops MMO's are succesfull for every 5 people who dont pay a dime there is one moron that wants all the dyes, and all the chocobos and theyll pay mid to high range double digits for that a month. I know people that spent around 600 US on LoL by buying just about ever char and outfit there is in there, i know people that spent 200+ US by buying ever wow ingame pet there is on the blizzstore... But those people and the those transactions have nither handycap nor restrict the players who dont care about pandy the panda or murky the murloc.
With a hybrid system as you've suggested with box sales you are punishing those who supported you the most, and taking away things they've allready paid for instead of givving them more if they will sub.
it should be renamed to 'Buy2Play with additional limitations', all in hope they attract more people to their already aging game (not talking about rift here tho).
its actually great idea. cant wait for 'next gen' payment models. I can already see it... Buy to play with 9 different monthly subscription models, ranging from $5 to $99 a month, where every higher tier subscription model unlocks aditional feature. All that because our friendly publishers/devs want to make their game accessible to everyone, regardless how much money you have !
Also, publishers could defend its existance relatively easy, just by saying 'but you can experience everything for free!
you just cant send mails if you dont have a $25 sub, or cant use storage/auction if you dont pay another $10. But you can access all physical areas in our game, without restrictions (and could even wear some of gear you find in those areas, if you have recurring subscription nr7, @ $60/month). Why u mmo gamers no happy!?!
so basically this model is a limited B2P, just costing the same as B2P. less bang for your buck all around.
no wonder you are being torn appart in this thread, OP.
back to the drawing board. or better, stop thinking. its obviously not your strongest point.
It's not that the problem is that a game which is neither B2P or P2P needs to be designed from the ground up to fit a diffrent model, e.g cash shop.
All the ideas the OP suggested are basically either "cash shop" MMO or a P2P mmo with an extended trail like WoW is today with recruirt a friend or in rift. The problem is that he just cant see that...
Special currency for "subs" = gems, plex, corwns, w/e in just about every cash shop mmo has special currency that people use, and before some one jumps well you earn it in game - no you pay an X amount of $$$ to get it a month but in this model you cant actually control how much you pay and how much you get...
Level restrictions, gear restrictions, restricted access to economy(AH, Mail, Trade etc`), restricted access to conent(no proffessions, etc.) = basically just about every extended trail out there these days.
Combine them both you basically get a P2P MMO today which most of them have some sort of a cash shop with in the restrictions imposed by diffrent extended trail offers...
There isnt any thing exactly new in the system he suggested
There also other systems ala LOTRO for example play for free and pay for new content or pay a sub and get all content additions for free...
But again today we allready have microtransactions in most P2P mmo's, and those as additional and new revenue streams will keep poping.
so basically this model is a limited B2P, just costing the same as B2P. less bang for your buck all around.
no wonder you are being torn appart in this thread, OP.
back to the drawing board. or better, stop thinking. its obviously not your strongest point.
It's not that the problem is that a game which is neither B2P or P2P needs to be designed from the ground up to fit a diffrent model, e.g cash shop.
All the ideas the OP suggested are basically either "cash shop" MMO or a P2P mmo with an extended trail like WoW is today with recruirt a friend or in rift. The problem is that he just cant see that...
This is a subscription based player driven cash shop. Sure if you would like to look at it that way.
Special currency for "subs" = gems, plex, corwns, w/e in just about every cash shop mmo has special currency that people use, and before some one jumps well you earn it in game - no you pay an X amount of $$$ to get it a month but in this model you cant actually control how much you pay and how much you get...
I could say the subscription model isn't fair. You keep paying, and you keep progressing further. Once you stop that is the end of the line, you lose, good day sir. I made this model so every player still gets to earn their progression which is what you do with a subscription model, but still retain access to the complete game without being able to accomplish the last dungeon.
Level restrictions, gear restrictions, restricted access to economy(AH, Mail, Trade etc`), restricted access to conent(no proffessions, etc.) = basically just about every extended trail out there these days.
There is no level restriction, there is no restriction to the world the only restricted access you get is being able to accomplish everything in other words you can go into the last dungeon, but you will not make it out alive. Buy some crafted gear from a subscriber, and maybe you will be able to complete it or maybe you won't.
Combine them both you basically get a P2P MMO today which most of them have some sort of a cash shop with in the restrictions imposed by diffrent extended trail offers...
There isnt any thing exactly new in the system he suggested
In a roundabout way no there isn't. I already said it is basically a skewed buy to play model. Would you like it if Steam had a subscription fee to access the games on top of having to buy them? Chances are they are going to lose the customers if they pulled that sort of thing with their customers. They also have ones that share accounts, but that is the loophole of the systems. Anybody can share an MMO account over a VPN line, or Steam account in otherwords.
There also other systems ala LOTRO for example play for free and pay for new content or pay a sub and get all content additions for free...
The LotRO is just an advertisement for their IP, most people hate advertisements.
But again today we allready have microtransactions in most P2P mmo's, and those as additional and new revenue streams will keep poping.
Why do MMO gamers accept this type of behavior from developers?
If you are already paying to play, why should you pay more to access the content that you are already paying to access?
There really isn't an additional revenue stream in my model, because if nobody buys the retail box there isn't revenue. If people subscribe there will be no revenue, as this money will be used to keep the game running. Let the players decide if the world is worth inhabiting not the developer. Why would the developer such as Blizzard want their customers playing in those free to play bastardized servers that pop up? I would rather have them back in the world to help it thrive than kicking them to the curb when they don't subscribe.
This is why I hate "hybrid" payment systems. No matter what, you end up dividing the playerbase between the "haves" and the "have nots".
Either completely B2P, F2P, or P2P.
Hybrid systems like EQ, EQ2, DCU, AoC, DDO, LotRO, etc., just muck shit up.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.- -And on the 8th day, man created God.-
This is why I hate "hybrid" payment systems. No matter what, you end up dividing the playerbase between the "haves" and the "have nots".
Either completely B2P, F2P, or P2P.
Hybrid systems like EQ, EQ2, DCU, AoC, DDO, LotRO, etc., just muck shit up.
The same can be said about subscription style. You either have access to the game, or you don't. Are you paying for your buddies to access this subscription game? You have access, they don't. Haves, and have nots.
This is why I hate "hybrid" payment systems. No matter what, you end up dividing the playerbase between the "haves" and the "have nots".
Either completely B2P, F2P, or P2P.
Hybrid systems like EQ, EQ2, DCU, AoC, DDO, LotRO, etc., just muck shit up.
The same can be said about subscription style. You either have access to the game, or you don't. Are you paying for your buddies to access this subscription game? You have access, they don't. Haves, and have nots.
Thank you for the dumbest thing I've heard all damn week.
You somehow think games are a right, and not a luxury.
Not being able to afford the game thus not being able to play the game =/= being in the game as a second class citizen.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.- -And on the 8th day, man created God.-
I think that would have caused all kinds of trouble for the lite users like for example when purple items couldn't be traded or emailed they had a huge number of players and trial players contacting GM's to get these wedding items to the respective trial players because 1: the devs said the wedding event would be open to everyone and 2: they wanted the trial players to feel included so as to get them to subscribe. The problem with your model is it limits the non-subscribers too much, it's like how Rift lite limits the trial characters too much. You realize they keep people from actually leaving the main city if you are a trial. So really you aren't experiencing the whole game at all, the rifts, the invasion events (mobs never reach the city) so really they aren't allowing people to experience the REAL game just the intro.
How are you not experiencing all of the core mechanics of the game? It doesn't limit you that much at all. If you could go all the way to 50 with the same limitations there servers would be more populated.
You get to do rifts.
You get to level.
You get to gear up, up to rare quality.
You can ride a mount.
You get skills.
You get talents.
You get currency.
You get to play forever.
You get to do dungeons.
You can party with players.
You can join a guild.
You can buy auctions.
You can PVP.
Beyond just content there isn't much that is different. By being in the server as Rift Lite I am costing bandwidth, and server space. That means more people will have to subscribe, so you need a reason for people to subscribe. Which is why I used it as inspiration for this idea.
Look, you are sold on your idea. However, there is a contingent that believes that paying for the box should give them more than what you are offering. Perhaps if the game was free to download and then came with the restrictions listed for non-subscribers they would be less critical but $50 to do what is essentially a trial will not get this contingent into the game. Will some people try your offer, sure. I know I would not, but I have never liked the f2p option and this is buy and f2p mixed... in my opinion. Just trying to help explain why some of us do not like your idea.. not saying it is a bad idea.
This is why I hate "hybrid" payment systems. No matter what, you end up dividing the playerbase between the "haves" and the "have nots".
Either completely B2P, F2P, or P2P.
Hybrid systems like EQ, EQ2, DCU, AoC, DDO, LotRO, etc., just muck shit up.
The same can be said about subscription style. You either have access to the game, or you don't. Are you paying for your buddies to access this subscription game? You have access, they don't. Haves, and have nots.
Thank you for the dumbest thing I've heard all damn week.
I'm not here to fight with anyone, I am here to get players who are paying to access something they ultimately are the ones building to wise up and stop accepting this model as the correct way.
You somehow think games are a right, and not a luxury.
When you build something up is it not a right to be able to access it? By this I mean we build our characters up, and we are building the worlds population and popularity. So everything in life is just a luxury then, is that what you are saying?
Not being able to afford the game thus not being able to play the game =/= being in the game as a second class citizen.
I think that would have caused all kinds of trouble for the lite users like for example when purple items couldn't be traded or emailed they had a huge number of players and trial players contacting GM's to get these wedding items to the respective trial players because 1: the devs said the wedding event would be open to everyone and 2: they wanted the trial players to feel included so as to get them to subscribe. The problem with your model is it limits the non-subscribers too much, it's like how Rift lite limits the trial characters too much. You realize they keep people from actually leaving the main city if you are a trial. So really you aren't experiencing the whole game at all, the rifts, the invasion events (mobs never reach the city) so really they aren't allowing people to experience the REAL game just the intro.
How are you not experiencing all of the core mechanics of the game? It doesn't limit you that much at all. If you could go all the way to 50 with the same limitations there servers would be more populated.
You get to do rifts.
You get to level.
You get to gear up, up to rare quality.
You can ride a mount.
You get skills.
You get talents.
You get currency.
You get to play forever.
You get to do dungeons.
You can party with players.
You can join a guild.
You can buy auctions.
You can PVP.
Beyond just content there isn't much that is different. By being in the server as Rift Lite I am costing bandwidth, and server space. That means more people will have to subscribe, so you need a reason for people to subscribe. Which is why I used it as inspiration for this idea.
Look, you are sold on your idea. However, there is a contingent that believes that paying for the box should give them more than what you are offering. Perhaps if the game was free to download and then came with the restrictions listed for non-subscribers they would be less critical but $50 to do what is essentially a trial will not get this contingent into the game. Will some people try your offer, sure. I know I would not, but I have never liked the f2p option and this is buy and f2p mixed... in my opinion. Just trying to help explain why some of us do not like your idea.. not saying it is a bad idea.
I am trying to use it as a stepping stone to show that subscription based is also a bad idea in the end. Last time I checked trials only allowed access to a certain point in progression, I am after searching for the idea to allow complete progression that will also still help keep population active and thriving.
This is why I hate "hybrid" payment systems. No matter what, you end up dividing the playerbase between the "haves" and the "have nots".
Either completely B2P, F2P, or P2P.
Hybrid systems like EQ, EQ2, DCU, AoC, DDO, LotRO, etc., just muck shit up.
The same can be said about subscription style. You either have access to the game, or you don't. Are you paying for your buddies to access this subscription game? You have access, they don't. Haves, and have nots.
Thank you for the dumbest thing I've heard all damn week.
I'm not here to fight with anyone, I am here to get players who are paying to access something they ultimately are the ones building to wise up and stop accepting this model as the correct way.
They already have that choice. It's called unsubscribing. They have more than enough payment options with B2P, F2P, or P2P. There's no reason for yet another cockamamie scheme to be thrown into the mix.
You somehow think games are a right, and not a luxury.
When you build something up is it not a right to be able to access it? By this I mean we build our characters up, and we are building the worlds population and popularity. So everything in life is just a luxury then, is that what you are saying?
No, it's not. Because you do not OWN anything in the game. "Your" characters, "your" items, "your" gold, nada. Ain't yours. All those little pixels belong to the company making the game.
Not being able to afford the game thus not being able to play the game =/= being in the game as a second class citizen.
Games cost money to develop.
Got any other amazng revelations there, Nostradamus? The current "big 3" forms of revenue provide more than enough money to devs for their games. Again, your solution isn't warranted or needed.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.- -And on the 8th day, man created God.-
They already have that choice. It's called unsubscribing. They have more than enough payment options with B2P, F2P, or P2P. There's no reason for yet another cockamamie scheme to be thrown into the mix.
So more choices isn't better for shoppers? It helps drive competition.
No, it's not. Because you do not OWN anything in the game. "Your" characters, "your" items, "your" gold, nada. Ain't yours. All those little pixels belong to the company making the game.
Why do you keep paying to access it then? Last time I checked I have those same pixels on my hard drive so they are also mine. So you are paying to work to make their world population exist? Since you don't own it, it must require work. You really need to stop with the character assassination when I am trying to help those who are playing subscription based games to stop being manipulated into thinking they have to pay to play on top of a box fee to access the game. If you are to blind to see how the subscription based game is fatally flawed you shouldn't have your alias as eyeswideopen.
They already have that choice. It's called unsubscribing. They have more than enough payment options with B2P, F2P, or P2P. There's no reason for yet another cockamamie scheme to be thrown into the mix.
So more choices isn't better for shoppers? It helps drive competition.
No, it's not. Because you do not OWN anything in the game. "Your" characters, "your" items, "your" gold, nada. Ain't yours. All those little pixels belong to the company making the game.
Why do you keep paying to access it then? Last time I checked I have those same pixels on my hard drive so they are also mine. So you are paying to work to make their world population exist? Since you don't own it, it must require work. You really need to stop with the character assassination when I am trying to help those who are playing subscription based games to stop being manipulated into thinking they have to pay to play on top of a box fee to access the game. If you are to blind to see how the subscription based game is fatally flawed you shouldn't have your alias as eyeswideopen.
And here I was thinking I had the most inflated ego on this site. You have delusions of grandeur on a scale never before seen. Trust me, if anyone needed your "help", you'd be the one making money and not the developers.
So far, you think eveyone is entitled to play an mmo forever simply because they played it one time AND you think you have been chosen as the Golden Light to wake up the peasants to the "truth". LOL
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.- -And on the 8th day, man created God.-
You can afford a monthly sub? Ok, we like you - here you go, play the whole game and get advantage over those who don't pay monthly fee
You can't afford a monthly sub? Ok, we like you but less than people who pay a mothly sub, you can play the game but you can't "finish" your story and there's always something you can't get in comparement with those who pay a monthly fee...
Discrimination at it's finest
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life." -------------------------------
Comments
Which is better, being forced to spend money after buying a game, or having the option of spending money? I would pick the freedom of a (non-Pay2Win) cash shop any day.
And yes, you do need to spend money on the bug fixes over time, but if you make a good game to begin with, those costs aren't probably going to be very high and could easily be recouped by even a cosmetic only cash shop.
However, this isn't really about subs or cash shops being good or bad, it's more about the OP's idea being terrible (IMO) for the player.
Sorry, this post was in response to Drakxii....I hit the wrong "Quote" button!
Edit: clearing up who the response was to.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Be afraid.....The dragons are HERE!
Well gu357u53r, from what I gather from your posts, you clearly favour subscribers over non-subscribers.
If you want to make a game that is targeted at subscribers, why not just scrap the "pay for the boxset but get half the game" scheme and just slap a monthly sub fee on it? If people think your game has promise they'll sub. Nobody will pay an initial fee to play an incomplete version of the game. In fact I think most non-subscribers would rather just play a F2P game with a cash shop. At least that way they know they didn't spend money, and won't expect to be favoured over subscribers/cash item buyers.
"in an MMO game there is no end"....isn't that what you said the F2P players don't get without a sub? The end of the game?
Also, LotRO is a good example, it wasn't the lifetime subs that allowed them to go to a hybrid model, it was that they found that that model works very well. (Turbine had success with it with DDO, if I remember correctly).
And if a game "requires" subscription revenue (I personally don't believe that any game does), why not just make it a sub-based game and be done with it?
I personally think the best way is B2P, followed by the hybrid model. I don't play subscription games, period, because I personally think charging me to play a game I've paid for is nothing better than ripping me off.
Why shouldn't it be fair? The B2P model, even with a (non-Pay2Win) cash shop is completely fair for everyone involved - the devs and players. The hybrid model, in many cases is also very fair for everyone involved IMO.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Be afraid.....The dragons are HERE!
Shees i've read all you other "counter arguments" on other posts and you really dont know how to "argue", if you think some one is wrong then put either facts or a decent theory to prove other wise saying "you're wrong and im right" is not the way to go.
Your system cuts out content and exprience, makes the game a hell of allot more complicate to design, and instead of renforcing people to subscribe by letting them exprience the game to the fullest with all its aspects is just reducing the quality of life of its playability and will mostlikly only makes them frustrated.
Before you try to intreduce a new capitalization system you need to evaluate several things
1) what are you going to capialize on
2) who is your target audience
When you intreducing an alternative system you need to go even deeper and think how am im going to convince some one to pay for somthing they either can get for free or werent that intrested about it in the first place.
Making them expreince the game in with limitation isnt the way to go, every thing you want to remove from them are the most basic machanics in any MMORPG. For that "recruit your friend" and free weekends work much better.
Also if you want to add more players to the game that were not normally play it by making the basic version free in hoping those who were on the fence will move to the sub camp you are risking that just as many players who were subs switching the "free" camp.
Also you don't seem to comprehand most of what people are saying, for example paying 10US for a week of play time isn't any less of a demo than buying a box of a sub based MMO is. You pay you get to play for 1 week you want to play it more pay for the box minus the inital fee and get that week reduced from your initial free time. If timed properly that can generate more income after the dust from the initial launch have settled and even if no one of the people who payed for that week will buy the game it is still an income generator unlike a free week or a weekend.
Also i have no idea what flash games and CS have to do with it, with Theme Parks as they are designed to day leveling is a means to a goal which in any Theme Park is the end game. Spending time on crafting, and buying gear while leveling is a waste of time and while some people still do that just about every player these days learned not too.
When you intreduce a new system for income generation you need to figure out how to insentivise the player to pay, thats why cash shops in many cases with f2p games turn them into p2w games since if you can expreicne the game completly and be on top with out spending a dime with ease you wont get as much sales as you would if you forced them to play.
As for your system you need to look at insentives to pay, not insentives to stop playing.
peace V
I'm not going to quote this whole thing, you cant create an income generating system with out having a game which its core mechanics are built around it if your system is based on insentivising people to sub, or buy items from a cash shop, or any other revenue stream.
When people desided to interduce microstransactions they built their games around it some did a better job in making a game some did better job at making a proffit some did a terrible job at both.
People who play sub based MMO's expect several things in return usually in terms of long term support, and free additional content for the forseeable future.
If you are going to make a game which is a sub/f2p hybrid you need to figure what the game is going to offer and how the game mechanics are going to effect paying and non paying players.
For example how's the 1st free month going to look like if that system of yours also has box sales as revenue model(which complicates things allot).
Say i've reached the max level with in the first month of the game which is what you pretty much get these days. Since i was in the free month i get all the benefits of the sub right?
K i got my level 80 gear but if i dont wanna pay i can only use 79? What happens to all that special currency i've gathered during leveling? what happens to my auctions when the month expires? what happens to my mail? what if i made more chars then what the free version allows? a system like that wont fly well with most people because if nothing it will seem more as blackmail than any thing else.
If you really dont understand all the wholes and downsides of that systems especially when you combine them with initiall 50-60US box sales and the fact that when you design somthing so complex and important as the entire revenue system for your product that you cant make it and then figure out how to sell it then im sorry but your whole way of thinking is incorrect.
Because one size does not fit all. The 'all you can eat buffet' model is not great for a 100lb vegan.
Actually that is not true :P from the buisness side the vegan is their best costumer :P
Sub are the cesspool of the industry? well considering every beloved game since the first online MUD's were out there had one thats like basically saying that all those people are...
And do you realize that "simple its freezes till your resub" isnt simple? what freezes am i going to be naked? what about my bank char that i cant get too? what about all the mails i had which i didn't get to open? a system like that is the fear and parody of DLC, its basically going back to the days of the arcade "insert coin to continue" people paid for a box and got content it says on the box that it wont require a sub or that a sub will be optional you cant then take away features from them. If you take away features and lockout abilities you are not insentivising people to sub, you are punishing your costumers and that never works well on no one. If you want to make a hybrid model instead of thinking what people that dont pay wont have you need to think about what people that do pay will, and in that case it is very hard to impossible to insetivise people to pay 15US extra with out handycapping those who don't.
There is a reason why cash shops MMO's are succesfull for every 5 people who dont pay a dime there is one moron that wants all the dyes, and all the chocobos and theyll pay mid to high range double digits for that a month. I know people that spent around 600 US on LoL by buying just about ever char and outfit there is in there, i know people that spent 200+ US by buying ever wow ingame pet there is on the blizzstore... But those people and the those transactions have nither handycap nor restrict the players who dont care about pandy the panda or murky the murloc.
With a hybrid system as you've suggested with box sales you are punishing those who supported you the most, and taking away things they've allready paid for instead of givving them more if they will sub.
so basically this model is a limited B2P, just costing the same as B2P. less bang for your buck all around.
no wonder you are being torn appart in this thread, OP.
back to the drawing board. or better, stop thinking. its obviously not your strongest point.
I actually like your model OP.
One tiny thing that i would change though
it should be renamed to 'Buy2Play with additional limitations', all in hope they attract more people to their already aging game (not talking about rift here tho).
its actually great idea. cant wait for 'next gen' payment models. I can already see it... Buy to play with 9 different monthly subscription models, ranging from $5 to $99 a month, where every higher tier subscription model unlocks aditional feature. All that because our friendly publishers/devs want to make their game accessible to everyone, regardless how much money you have !
Also, publishers could defend its existance relatively easy, just by saying 'but you can experience everything for free!
you just cant send mails if you dont have a $25 sub, or cant use storage/auction if you dont pay another $10. But you can access all physical areas in our game, without restrictions (and could even wear some of gear you find in those areas, if you have recurring subscription nr7, @ $60/month). Why u mmo gamers no happy!?!
Future is bright!
It's not that the problem is that a game which is neither B2P or P2P needs to be designed from the ground up to fit a diffrent model, e.g cash shop.
All the ideas the OP suggested are basically either "cash shop" MMO or a P2P mmo with an extended trail like WoW is today with recruirt a friend or in rift. The problem is that he just cant see that...
Special currency for "subs" = gems, plex, corwns, w/e in just about every cash shop mmo has special currency that people use, and before some one jumps well you earn it in game - no you pay an X amount of $$$ to get it a month but in this model you cant actually control how much you pay and how much you get...
Level restrictions, gear restrictions, restricted access to economy(AH, Mail, Trade etc`), restricted access to conent(no proffessions, etc.) = basically just about every extended trail out there these days.
Combine them both you basically get a P2P MMO today which most of them have some sort of a cash shop with in the restrictions imposed by diffrent extended trail offers...
There isnt any thing exactly new in the system he suggested
There also other systems ala LOTRO for example play for free and pay for new content or pay a sub and get all content additions for free...
But again today we allready have microtransactions in most P2P mmo's, and those as additional and new revenue streams will keep poping.
This is why I hate "hybrid" payment systems. No matter what, you end up dividing the playerbase between the "haves" and the "have nots".
Either completely B2P, F2P, or P2P.
Hybrid systems like EQ, EQ2, DCU, AoC, DDO, LotRO, etc., just muck shit up.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.-
-And on the 8th day, man created God.-
The same can be said about subscription style. You either have access to the game, or you don't. Are you paying for your buddies to access this subscription game? You have access, they don't. Haves, and have nots.
Thank you for the dumbest thing I've heard all damn week.
You somehow think games are a right, and not a luxury.
Not being able to afford the game thus not being able to play the game =/= being in the game as a second class citizen.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.-
-And on the 8th day, man created God.-
Look, you are sold on your idea. However, there is a contingent that believes that paying for the box should give them more than what you are offering. Perhaps if the game was free to download and then came with the restrictions listed for non-subscribers they would be less critical but $50 to do what is essentially a trial will not get this contingent into the game. Will some people try your offer, sure. I know I would not, but I have never liked the f2p option and this is buy and f2p mixed... in my opinion. Just trying to help explain why some of us do not like your idea.. not saying it is a bad idea.
Currently bored with MMO's.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.-
-And on the 8th day, man created God.-
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.-
-And on the 8th day, man created God.-
This is awful.
You can afford a monthly sub? Ok, we like you - here you go, play the whole game and get advantage over those who don't pay monthly fee
You can't afford a monthly sub? Ok, we like you but less than people who pay a mothly sub, you can play the game but you can't "finish" your story and there's always something you can't get in comparement with those who pay a monthly fee...
Discrimination at it's finest
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life."
-------------------------------