Howdy, Stranger!

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

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

EA officially determines sub based games are dead.

1356711

Comments

  • CujoSWAoACujoSWAoA Nooo, AKPosts: 1,781Member

    Electronic Arts make a terrible MMORPG in SW:TOR

    and then claims Subscription Games are dead?

    What a freaking joke.

    MAKE A GOOD GAME YOU DICKWADS

    and oh oh oh... whats that?!?!?  Oh, yeah... people paying a subscription to play it.

  • ThorbrandThorbrand West Palm Beach, FLPosts: 1,198Member
    The payment model does not determine the longevity of a game. Content is what keeps players playing a game with or without it being P2P or F2P.
  • Creslin321Creslin321 Baltimore, MDPosts: 5,359Member
    Originally posted by Nephaerius
    Originally posted by Creslin321
    Originally posted by grimal
    Originally posted by Creslin321

    Denial.

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

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

    I don't know if you are joking or serious here, but I am going to assume the former.  As has been said over and over by many people in these forums, WoW is an anomoly.  No MMO has been able to capture anywhere near that number for a reason.  If you think MMOs fail strictly because of "being bad" (purely subjective, by the way), you have a very naive view of the market.

     So you are literally saying...

    "Yes, WoW still has tons of subs, but it doesn't count because it's an 'anomoly.'"

    Do those dollars that WoW makes come from another planet or something?  Is there a reason you can just exclude the biggest player in the MMO market from your evaluation of the sub model?  Pretty sure the money that WoW subscribers pay comes from the same place as every other MMORPGs gets its money.

    Also...I never said MMOs fail strictly because of being bad.  I just said that SWTOR didn't fail primarily because of the sub model, and the actual product had more to do with it.

    Yes WoW is an anomaly.  It is a statistical outlier.  We can include it in the conversation because it's applicable and interesting, but you probably shouldn't treat it as equivilant to every variable in your data set if you want to be accurate concerning the actual state of the subscription model. 

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

     I don't think you can make the outlier argument here.  WoW very likely has the largest effect on ANY MMORPG released.  In fact, I think that WoW is the reason that most of them fail...they fail because people think WoW is a superior product.  So asking to ignore it is silly.

    It's almost like talking about the soft drink market, but ignoring Coke and Pepsi because they are statistically outliers compared to all the other small players.

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

  • FrodoFraginsFrodoFragins Manchester, NHPosts: 2,926Member Uncommon

    If they say so.  I love how these companies never try to lower their sub prices to see if there is a sweet spot.  Just because WOW can charge $15 a month doesn't mean SWTOR or TSW should.  To them it's all or nothing.

     

    GW2 is likely to really hurt the sub model even for WOW though.  But last Decemeber the only reason SWTOR failed as a sub based game was due to an unfinished and unready product.

  • icemanateeicemanatee West Covina, CAPosts: 68Member
    So when will Secret World go free-2-play since sub based games are dead? Did everyone get screwed who bought lifetime subscriptions from them? 
  • grimalgrimal Stamford, CTPosts: 2,873Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Creslin321

     So you are literally saying...

    "Yes, WoW still has tons of subs, but it doesn't count because it's an 'anomoly.'"

    Do those dollars that WoW makes come from another planet or something?  Is there a reason you can just exclude the biggest player in the MMO market from your evaluation of the sub model?  Pretty sure the money that WoW subscribers pay comes from the same place as every other MMORPGs gets its money.

    Also...I never said MMOs fail strictly because of being bad.  I just said that SWTOR didn't fail primarily because of the sub model, and the actual product had more to do with it.

    No, that's not what I am saying.  What I am saying is that out of the 80+ MMOs that have launched since the beginning of the genre's inception, only a handful are currently using P2P models, albeit arguably successfully,  Out of those small percentage  which are, only one has 8 million + subs (mostly due to Asia's contributions).

    If you believe that because of that ONE title and it's unparalleled success that the market for P2P is still alive and well, well then I say you are somewhat delusioned.

    TOR has its share of problems, as does any MMO.  Some argue more, some less.  But irregardless, the P2P model was a risky venture way back in 1998.   With major studios now releasing games as F2P upon release, yes, the P2P model is dead.

     

  • grimalgrimal Stamford, CTPosts: 2,873Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by TookyG

    A good game with a sub will attract players.  A bad game with a sub will not attract players.

     

    As WAR's online correspondent, are you then going on the record to say WAR is a bad game?

  • HrimnirHrimnir Qeynos, COPosts: 1,597Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Torvaldr

    The pure sub-based model *is* essentially dead.  There is no major game title out right now that offers a pure sub-based payment option.  The closest is Lineage, but it is no longer available in the West.  The next would be EVE, but they also sell Isk so that isn't a pure sub model either although with "free" content updates it is close.  RIFT, WoW, and all the rest offer microtransaction content to supplement the subscription.

    I didn't really get that they said subscription is "officially dead".  I don't see any of their other subscription games heading towards F2P.  Do you?

     

     Why do people cite incorrect information?

    Rift does not have a cash shop or RMT shop.  They have 1, count it, 1 mount that you could buy, and they only did that because it was part of the korean collector's edition, so they did it to make sure if some of the western players wanted it they could.  Trion doesn't do any of the things like WOW, for example, they dont sell mounts, they dont sell server transfers, they dont sell name changes, etc etc.  As a matter of fact, most of the things blizzard charges 20-25 dollars for, Trion gives you for free.  You can transfer servers once per week, there is in an game NPC you can visit to change literally anything about how you look except gender which you use in game currency to do.

    So, no, the subscription model is not dead.  The issue is that no game gas come out with the exception of Rift that can deliver the goods to justify a subscription model.

    "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

    - Friedrich Nietzsche

  • NephaeriusNephaerius Baltimore, MDPosts: 1,539Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by tiefighter25

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

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

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

    Unfortunately that doesn't explain RIft.

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

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

    I actually wouldn't discount Eve or Rift in the discussion.  You also can't leave out the failing sub based MMOs (SWTOR + TSW being the most prominent atm).  You also then need to look at the number of successful games that are currently F2P DDO, LotRO, Aion, Fallen Earth, Champions Online, STO, every other PWE game, FlyFF and other Gpotato games, Silk Road, every single SOE game, should I keep going or is it clear that F2P is more profitable and successful for a company? 

    If you want I can explain away Eve and Rift as well.  Eve is a singular experience you can't find any place else.  If you want to play this style of game, pay the sub, or gtfo.  They also clearly demonstrated plans to go F2P that were quickly rejected by the community.  Rumors are that WoD will be....F2P.

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

    Steam: Neph

  • NephaeriusNephaerius Baltimore, MDPosts: 1,539Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Hrimnir
    Originally posted by Torvaldr

    The pure sub-based model *is* essentially dead.  There is no major game title out right now that offers a pure sub-based payment option.  The closest is Lineage, but it is no longer available in the West.  The next would be EVE, but they also sell Isk so that isn't a pure sub model either although with "free" content updates it is close.  RIFT, WoW, and all the rest offer microtransaction content to supplement the subscription.

    I didn't really get that they said subscription is "officially dead".  I don't see any of their other subscription games heading towards F2P.  Do you?

     

     Why do people cite incorrect information?

    Rift does not have a cash shop or RMT shop.  They have 1, count it, 1 mount that you could buy, and they only did that because it was part of the korean collector's edition, so they did it to make sure if some of the western players wanted it they could.  Trion doesn't do any of the things like WOW, for example, they dont sell mounts, they dont sell server transfers, they dont sell name changes, etc etc.  As a matter of fact, most of the things blizzard charges 20-25 dollars for, Trion gives you for free.  You can transfer servers once per week, there is in an game NPC you can visit to change literally anything about how you look except gender which you use in game currency to do.

    So, no, the subscription model is not dead.  The issue is that no game gas come out with the exception of Rift that can deliver the goods to justify a subscription model.

    That's why all the Trion games currently in development are going to be Free to Play, right?

    Steam: Neph

  • TreekodarTreekodar jlkjklPosts: 524Member
    That's it, Blizzard is finished. Time to pack up and go elsewhere. Just because something isn't working for you, EA, doesn't mean it doesn't work at all.

    Eleanor Rigby.

  • tiefighter25tiefighter25 Winchester, MAPosts: 937Member
    Originally posted by grimal  
    With major studios now releasing games as F2P upon release, yes, the P2P model is dead.

     

    What AAA studios are releasing games as F2P? Wildstar? TESO? I wouldn't call GW2's B2P FTP. Project Titan is hush hush. I see a lot of games that went to FTP after P2P failed for them, but no major FTP MMO releases.

    If there is a slow paradigm shift in payment models, then the AAA studios still haven't caught up with it yet.

    If it's an overnight paradigm shift due to SWTOR's failure, well that's pretty darnn convenient for EA.

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

     So you are literally saying...

    "Yes, WoW still has tons of subs, but it doesn't count because it's an 'anomoly.'"

    Do those dollars that WoW makes come from another planet or something?  Is there a reason you can just exclude the biggest player in the MMO market from your evaluation of the sub model?  Pretty sure the money that WoW subscribers pay comes from the same place as every other MMORPGs gets its money.

    Also...I never said MMOs fail strictly because of being bad.  I just said that SWTOR didn't fail primarily because of the sub model, and the actual product had more to do with it.

    No, that's not what I am saying.  What I am saying is that out of the 80+ MMOs that have launched since the beginning of the genre's inception, only a handful are currently using P2P models, albeit arguably successfully,  Out of those small percentage  which are, only one has 8 million + subs (mostly due to Asia's contributions).

    If you believe that because of that ONE title and it's unparalleled success that the market for P2P is still alive and well, well then I say you are somewhat delusioned.

    TOR has its share of problems, as does any MMO.  Some argue more, some less.  But irregardless, the P2P model was a risky venture way back in 1998.   With major studios now releasing games as F2P upon release, yes, the P2P model is dead.

     

     I see it a different way.

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

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

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

  • KyleranKyleran Tampa, FLPosts: 19,987Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by TookyG

    A good game with a sub will attract players.  A bad game with a sub will not attract players. Most MMO's released the past 8 years (post WOW) have been bad games, and therefore have failed to retain subs.

    Had to finish that off for you.  image

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.
    "I don't have one life, I have many lives" - Grunty
    Still currently "subscribed" to EVE, and only EVE!!!
    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon

  • Ambros123Ambros123 Neverneverland, TNPosts: 877Member
    Originally posted by Wizardry

    This is a really bad time in MMO gaming,it is nothing more than a race for pricing but killing quality.This battle of the pricing works becuase there is so many gamers that do not understand game design.They can be manipulated and fooled by any smart developer/marketing team.Look no further than A-Nets rep that said GW2 is a FANBOIS game,how naive and lame is that?Guess what, it works on MANY people.Tell the people what they want to hear,make the game simple to play and you have hooked in many buyers weather your game is good or not.Oh yes and make future promises to keep them coming back.

    I have never seen a really good game come of f2p and i will be surprised if i ever do.Archeage might be the first but any kind opf cash shop to fund the game would ruin it badly.I also notice graphic quality is usually dropped in f2p games.

    What devs do is look for cheaper ways to deliver their product,this can mean sort of empty game world.PHasing in content instead of having it always visible,missing content and anything that might be costly to run like housing will not be there either or at the cvery best will be small instanced.

    I was hoping to see gaming advance with destructible surfaces ,physics and smal ldetail like windows that break and jump through them.How about jumping from ledges or climbing walls,there is so much content that devs are leaving out.

    You can't see past that unless it's a P2P then it's a piss poor MMO, a F2P hater.

    And really gamers aren't fooled by marketers.  I played SWTOR Beta and knew what it will be like at launch, same goes with Rift, and GW2.  ANet's GW2 is doing steller to their marketing because everything they said are being fulfilled, unlike these "failure" MMOs were promises were made and went unfulfilled.  GW2 totally debunks your enitre opinion of F2P games (yeah it's B2P).  It is completely feasable and profitable to make a stellar F2P game, companies chose not to and try for what seems like the more lucrative route with P2P.

    There has been intensive hate of F2P games in the West which it seems like it's finally being erroded away for the better I say.  While P2P might not be totally without it's merit but in the tradional form of retail + sub standard of $15 + pay for expansions certainly needs to be done away with.  Make P2P only subs and allow different pricing to reflect the quality instead of across the board $15.

    And really waht you are hoping for in the future of MMOs is unrealistic and restrictive.  Make an MMO accessable and not limited.

  • grimalgrimal Stamford, CTPosts: 2,873Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Creslin321

     I see it a different way.

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

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

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

  • TardcoreTardcore MinskPosts: 2,325Member

    Yeah Bioware guys the reason SWTOR tanked was because people hate the subscription fee, and not because you produced an incredibly half assed game, that most found not to be WORTH a subscription fee. I wonder what they will blame for the lack of interest when they go FTP this November. "Well people are tired of Themeparks' or "Well people are sick of Free to Play games" or maybe even "There's a secret cabal of haters that have been going round and putting something in the drinking water that makes people hate this wonderful game."

     

    image

    "Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "

  • grimalgrimal Stamford, CTPosts: 2,873Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by tiefighter25

    What AAA studios are releasing games as F2P? Wildstar? TESO? I wouldn't call GW2's B2P FTP. Project Titan is hush hush. I see a lot of games that went to FTP after P2P failed for them, but no major FTP MMO releases.

    If there is a slow paradigm shift in payment models, then the AAA studios still haven't caught up with it yet.

    If it's an overnight paradigm shift due to SWTOR's failure, well that's pretty darnn convenient for EA.

    Off the top of my head, Planetside 2, Neverwinter.

  • NephaeriusNephaerius Baltimore, MDPosts: 1,539Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by tiefighter25
    Originally posted by grimal  
    With major studios now releasing games as F2P upon release, yes, the P2P model is dead.

     

    What AAA studios are releasing games as F2P? Wildstar? TESO? I wouldn't call GW2's B2P FTP. Project Titan is hush hush. I see a lot of games that went to FTP after P2P failed for them, but no major FTP MMO releases.

    If there is a slow paradigm shift in payment models, then the AAA studios still haven't caught up with it yet.

    If it's an overnight paradigm shift due to SWTOR's failure, well that's pretty darnn convenient for EA.

    Every single SOE title in development - most notably Planetside 2 and Everquest Next.

    Let's move onto Trion - Defiance, EoN, Warface.  Granted not all MMOs, but all going F2P and developed by a AAA.

    ArcheAge.  You mentioned Wildstar.  I actually would count GW2 at least as an alternative business model that does not count towards sub based.  Rumors are Blizz's Titan will be F2P as well as WoD from CCP.

    If we're going to talk titles in development it's difficult to say as business model is not always the first thing you're going to hear about and until launch it's all rumors/speculation.

    Regardless of one's personal feelings on the subscription model the fact is it's going the way of the dodo.  If company's really believed and found subs to produce the most revenue they would stick with that model.  Talk to anyone on the financial side of the industry.  Granted this means F2P is good for a company's bottom line not necessarily for consumers, but that's a whole other issue from whether or not the sub model is dead.

    Steam: Neph

  • CujoSWAoACujoSWAoA Nooo, AKPosts: 1,781Member

    What burns my ass is that EA continues to say that SW:TOR is fine, its the players that failed.

    Like over on Masisvely.com there's the article about EA having continued faith in Bioware and their dil-hole of a public message is "We do exit surveys, and the players say I LOVE THE GAME i just don't want to pay $15 a month for it."

    The blind arrogance of that company is outrageous.

  • FrodoFraginsFrodoFragins Manchester, NHPosts: 2,926Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by jeffxsee
    So when will Secret World go free-2-play since sub based games are dead? Did everyone get screwed who bought lifetime subscriptions from them? 

    It depends on the benefits lifetimers get.  Most F2P games still need subscriptions to access all content.  Lifetimers get those free in all the games I've seen.  In LOTRO I just use the free points they give me to buy the quest pack for each expansion.  If I wanted everything inthe expansion I'd end up having to spend cash.  But I don't enjoy the game enough anymore to spend money.

  • latinkurolatinkuro ToulousePosts: 121Member
    Originally posted by Onomic
    It don't belive its dead, but it is very hard for less then awsome games to charge it. You must have a product that is superb in retaining players. If you don't have that your better off with cash shop so you can get a much larger audience to spend a little over time.

    It's dead, when even GW2, PS2,  isn't charging a sub, any game coming out and not outperforming such a titles does NOT have the RIGHT to charge a subscription fee enough said.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by tiefighter25
    http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/08/22/ea-coo-maintains-confidence-in-bioware/According to EA the sub based model is dead. Perhaps this occured on Feb. 29th of 2012? In which case leap years are bad for sub based MMO's? I'm not sure, EA didn't go into details but they have exit surveys which definitively proove their assertion.In all seriousness, it's spin statements like this, and their subsequent industry media bylines and articles that keep an unhealthy ammount of ire and discussion going about this title.

    This dovetails nicely off of the Devil's Advocate article today. We have fact, and we have some information with spin. The fact is that 40% of the people completing an exit interview stated that the subscription was the reason they were leaving the game. Then we have the information that says subscriptions are bad.

    I think it's interesting. I notice that Blizzard isn't getting rid of their sub, they are lowing their box price.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • Crazy_StickCrazy_Stick Privacy Preferred, NCPosts: 1,059Member

    The real object of concern from the article is that the Chief Operating Officer of EA feels the current gaming market will not support a subscription based game. As a major publisher, his views will affect the games we see make it into development and onto market for us to play over the next several years. At face value, that means “cash shop controlled” games... Think about it.

  • ForumPvPForumPvP KingstownPosts: 871Member

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

     

    Price to play

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

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

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

    Let's internet

Sign In or Register to comment.