Lots of people angry with my opinion, again its my opinion not a fact. I don't believe subs are good business model and telling your players you "need" the sub money for new feature development, salaries, server costs, marketing. Ther are TONS of games, mainly console, that need to provide salaries, server costss, marketing ect. and don't charge subs.
I have always believed that subs aren't something that came out of the need to pay for XYZ, instead saying you have to pay for XYZ came from companies wanting to charge a sub.
Except it's not about the model. It's about the quality of the game. Here we have rift that is successful enough to be releasing what appears at 1st glance to be one kickass expansion. Time will tell. Regardless. if the game is desireable and worth the fee, then it doesn't matter what that fee is really, as long as it's a value and is desireable. GW2 is not an "Awesome Game" No. It's an "Awesome Game fot the money". There is no way it would have nearly the popularity it has now if it were sub based. It would no longer be the value it is now.
For the game to be "worth the fee" the fee matters, not sure what you are trying to say with "the fee doesn't matter".
Each game has an inherent value to it. Each game is worth what it's worth to the playerbase as a whole. The market is full of games that were not worth the monthly fee. They fell on their face. Companies tried to monitize the playerbase in ways that exceeded what the game is worth.
If ever there was the most awesome MMORPG ever created that was able to recapture everyone's attention they all wanted to play this game for years to come. You'd pay the 15/mo fee (Unless there is some kind of pride factor here that you will bypass good entertainment on principal alone) You'd pay it because it was worth it'
It costs me more for the cans of Coke I drink while I play my MMOs than the MMOs themselves. It's really a weak argument.
Originally posted by atuerstar The man is just being honest. Perhaps if you dont cling so dearly to your delusions the truth wont hurt you as much?
You tell others don't cling to your delusions and then you go on to say 'truth' won't hurt you much? what truth? i thought people were just exchanging opinions. Way to contradict yourself in one sentence.
Lots of people angry with my opinion, again its my opinion not a fact. I don't believe subs are good business model and telling your players you "need" the sub money for new feature development, salaries, server costs, marketing. Ther are TONS of games, mainly console, that need to provide salaries, server costss, marketing ect. and don't charge subs.
I have always believed that subs aren't something that came out of the need to pay for XYZ, instead saying you have to pay for XYZ came from companies wanting to charge a sub.
Except it's not about the model. It's about the quality of the game. Here we have rift that is successful enough to be releasing what appears at 1st glance to be one kickass expansion. Time will tell. Regardless. if the game is desireable and worth the fee, then it doesn't matter what that fee is really, as long as it's a value and is desireable. GW2 is not an "Awesome Game" No. It's an "Awesome Game fot the money". There is no way it would have nearly the popularity it has now if it were sub based. It would no longer be the value it is now.
For the game to be "worth the fee" the fee matters, not sure what you are trying to say with "the fee doesn't matter".
So what maters to you is the pay model? Its ok to have cash shops but not a mothly fee?
Its not exclusive, I look at the game AND the cost of playing it.
Ok so iyo the game in question, RIFT, doesnt warrent a monthy fee? to each his own but as far as the lifetime payment model is concered, it doesnt have a very good track record. So i cant blame heartsman for his comments.
Also with that said,Rift seems to be doin just fine WITH a monthly payment model in place and quite frankly, i wouldent bother playing a game that didnt have a monthy fee.
" You get what you pay for" Doesnt fit every case but if you look at the quality of games that are F2P and P2P theres a HUGE difference.
Lots of people angry with my opinion, again its my opinion not a fact. I don't believe subs are good business model and telling your players you "need" the sub money for new feature development, salaries, server costs, marketing. Ther are TONS of games, mainly console, that need to provide salaries, server costss, marketing ect. and don't charge subs.
I have always believed that subs aren't something that came out of the need to pay for XYZ, instead saying you have to pay for XYZ came from companies wanting to charge a sub.
Except it's not about the model. It's about the quality of the game. Here we have rift that is successful enough to be releasing what appears at 1st glance to be one kickass expansion. Time will tell. Regardless. if the game is desireable and worth the fee, then it doesn't matter what that fee is really, as long as it's a value and is desireable. GW2 is not an "Awesome Game" No. It's an "Awesome Game fot the money". There is no way it would have nearly the popularity it has now if it were sub based. It would no longer be the value it is now.
For the game to be "worth the fee" the fee matters, not sure what you are trying to say with "the fee doesn't matter".
Each game has an inherent value to it. Each game is worth what it's worth to the playerbase as a whole. The market is full of games that were not worth the monthly fee. They fell on their face. Companies tried to monitize the playerbase in ways that exceeded what the game is worth.
If ever there was the most awesome MMORPG ever created that was able to recapture everyone's attention they all wanted to play this game for years to come. You'd pay the 15/mo fee (Unless there is some kind of pride factor here that you will bypass good entertainment on principal alone) You'd pay it because it was worth it'
It costs me more for the cans of Coke I drink while I play my MMOs than the MMOs themselves. It's really a weak argument.
I have run into this argument before. People also bring entertaiment as a whole, first time I see it with drinks(very creative). But, for me(again personal opinion) I don't compare a sub price of a game to how much does it cost for me to "see a movie or go to an amusement park, ect..". I compare it to other games which is the direct competition. If the game for me is not worth the 15 dollars(even though its a good game) I won't pay it, even if its cheaper than all the Pepsi's I might drink.
Again, I look at both the game and the price(related to its direct competition).
Lots of people angry with my opinion, again its my opinion not a fact. I don't believe subs are good business model and telling your players you "need" the sub money for new feature development, salaries, server costs, marketing. Ther are TONS of games, mainly console, that need to provide salaries, server costss, marketing ect. and don't charge subs.
I have always believed that subs aren't something that came out of the need to pay for XYZ, instead saying you have to pay for XYZ came from companies wanting to charge a sub.
Except it's not about the model. It's about the quality of the game. Here we have rift that is successful enough to be releasing what appears at 1st glance to be one kickass expansion. Time will tell. Regardless. if the game is desireable and worth the fee, then it doesn't matter what that fee is really, as long as it's a value and is desireable. GW2 is not an "Awesome Game" No. It's an "Awesome Game fot the money". There is no way it would have nearly the popularity it has now if it were sub based. It would no longer be the value it is now.
For the game to be "worth the fee" the fee matters, not sure what you are trying to say with "the fee doesn't matter".
So what maters to you is the pay model? Its ok to have cash shops but not a mothly fee?
Its not exclusive, I look at the game AND the cost of playing it.
your sub fees pay for development yes , and they continue to make sure companies like Trion do not have to lay off devs . In the case of SWTOR their sub fees were not even enough money to cover the cost of the game to be made and you can see with the lay offs now. I wont attack your opinion like some people who just like to be rude do here but i cannot agree with your op either because lifetime subs make parts of your playerbase not have to really pay for sometimes years of gametime and that costs the company a lot of money if your game can mature. Imagine if games like wow had say 25% of their playerbase pay for a lifetime sub that first year for say 150.00 , imagine the devistation of wow losing 25% of its revenue as a business for 7 extra years now. Thats business suicide IMO.
Lots of people angry with my opinion, again its my opinion not a fact. I don't believe subs are good business model and telling your players you "need" the sub money for new feature development, salaries, server costs, marketing. Ther are TONS of games, mainly console, that need to provide salaries, server costss, marketing ect. and don't charge subs.
I have always believed that subs aren't something that came out of the need to pay for XYZ, instead saying you have to pay for XYZ came from companies wanting to charge a sub.
Except it's not about the model. It's about the quality of the game. Here we have rift that is successful enough to be releasing what appears at 1st glance to be one kickass expansion. Time will tell. Regardless. if the game is desireable and worth the fee, then it doesn't matter what that fee is really, as long as it's a value and is desireable. GW2 is not an "Awesome Game" No. It's an "Awesome Game fot the money". There is no way it would have nearly the popularity it has now if it were sub based. It would no longer be the value it is now.
For the game to be "worth the fee" the fee matters, not sure what you are trying to say with "the fee doesn't matter".
So what maters to you is the pay model? Its ok to have cash shops but not a mothly fee?
Its not exclusive, I look at the game AND the cost of playing it.
Ok so iyo the game in question, RIFT, doesnt warrent a monthy fee? to each his own but as far as the lifetime payment model is concered, it doesnt have a very good track record. So i cant blame heartsman for his comments.
Also with that said,Rift seems to be doin just fine WITH a monthly payment model in place and quite frankly, i wouldent bother playing a game that didnt have a monthy fee.
" You get what you pay for" Doesnt fit every case but if you look at the quality of games that are F2P and P2P theres a HUGE difference.
"To each his/her own" is very true. I don't believe that Rift is worth my monthly fee with the current games out in the market, btw I have played Rift. But this is personal taste, the game isn't bad but its not worth my 15 dollars.
I also disagree that there is a "huge" difference between F2P or B2P games and P2P games.
Lots of people angry with my opinion, again its my opinion not a fact. I don't believe subs are good business model and telling your players you "need" the sub money for new feature development, salaries, server costs, marketing. Ther are TONS of games, mainly console, that need to provide salaries, server costss, marketing ect. and don't charge subs.
I have always believed that subs aren't something that came out of the need to pay for XYZ, instead saying you have to pay for XYZ came from companies wanting to charge a sub.
Except it's not about the model. It's about the quality of the game. Here we have rift that is successful enough to be releasing what appears at 1st glance to be one kickass expansion. Time will tell. Regardless. if the game is desireable and worth the fee, then it doesn't matter what that fee is really, as long as it's a value and is desireable. GW2 is not an "Awesome Game" No. It's an "Awesome Game fot the money". There is no way it would have nearly the popularity it has now if it were sub based. It would no longer be the value it is now.
For the game to be "worth the fee" the fee matters, not sure what you are trying to say with "the fee doesn't matter".
So what maters to you is the pay model? Its ok to have cash shops but not a mothly fee?
Its not exclusive, I look at the game AND the cost of playing it.
Ok so iyo the game in question, RIFT, doesnt warrent a monthy fee? to each his own but as far as the lifetime payment model is concered, it doesnt have a very good track record. So i cant blame heartsman for his comments.
Also with that said,Rift seems to be doin just fine WITH a monthly payment model in place and quite frankly, i wouldent bother playing a game that didnt have a monthy fee.
" You get what you pay for" Doesnt fit every case but if you look at the quality of games that are F2P and P2P theres a HUGE difference.
I will say to the underlined quote, no. GW2 is as good as Rift and Rift had the EXACT same issues as GW2 when Rift was new. Did having a sub fix things any quicker, no it did not.
I always thought the opposite about lifetime subs. Considering that in order to even make it worth the purchase the buyer has to play for 18-24 months to offset the cost. 1-3 months is all I have ever bought sub wise, due to the fact in 18 months I may no longer be interested in that particular game.
If I would have bought a lifetime then quit playing before the 18-24 month mark, then that seems to be money lost.
But I am not in the game making industry, so maybe he is correct.
I would buy a lifetime for Rift if it was offered tho.
Lots of people angry with my opinion, again its my opinion not a fact. I don't believe subs are good business model and telling your players you "need" the sub money for new feature development, salaries, server costs, marketing. Ther are TONS of games, mainly console, that need to provide salaries, server costss, marketing ect. and don't charge subs.
I have always believed that subs aren't something that came out of the need to pay for XYZ, instead saying you have to pay for XYZ came from companies wanting to charge a sub.
Except it's not about the model. It's about the quality of the game. Here we have rift that is successful enough to be releasing what appears at 1st glance to be one kickass expansion. Time will tell. Regardless. if the game is desireable and worth the fee, then it doesn't matter what that fee is really, as long as it's a value and is desireable. GW2 is not an "Awesome Game" No. It's an "Awesome Game fot the money". There is no way it would have nearly the popularity it has now if it were sub based. It would no longer be the value it is now.
For the game to be "worth the fee" the fee matters, not sure what you are trying to say with "the fee doesn't matter".
Each game has an inherent value to it. Each game is worth what it's worth to the playerbase as a whole. The market is full of games that were not worth the monthly fee. They fell on their face. Companies tried to monitize the playerbase in ways that exceeded what the game is worth.
If ever there was the most awesome MMORPG ever created that was able to recapture everyone's attention they all wanted to play this game for years to come. You'd pay the 15/mo fee (Unless there is some kind of pride factor here that you will bypass good entertainment on principal alone) You'd pay it because it was worth it'
It costs me more for the cans of Coke I drink while I play my MMOs than the MMOs themselves. It's really a weak argument.
I have run into this argument before. People also bring entertaiment as a whole, first time I see it with drinks(very creative). But, for me(again personal opinion) I don't compare a sub price of a game to how much does it cost for me to "see a movie or go to an amusement park, ect..". I compare it to other games which is the direct competition. If the game for me is not worth the 15 dollars(even though its a good game) I won't pay it, even if its cheaper than all the Pepsi's I might drink.
Again, I look at both the game and the price(related to its direct competition).
And what about my 1st point? About value? If there was a game all your friends were clammoring about, one that became a smash hit, one that got everyone all worked up all over again, one that wasn't full of empty hype but actually delivered, you wouldn't pay it even if it was a value at 15/mo?
I will say to the underlined quote, no. GW2 is as good as Rift and Rift had the EXACT same issues as GW2 when Rift was new. Did having a sub fix things any quicker, no it did not.
Sub or not does not matter - if the game is good.
Huh? EXACT issues? what BS.
If your google fu is strong won't take you more than a minute to see what EXACT issues Rift suffered at release. Now compare to that amount of bugs in GW2 and compare the speed at which patches and content was being churned out in RIFT.
Typical BS from GW2 fans trying desperately to make GW2 look good as usual.
Exact my ass...GW2 has more bugs than startship troopers.
I will say to the underlined quote, no. GW2 is as good as Rift and Rift had the EXACT same issues as GW2 when Rift was new. Did having a sub fix things any quicker, no it did not.
Sub or not does not matter - if the game is good.
Huh? EXACT issues? what BS.
If your google fu is strong won't take you more than a minute to see what EXACT issues Rift suffered at release. Now compare to that amount of bugs in GW2 and compare the speed at which patches and content was being churned out in RIFT.
Typical BS from GW2 fans trying desperately to make GW2 look good as usual.
Exact my ass...GW2 has more bugs than startship troopers.
Anytime I look at your posts, you're flaming GW2 fans. Maybe you should ignore them. Just a suggestion.
Lots of people angry with my opinion, again its my opinion not a fact. I don't believe subs are good business model and telling your players you "need" the sub money for new feature development, salaries, server costs, marketing. Ther are TONS of games, mainly console, that need to provide salaries, server costss, marketing ect. and don't charge subs.
I have always believed that subs aren't something that came out of the need to pay for XYZ, instead saying you have to pay for XYZ came from companies wanting to charge a sub.
Except it's not about the model. It's about the quality of the game. Here we have rift that is successful enough to be releasing what appears at 1st glance to be one kickass expansion. Time will tell. Regardless. if the game is desireable and worth the fee, then it doesn't matter what that fee is really, as long as it's a value and is desireable. GW2 is not an "Awesome Game" No. It's an "Awesome Game fot the money". There is no way it would have nearly the popularity it has now if it were sub based. It would no longer be the value it is now.
For the game to be "worth the fee" the fee matters, not sure what you are trying to say with "the fee doesn't matter".
So what maters to you is the pay model? Its ok to have cash shops but not a mothly fee?
Its not exclusive, I look at the game AND the cost of playing it.
your sub fees pay for development yes , and they continue to make sure companies like Trion do not have to lay off devs . In the case of SWTOR their sub fees were not even enough money to cover the cost of the game to be made and you can see with the lay offs now. I wont attack your opinion like some people who just like to be rude do here but i cannot agree with your op either because lifetime subs make parts of your playerbase not have to really pay for sometimes years of gametime and that costs the company a lot of money if your game can mature. Imagine if games like wow had say 25% of their playerbase pay for a lifetime sub that first year for say 150.00 , imagine the devistation of wow losing 25% of its revenue as a business for 7 extra years now. Thats business suicide IMO.
Thanks for not being like many posters around here who get personal on opinions.
As far as the lifetime part of his comment, that might be true I don't know. It might be bad for business, although many industries love to charge people before they get an entire product because there is a big probability that they won't consume the entire product before it pays for itself. They could probably charge more for the lifetime. Either way my problem is him saying they "need" that sub, because of what I already express and that if you read the article to me it sounded snarky and basically says its good for you but we don't care.
"Lifetime memberships are a great deal for consumers that plan to spend the next few years playing the game, and a financial disaster for subscription-only companies that have to continue paying for new feature development, salaries, server costs, marketing, etc."
I personally found what he said in bad taste. First because I don't believe subs are needed and secondly because he could have tried sounding like less of a @#$% while making his point....
Originally posted by Tayah He's right really. Lifetime subs are a bad idea for a company that have to pay salaries and have regular content for mmo's. I prefer subscription over free to play games with cash shops any day.
Tayah here is right. Just look what happened to Lord of the Rings online. One of the 1st to allow LTS, and though it was doing great in Europe, because of the large number of LTS players (me included) the game got into financial problems and had to be converted to F2P to keep the financial flow up. Same for Star Trek online, Champions online (though they have other problems as well causing the games to decline in subs), and I fear The Secret World will get the same problem too...
I gotta agree with Kuppa too. Subscriptions are not really a needy thing, but a developer like TRION and Blizzard who update their games on a regular basis, do have large development expenses to make, and thus a steady income to finance that. And yeah, that guy did indeed soud like a @#$% a bit with his statement. A slight nuance might have made it a lot better
Lots of people angry with my opinion, again its my opinion not a fact. I don't believe subs are good business model and telling your players you "need" the sub money for new feature development, salaries, server costs, marketing. Ther are TONS of games, mainly console, that need to provide salaries, server costss, marketing ect. and don't charge subs.
I have always believed that subs aren't something that came out of the need to pay for XYZ, instead saying you have to pay for XYZ came from companies wanting to charge a sub.
Except it's not about the model. It's about the quality of the game. Here we have rift that is successful enough to be releasing what appears at 1st glance to be one kickass expansion. Time will tell. Regardless. if the game is desireable and worth the fee, then it doesn't matter what that fee is really, as long as it's a value and is desireable. GW2 is not an "Awesome Game" No. It's an "Awesome Game fot the money". There is no way it would have nearly the popularity it has now if it were sub based. It would no longer be the value it is now.
For the game to be "worth the fee" the fee matters, not sure what you are trying to say with "the fee doesn't matter".
Each game has an inherent value to it. Each game is worth what it's worth to the playerbase as a whole. The market is full of games that were not worth the monthly fee. They fell on their face. Companies tried to monitize the playerbase in ways that exceeded what the game is worth.
If ever there was the most awesome MMORPG ever created that was able to recapture everyone's attention they all wanted to play this game for years to come. You'd pay the 15/mo fee (Unless there is some kind of pride factor here that you will bypass good entertainment on principal alone) You'd pay it because it was worth it'
It costs me more for the cans of Coke I drink while I play my MMOs than the MMOs themselves. It's really a weak argument.
I have run into this argument before. People also bring entertaiment as a whole, first time I see it with drinks(very creative). But, for me(again personal opinion) I don't compare a sub price of a game to how much does it cost for me to "see a movie or go to an amusement park, ect..". I compare it to other games which is the direct competition. If the game for me is not worth the 15 dollars(even though its a good game) I won't pay it, even if its cheaper than all the Pepsi's I might drink.
Again, I look at both the game and the price(related to its direct competition).
And what about my 1st point? About value? If there was a game all your friends were clammoring about, one that became a smash hit, one that got everyone all worked up all over again, one that wasn't full of empty hype but actually delivered, you wouldn't pay it even if it was a value at 15/mo?
My argument is not to pay 15 dollars ever. Its to only pay xx when xx is deserved. That game you speak of could be 50 bucks a month, if its worth it I will play it.
Originally posted by KuppaLots of people angry with my opinion, again its my opinion not a fact. I don't believe subs are good business model and telling your players you "need" the sub money for new feature development, salaries, server costs, marketing. Ther are TONS of games, mainly console, that need to provide salaries, server costss, marketing ect. and don't charge subs.I have always believed that subs aren't something that came out of the need to pay for XYZ, instead saying you have to pay for XYZ came from companies wanting to charge a sub.
Except it's not about the model. It's about the quality of the game. Here we have rift that is successful enough to be releasing what appears at 1st glance to be one kickass expansion. Time will tell. Regardless. if the game is desireable and worth the fee, then it doesn't matter what that fee is really, as long as it's a value and is desireable. GW2 is not an "Awesome Game" No. It's an "Awesome Game fot the money". There is no way it would have nearly the popularity it has now if it were sub based. It would no longer be the value it is now.
For the game to be "worth the fee" the fee matters, not sure what you are trying to say with "the fee doesn't matter".
Each game has an inherent value to it. Each game is worth what it's worth to the playerbase as a whole. The market is full of games that were not worth the monthly fee. They fell on their face. Companies tried to monitize the playerbase in ways that exceeded what the game is worth.If ever there was the most awesome MMORPG ever created that was able to recapture everyone's attention they all wanted to play this game for years to come. You'd pay the 15/mo fee (Unless there is some kind of pride factor here that you will bypass good entertainment on principal alone) You'd pay it because it was worth it'It costs me more for the cans of Coke I drink while I play my MMOs than the MMOs themselves. It's really a weak argument.
I have run into this argument before. People also bring entertaiment as a whole, first time I see it with drinks(very creative). But, for me(again personal opinion) I don't compare a sub price of a game to how much does it cost for me to "see a movie or go to an amusement park, ect..". I compare it to other games which is the direct competition. If the game for me is not worth the 15 dollars(even though its a good game) I won't pay it, even if its cheaper than all the Pepsi's I might drink. Again, I look at both the game and the price(related to its direct competition).
And what about my 1st point? About value? If there was a game all your friends were clammoring about, one that became a smash hit, one that got everyone all worked up all over again, one that wasn't full of empty hype but actually delivered, you wouldn't pay it even if it was a value at 15/mo?
My argument is not to pay 15 dollars ever. Its to only pay xx when xx is deserved. That game you speak of could be 50 bucks a month, if its worth it I will play it.
That's my point. The revenue model isn't dead, there are just no games on the market worth it. I get that, Don't blame you for it either. I play Rift. I'm willing to pay. Someone else says, Nope, not worth 15/mo. I respect that. But it's not about 15/mo, it's about Rift. Or WoW, or EVE, or any other game out there that doesn't thrill you enough to pay it.
" You get what you pay for" Doesnt fit every case but if you look at the quality of games that are F2P and P2P theres a HUGE difference.
I will say to the underlined quote, no. GW2 is as good as Rift and Rift had the EXACT same issues as GW2 when Rift was new. Did having a sub fix things any quicker, no it did not.
Sub or not does not matter - if the game is good.
Then GW2 is the exception to the rule. Also might add its not really f2p. Its B2P w/ cash shop. Big difference. But thats a whole other topic intirely.
Looking at the list of games just on this site alone theres a huge difference in quality between P2P and F2P ( Remember. GW2 is B2P )
well i can kinda agree with him that they do need their sub fees because they do not have a cash shop except a mount and a couple of digital CE upgrades in their store. They literally do relay on paying the bills from sub fees and future projects like defiance they are working on. I would agree with you though if Trion wasnt actually developing their game with storm legion and spending TONS of dev resources changing their current game. Heck man if you look at what wow released with MOP and what Trion is releasing its like not even in the same league , wow bombs hard . So I kinda see where he is coming from that they need every dime they can get to keep up with development of their games. But its just like a text message, ive cussed out someone i thought was being a douche before when they werent , just because how things are worded. Sometimes meaning is missed in type.
" You get what you pay for" Doesnt fit every case but if you look at the quality of games that are F2P and P2P theres a HUGE difference.
I will say to the underlined quote, no. GW2 is as good as Rift and Rift had the EXACT same issues as GW2 when Rift was new. Did having a sub fix things any quicker, no it did not.
Sub or not does not matter - if the game is good.
Then GW2 is the exception to the rule. Also might add its not really f2p. Its B2P w/ cash shop. Big difference. But thats a whole other topic intirely.
Looking at the list of games just on this site alone theres a huge difference in quality between P2P and F2P ( Remember. GW2 is B2P )
guild wars 2 is not all that for quality , compared to other free to play games yes it is , but they shaft their playerbase to in GW2 relying on impulse and addictive buying , by putting chests in the game and the halloween stuff also. You have to pay to unlock your inventory slots past 4 , you have to pay for extra character slots past 5 , you have to pay for extra bank slots past 20 or 30 slots etc Then you have chests thrown in your face every 5 minutes and they know players are going to wonder whats in them and buy the keys . Guild Wars 2 was buy to play i thought also like gw1 but honestly i find ANet to be just as shady as SOE with their models because they shaft their loyals just as hard as EQ2 does , they just do it in a more elegant form.
I will say to the underlined quote, no. GW2 is as good as Rift and Rift had the EXACT same issues as GW2 when Rift was new. Did having a sub fix things any quicker, no it did not.
Sub or not does not matter - if the game is good.
Huh? EXACT issues? what BS.
If your google fu is strong won't take you more than a minute to see what EXACT issues Rift suffered at release. Now compare to that amount of bugs in GW2 and compare the speed at which patches and content was being churned out in RIFT.
Typical BS from GW2 fans trying desperately to make GW2 look good as usual.
Exact my ass...GW2 has more bugs than startship troopers.
You mean like the RIFT account bug where anyone could log in to your account without a password? A user found and submitted that bug and then Trion acknowledged it (only after it was published). Why do you think we have coinlock now (which is an awesome feature)? How about the 8 hour queues for the first week? How about numerous skill bugs and class issues where some mechanics have been broken.
I've been there since before the beginning and RIFT has had several major issues along with their terminal performance struggle. It's a good game, but certainly no better than any other release out there. What has made those problems bearable is the very rapid development and deployment cycle Trion has; the same sort of cycle that Arena Net has.
You make the "this game is better because I said so" claim like none of us have played both. Once again your biased agenda shows.
Originally posted by cronius77 well i can kinda agree with him that they do need their sub fees because they do not have a cash shop except a mount and a couple of digital CE upgrades in their store. They literally do relay on paying the bills from sub fees and future projects like defiance they are working on. I would agree with you though if Trion wasnt actually developing their game with storm legion and spending TONS of dev resources changing their current game. Heck man if you look at what wow released with MOP and what Trion is releasing its like not even in the same league , wow bombs hard . So I kinda see where he is coming from that they need every dime they can get to keep up with development of their games. But its just like a text message, ive cussed out someone i thought was being a douche before when they werent , just because how things are worded. Sometimes meaning is missed in type.
WOW is another matter also. With the amount of money that theyrecieve on a monthly basis, they should be churning out new content every damn week lol. But you go a full year without anything. Blizzard should be ashamed of thier self.
You mean like the RIFT account bug where anyone could log in to your account without a password? A user found and submitted that bug and then Trion acknowledged it (only after it was published). Why do you think we have coinlock now (which is an awesome feature)? How about the 8 hour queues for the first week? How about numerous skill bugs and class issues where some mechanics have been broken.
I've been there since before the beginning and RIFT has had several major issues along with their terminal performance struggle. It's a good game, but certainly no better than any other release out there. What has made those problems bearable is the very rapid development and deployment cycle Trion has; the same sort of cycle that Arena Net has.
You make the "this game is better because I said so" claim like none of us have played both. Once again your biased agenda shows.
When GW2 fans accuse others for 'biased agenda' it is a comedy gold. One just needs to have a look at the bug section of GW2 and find out the amount of bugs it has and how those bugs from release are still there.
No one else except for GW2 fans would claim that Rift and GW2 had EXACT amount of bugs or that Rift had more bugs than GW2.
Rift is knows for its stable and quality release. And anyone here who is un biased and not clouded by their own 'agenda' would freely admit it. I am not evena Rift fan or anything but this is not some secret that Rift had a great and stable launch with minimal bugs.
But thanks for the laugh. There is reason why Rift is known for one of the best launches along with games like LOTRO.
Comments
Each game has an inherent value to it. Each game is worth what it's worth to the playerbase as a whole. The market is full of games that were not worth the monthly fee. They fell on their face. Companies tried to monitize the playerbase in ways that exceeded what the game is worth.
If ever there was the most awesome MMORPG ever created that was able to recapture everyone's attention they all wanted to play this game for years to come. You'd pay the 15/mo fee (Unless there is some kind of pride factor here that you will bypass good entertainment on principal alone) You'd pay it because it was worth it'
It costs me more for the cans of Coke I drink while I play my MMOs than the MMOs themselves. It's really a weak argument.
You tell others don't cling to your delusions and then you go on to say 'truth' won't hurt you much? what truth? i thought people were just exchanging opinions. Way to contradict yourself in one sentence.
Ok so iyo the game in question, RIFT, doesnt warrent a monthy fee? to each his own but as far as the lifetime payment model is concered, it doesnt have a very good track record. So i cant blame heartsman for his comments.
Also with that said,Rift seems to be doin just fine WITH a monthly payment model in place and quite frankly, i wouldent bother playing a game that didnt have a monthy fee.
" You get what you pay for" Doesnt fit every case but if you look at the quality of games that are F2P and P2P theres a HUGE difference.
I have run into this argument before. People also bring entertaiment as a whole, first time I see it with drinks(very creative). But, for me(again personal opinion) I don't compare a sub price of a game to how much does it cost for me to "see a movie or go to an amusement park, ect..". I compare it to other games which is the direct competition. If the game for me is not worth the 15 dollars(even though its a good game) I won't pay it, even if its cheaper than all the Pepsi's I might drink.
Again, I look at both the game and the price(related to its direct competition).
your sub fees pay for development yes , and they continue to make sure companies like Trion do not have to lay off devs . In the case of SWTOR their sub fees were not even enough money to cover the cost of the game to be made and you can see with the lay offs now. I wont attack your opinion like some people who just like to be rude do here but i cannot agree with your op either because lifetime subs make parts of your playerbase not have to really pay for sometimes years of gametime and that costs the company a lot of money if your game can mature. Imagine if games like wow had say 25% of their playerbase pay for a lifetime sub that first year for say 150.00 , imagine the devistation of wow losing 25% of its revenue as a business for 7 extra years now. Thats business suicide IMO.
"To each his/her own" is very true. I don't believe that Rift is worth my monthly fee with the current games out in the market, btw I have played Rift. But this is personal taste, the game isn't bad but its not worth my 15 dollars.
I also disagree that there is a "huge" difference between F2P or B2P games and P2P games.
I will say to the underlined quote, no. GW2 is as good as Rift and Rift had the EXACT same issues as GW2 when Rift was new. Did having a sub fix things any quicker, no it did not.
Sub or not does not matter - if the game is good.
I always thought the opposite about lifetime subs. Considering that in order to even make it worth the purchase the buyer has to play for 18-24 months to offset the cost. 1-3 months is all I have ever bought sub wise, due to the fact in 18 months I may no longer be interested in that particular game.
If I would have bought a lifetime then quit playing before the 18-24 month mark, then that seems to be money lost.
But I am not in the game making industry, so maybe he is correct.
I would buy a lifetime for Rift if it was offered tho.
And what about my 1st point? About value? If there was a game all your friends were clammoring about, one that became a smash hit, one that got everyone all worked up all over again, one that wasn't full of empty hype but actually delivered, you wouldn't pay it even if it was a value at 15/mo?
Huh? EXACT issues? what BS.
If your google fu is strong won't take you more than a minute to see what EXACT issues Rift suffered at release. Now compare to that amount of bugs in GW2 and compare the speed at which patches and content was being churned out in RIFT.
Typical BS from GW2 fans trying desperately to make GW2 look good as usual.
Exact my ass...GW2 has more bugs than startship troopers.
Anytime I look at your posts, you're flaming GW2 fans. Maybe you should ignore them. Just a suggestion.
Is the competition that you are refering to GW2 and its pay model?
Look who is talking. I don't think i need any advice from you. Now excuse me please.
Thanks for not being like many posters around here who get personal on opinions.
As far as the lifetime part of his comment, that might be true I don't know. It might be bad for business, although many industries love to charge people before they get an entire product because there is a big probability that they won't consume the entire product before it pays for itself. They could probably charge more for the lifetime. Either way my problem is him saying they "need" that sub, because of what I already express and that if you read the article to me it sounded snarky and basically says its good for you but we don't care.
Tayah here is right. Just look what happened to Lord of the Rings online. One of the 1st to allow LTS, and though it was doing great in Europe, because of the large number of LTS players (me included) the game got into financial problems and had to be converted to F2P to keep the financial flow up. Same for Star Trek online, Champions online (though they have other problems as well causing the games to decline in subs), and I fear The Secret World will get the same problem too...
I gotta agree with Kuppa too. Subscriptions are not really a needy thing, but a developer like TRION and Blizzard who update their games on a regular basis, do have large development expenses to make, and thus a steady income to finance that. And yeah, that guy did indeed soud like a @#$% a bit with his statement. A slight nuance might have made it a lot better
My argument is not to pay 15 dollars ever. Its to only pay xx when xx is deserved. That game you speak of could be 50 bucks a month, if its worth it I will play it.
That's my point. The revenue model isn't dead, there are just no games on the market worth it. I get that, Don't blame you for it either. I play Rift. I'm willing to pay. Someone else says, Nope, not worth 15/mo. I respect that. But it's not about 15/mo, it's about Rift. Or WoW, or EVE, or any other game out there that doesn't thrill you enough to pay it.
Then GW2 is the exception to the rule. Also might add its not really f2p. Its B2P w/ cash shop. Big difference. But thats a whole other topic intirely.
Looking at the list of games just on this site alone theres a huge difference in quality between P2P and F2P ( Remember. GW2 is B2P )
guild wars 2 is not all that for quality , compared to other free to play games yes it is , but they shaft their playerbase to in GW2 relying on impulse and addictive buying , by putting chests in the game and the halloween stuff also. You have to pay to unlock your inventory slots past 4 , you have to pay for extra character slots past 5 , you have to pay for extra bank slots past 20 or 30 slots etc Then you have chests thrown in your face every 5 minutes and they know players are going to wonder whats in them and buy the keys . Guild Wars 2 was buy to play i thought also like gw1 but honestly i find ANet to be just as shady as SOE with their models because they shaft their loyals just as hard as EQ2 does , they just do it in a more elegant form.
Well, at least you could log in.
Rift
WOW is another matter also. With the amount of money that theyrecieve on a monthly basis, they should be churning out new content every damn week lol. But you go a full year without anything. Blizzard should be ashamed of thier self.
When GW2 fans accuse others for 'biased agenda' it is a comedy gold. One just needs to have a look at the bug section of GW2 and find out the amount of bugs it has and how those bugs from release are still there.
No one else except for GW2 fans would claim that Rift and GW2 had EXACT amount of bugs or that Rift had more bugs than GW2.
Rift is knows for its stable and quality release. And anyone here who is un biased and not clouded by their own 'agenda' would freely admit it. I am not evena Rift fan or anything but this is not some secret that Rift had a great and stable launch with minimal bugs.
But thanks for the laugh. There is reason why Rift is known for one of the best launches along with games like LOTRO.