I've played subscription games, I've played lots of free to play games. I've always preferred Free to Play. My subscription always felt like a burden,that I HAD to play because I was subscribing.Games like Aion i subscribed to for about 3 or 4 months, but then stopped, because I didn't feel I was getting 15 dollars a month out of it. Now I play a lot more, and enjoy it a lot more, since its free.
Well I guess there are two way you can look at this:
1. As f2p are increasing and p2p are decreasing it is fair to say that there is less demand for subscription based games. In that vein any subscription plan than is meeting demand.
or
2. People are leaving p2p games because they do not feel they are quality enough to bother paying for, so the quality of the game is not meeting demand.
Your poll has nothing to do with the question you asked.
Incorrect, the players don't choose the payment models, the game creators do. History has revealed to us that they even change them without any qualms.
Don't give me any double talk about demand by players, LOTRO went micro-transaction after they got the box price and anywhere from 199.00 USD to 299.00USD for lifetime subs plus they lied to their playerbase ahead of it saying the game was fine and they had no plans to go that route CONTINUING to sell the lifetime subscription. Having enough operating cost was not a problem for them. They used those massive funds to then claim that their model was successful by sticking it out and waiting with all the money they had received. Sure was short term with an influx of a box price and lifetime subs paid, not sure why people haven't called them on their bull previously. They don't even release their financial reports because they aren't publicly traded, they just say - numbers are higher this year. Do you know what 15 x 0 is - still 0. They had people dedicated to the game that threw them hundreds of dollars, they had reason to stay - short of us hardheads that told them where they could put their game after lying. Those people (including me) invested in their big fat lie and every game after chases their dream with none of the ingredients they used expecting similar results. Who is surprised when the cake comes out of the oven without having risen.
Additionally, you have lord of the frickin' rings and dungeons and dragons as intellectual property - those titles are criminal to not make a profit with. Do you realize how many fans of those two IPs exist. That is cream of the crop branding. Lord of the Rings series is taught in schools! DDO was the grandaddy of all these games, the dice rolling superstar! If you fail with either of those 2 names - GTFO of the business world. You could put LOTRO on Kleenex and 40k people would buy it just to call it an adventure to throw it away.
My interest was as stated - to know if the players that responded to a preference was higher or lower than the percentage of subscription games in the list from this website.
I think I still see my silver lining. The more games that use micro-transactions, the more they create scarcity for the games that stick to sub models. It's already becoming apparent that the latter is now the minority though the player interest is still high. All good signs for me.
The results of the poll are larger than I expected for subs - guess my type isn't a dead breed as some might think.
Here's a link to some good reading for those that participated if you like this topic. My virtual Thank You lol, yes they focus on MMOs.
My PhD thesis on people who spend real money on virtual goods is now published. Thanks to everyone for your support! Here’s the publication info:
Vili Lehdonvirta (2009). Virtual Consumption. Publications of the Turku School of Economics, A-11:2009, Turku. ISBN: 978-952-249-019-3 (printed) 978-952-249-020-9 (electronic) ISSN: 0357-4652 (printed) 1459-4870 (electronic)
You can download the electronic version of the thesis from the university library here. The print version can be purchased from the university’s publisher: KY Dealing, tel. +358 2 481 4422, email ky-dealing(at)tse.fi. I also have some free copies to send to people, so drop me an email while they still last!
"
My my hit a nerve did I.
I never stated nor implied anything about who chose a payment model.
You asked if there was sufficient demand. I simply stated that the market ALWAYS responds to demand. If more players demanded sub based models those would increase, that they are not you have to admit the possibility that more players are not demanding that model.
Or possibly that they feel the quality isn't there in those games.
Yes there are a few that will do things for other reasons both for the consumers and the devs however the market itself is driven by the consumers choice.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Well I guess there are two way you can look at this:
1. As f2p are increasing and p2p are decreasing it is fair to say that there is less demand for subscription based games. In that vein any subscription plan than is meeting demand.
or
2. People are leaving p2p games because they do not feel they are quality enough to bother paying for, so the quality of the game is not meeting demand.
Your poll has nothing to do with the question you asked.
Incorrect, the players don't choose the payment models, the game creators do. History has revealed to us that they even change them without any qualms.
Don't give me any double talk about demand by players, LOTRO went micro-transaction after they got the box price and anywhere from 199.00 USD to 299.00USD for lifetime subs ...
By continuing to play LOTRO and by embracing the new payment model, the consumers chose the payment model. Had they rejected the new payment model, the game would have either gone under or reverted to subscription. We are talking about entertainment, not utilities.
You claim to have a PhD in Economics and this is foreign to you?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Well I guess there are two way you can look at this:
1. As f2p are increasing and p2p are decreasing it is fair to say that there is less demand for subscription based games. In that vein any subscription plan than is meeting demand.
or
2. People are leaving p2p games because they do not feel they are quality enough to bother paying for, so the quality of the game is not meeting demand.
Your poll has nothing to do with the question you asked.
Incorrect, the players don't choose the payment models, the game creators do. History has revealed to us that they even change them without any qualms.
Don't give me any double talk about demand by players, LOTRO went micro-transaction after they got the box price and anywhere from 199.00 USD to 299.00USD for lifetime subs ...
By continuing to play LOTRO and by embracing the new payment model, the consumers chose the payment model. Had they rejected the new payment model, the game would have either gone under or reverted to subscription. We are talking about entertainment, not utilities.
You claim to have a PhD in Economics and this is foreign to you?
Those quote marks around the text and the link to it identify that it is quoted text from the link. I never claimed to have that degree. My degree is IT based. What is your degree in since we are sharing. I don't actually care, let's end you and I. You can be my second block today, my patience is not up for you in yet another one of my threads with the inability to comprehend english.
The point still stands that the consumer of the entertainment product or service chose the payment model.
I won't even touch the language skills dig.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
It really boils down to whether a game is good enough, regardless of the payment model used, personally i prefer P2P, but that in itself could be because the P2P games are better than the ones that are f2p, i think the only way we'll see if the F2P model is overcomming the P2P one, is when we finally see a F2P game that is superior to P2P, which so far, has not happened.
Originally posted by Phry It really boils down to whether a game is good enough, regardless of the payment model used, personally i prefer P2P, but that in itself could be because the P2P games are better than the ones that are f2p, i think the only way we'll see if the F2P model is overcomming the P2P one, is when we finally see a F2P game that is superior to P2P, which so far, has not happened.
Are graphics the primary area where the F2P seem to fall behind, or do you feel other aspects of F2P are still lagging behind subscription games in quality?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by Phry It really boils down to whether a game is good enough, regardless of the payment model used, personally i prefer P2P, but that in itself could be because the P2P games are better than the ones that are f2p, i think the only way we'll see if the F2P model is overcomming the P2P one, is when we finally see a F2P game that is superior to P2P, which so far, has not happened.
Are graphics the primary area where the F2P seem to fall behind, or do you feel other aspects of F2P are still lagging behind subscription games in quality?
The only game i've played that i thought had really good graphics, is Eve online, of the P2P games that i do play, i find the stylised graphics a bit disappointing, so i can't really say that P2P games have the edge graphically, although Eve is the exception but until they actually give some real meaning to the 'walking in stations' bit, something of an aberration. I would like to see better graphics, but overall i would say that f2p games main lack, for me at least, is in the gameplay, not the graphics. so its really a case of the game mechanics for me, i like crafting so games with a player driven economy work for me, i like exploration so, including large open areas with ocasionally things to be found, is good too, and i like games where players are encouraged to work as a team, though mixing solo and team based content is also, very desirable.. basically.. im picky
But i am prepared to pay for the gameplay i like
for instance, currently subbed to both Planetside 2 and SW;TOR, something of a surprise tbh, im not sure how long i will be subbed to both those games, but as an 'addition' to Eve they do sort of 'round out' my game time.. as in.. i now no longer have time to even play the odd SPRPG, which usually means Skyrim or Oblivion.. Planetside 2, which despite it being a stripped down version of Planetside 1, and despite the game still being something of a buggy mess, it crashes to desktop far too frequently for my liking, and the game is susceptible to hacking, several times now have seen players using hacks, mostly aimbots, the game is pretty good if you are in an Outfit, i was lucky in that the Outfit i was in, in Planetside 1, is also in Planetside2 (Outcasters ftw!!)
overally im not sure what demographic i fall into.. i suspect.. i might be the banana in the orange bowl
I don't give a &$%@ if people don't like what I am about to say or not, they are my opinion and that is based on observation....
But I see 2 reasons...
1. Which was already brought up...people don't think the quality of games justify a monthly fee.
2. Companies realize they have the potential to make much more money off F2P with cash shops because a lot of players rather have vanity items and advantages (In some MMO's) they can pay for rather than work for, and get them fast. Sadly.
1. Which was already brought up...people don't think the quality of games justify a monthly fee.
2. Companies realize they have the potential to make much more money off F2P with cash shops because a lot of players rather have vanity items and advantages (In some MMO's) they can pay for rather than work for, and get them fast. Sadly.
Yet, increasingly we're seeing people unhappy with F2P models. I won't name any names, but we've seen some recent threads about "offended by these packages"...clearly a lot of people who believed they were "getting a better deal" from F2P are waking up to how readily and efficiently monetized the model is. The real problem didn't turn out to be P2W, as initially feared, but rather PaP (Pay and Pay...and Pay...and Pay...) .
Anticipating some sort of lashback effect from gamers. But hell, this herd can be stampeded in nearly any direction Marketing wants it to go. Just part of the disillusionment with the industry.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
1. Which was already brought up...people don't think the quality of games justify a monthly fee.
2. Companies realize they have the potential to make much more money off F2P with cash shops because a lot of players rather have vanity items and advantages (In some MMO's) they can pay for rather than work for, and get them fast. Sadly.
Yet, increasingly we're seeing people unhappy with F2P models. I won't name any names, but we've seen some recent threads about "offended by these packages"...clearly a lot of people who believed they were "getting a better deal" from F2P are waking up to how readily and efficiently monetized the model is. The real problem didn't turn out to be P2W, as initially feared, but rather PaP (Pay and Pay...and Pay...and Pay...) .
Anticipating some sort of lashback effect from gamers. But hell, this herd can be stampeded in nearly any direction Marketing wants it to go. Just part of the disillusionment with the industry.
You can say that again. And I am sure some are waking up to it...but there is still a large number that itch to buy that next "Hey! Look at me!" item too.
Vanguard:SoH is a good example of this. It's unreal the number of keys bought apparently for the sheer numbers of people riding around on special flying mounts..which are RARE drops from chests. And that's not even all there is that people seem to gobble up like crazy.
It's a F2P model with the option to sub. It has a lot of subs too. But I will bet my left bean bag it pales in comparison to their cash shop revenue.
Runes of Magic and Allods Online are both very much pay to win.
How is 18$ for a christmas mount a "microtransaction" ?
Some F2P models are simply a ripoff, trying to lure you into the cash shop AND have a subscription. See SWTOR for reference.
Or games with treasure chests dropping ingame and having keys on the cash shop.
You know what´s a microtransaction? Everything between $ 0.01 and $ 0.10
probably because they will always charge what they think they can get away with, plus there is the whole bling thing going on, by putting a high value on something, it implies its worth more and so the person buying it becomes by definition, that bit more special
or as the saying goes, 'there's nought so daft as folk'
The price of "micro"transactions will keep going up and will encompass more and more of the MMO and its gameplay. After a while the real cost of so called F2P games will sink in. It may well be that players will start clammering for a sub and an end to microtransactions.
But lets call it what is is, macrotransactions is far more apt.
Well I guess there are two way you can look at this:
1. As f2p are increasing and p2p are decreasing it is fair to say that there is less demand for subscription based games. In that vein any subscription plan than is meeting demand.
or
2. People are leaving p2p games because they do not feel they are quality enough to bother paying for, so the quality of the game is not meeting demand.
Your poll has nothing to do with the question you asked.
Incorrect, the players don't choose the payment models, the game creators do. History has revealed to us that they even change them without any qualms.
...snip
My my hit a nerve did I.
I never stated nor implied anything about who chose a payment model.
You asked if there was sufficient demand. I simply stated that the market ALWAYS responds to demand. If more players demanded sub based models those would increase, that they are not you have to admit the possibility that more players are not demanding that model.
Or possibly that they feel the quality isn't there in those games.
Yes there are a few that will do things for other reasons both for the consumers and the devs however the market itself is driven by the consumers choice.
No, you tried to say that because there aren't as many sub games that meant that they weren't wanted. I showed you a genuine time when the players DID want it and contributed above and beyond enough money to make it last. So, are you claiming that my money is worthless or that my words are lies when I state that I want a sub game. Either way, it needed to be cleared up for you.
Again, the market is going where they think the money is - from LOTRO reports. After all, that is the only game that has ever gloated like they do with no numbers behind it. It's marketing selling the model, not happiness or contentment because one micro-transaction game isn't enough - we need 500+.
Um yes that is what I stated, as a possiblity, I stated you have to admit the possibilty that the market has responded to what players wanted, players have overwhelmning chosen f2p over p2p. One possibility is because thats what they want.
Yes your money is worthless. The market has decided to embrace lotro with the f2p model, what you choose to do is irrelavant when the market itself has embraced it.
The devs are going where the money is. The consumer is choosing which games they play and which model they prefer.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
1. Which was already brought up...people don't think the quality of games justify a monthly fee.
2. Companies realize they have the potential to make much more money off F2P with cash shops because a lot of players rather have vanity items and advantages (In some MMO's) they can pay for rather than work for, and get them fast. Sadly.
Yet, increasingly we're seeing people unhappy with F2P models. I won't name any names, but we've seen some recent threads about "offended by these packages"...clearly a lot of people who believed they were "getting a better deal" from F2P are waking up to how readily and efficiently monetized the model is. The real problem didn't turn out to be P2W, as initially feared, but rather PaP (Pay and Pay...and Pay...and Pay...) .
My guess is because these companies are still trying to figure out in what way they can monetize their F2P title and are still experimenting pricing and content. To be honest, seeing people complaining about either the cost or content of packages is a good sign. With enough outcry it tends to send a signal to companies that 'This is too much'. We've seen it with Allods Online where the cash shop was heavily overpriced and apparently things have changed a lot since. We've also seen it with VInidictus where players used to have a weekly limit to the number of times they could run a dungeon for free, which was eventually entirely removed from the game.
So long as players continue to say when enough is enough, then I think the F2P market will continue to serve just well. Provided of course that you don't have too many tools buying a $200 package for a game that shouldn't cost over $60...
Either way, F2P Cash Shop isn't something that's easy to figure out. If they could all sell just hats, I'm sure they would because it would make things so much simpler. Sadly hats are just not enough for most games I suppose.
Theres a reason why most sub based games collapse, and its not because they are bad, its because the subscription is a barrier to growing a playerbase. Those are facts that history has shown.
Rubbish, that is not a fact that 'has been shown' at all. Player shrinkage and lack of growth is obviously the result of a number of factors, which may or may not include the sub cost. I personally have never heard *anyone* say in real life 'I didn't play that game I would love and would have tons of fun in because othe £2.50/wk charge is too expensive'.
I have heard them say other reasons though, mainly to do with core design issues, community, and boredom with the overall package being offered.
If you are gonna claim this, that history has shown us and all, then maybe show us some stats to support it? Otherwise I will just take it that you are using that statement in place of 'my personal opinion based on nothing but what I want to believe has shown'.
Originally posted by tatertoad I'd pay $30+/mo in order to play a good game that has no cash shop, provides a platform for meaningful player interaction and the dwarf women have beards.
Same here, if an mmo is good, I'll gladly pay for it, it's cheap entertainment. I don't think subscription based mmos is dead. I think companies just need to make a quality product worthy of a subscription. Just look at how many people bought Warhammer, SWOTR etc. over 1 Million people bought them but decided they were not worth a subscription, so they went Buy to Play. Can't tell me subscriptions are dead, when people buy a game fully knowing it's a sub game. They drop the game because it doesn't warrant a subscription, simple as that.
For sure, no way are subscription MMO’s dead. Every “F2P” MMO that has come out in the last year bangs on about how it is now free, you don’t need to pay anything! But did you know we have a sub? It’s a fantastic offer, gives you loads of more content, stuff or whatever. So the subscription is still there, but the game is dressed up as F2P for marketing purposes.
I believe mmo subs are dead. Simply put, in my opinion there is too much competition to be saddled with a crap mmo for a monthly fee. Too be honest, every mmo, no matter how good I thought it was, it wasn't worth a sub, and it wasn't worth my time past six months.
(in fact, I'm starting to think it's us older gamers thinking a game will be great like "insert random game from a decade or so ago here" to come around, but in all reality, even those great games we loved years ago would be considered crap now.)
The sub model will be dead in a couple years time, unless there is some unforseen game shift, like a game that's so amazingly advanced and beyond the other core games(since most pc users also own a console or two) offer, that everyone will have to play it, allowing the developer to charge a sub(like older games did, when there were only a handful online games). Till then, F2P will drive the market for awhile.
Theres a reason why most sub based games collapse, and its not because they are bad, its because the subscription is a barrier to growing a playerbase. Those are facts that history has shown.
Rubbish, that is not a fact that 'has been shown' at all. Player shrinkage and lack of growth is obviously the result of a number of factors, which may or may not include the sub cost. I personally have never heard *anyone* say in real life 'I didn't play that game I would love and would have tons of fun in because othe £2.50/wk charge is too expensive'.
I have heard them say other reasons though, mainly to do with core design issues, community, and boredom with the overall package being offered.
If you are gonna claim this, that history has shown us and all, then maybe show us some stats to support it? Otherwise I will just take it that you are using that statement in place of 'my personal opinion based on nothing but what I want to believe has shown'.
Agreed, there hasnt been a game yet that failed because it required a subscription, what there has been are a lot of games that didnt offer enough in terms of gameplay to hold players long term. The issue regardling game longevity, is really down to the quality of the game itself, and not because you might have to pay for it, and this also really applies to F2P games, which arent free at all but require a continuing number of micro (or not so micro) transactions in order to gain access to content, equipment, etc.. if paying for a subscription to a game was such a big issue, then game with cash shops would also suffer.
Comments
I play MMOs for the Forum PVP
My my hit a nerve did I.
I never stated nor implied anything about who chose a payment model.
You asked if there was sufficient demand. I simply stated that the market ALWAYS responds to demand. If more players demanded sub based models those would increase, that they are not you have to admit the possibility that more players are not demanding that model.
Or possibly that they feel the quality isn't there in those games.
Yes there are a few that will do things for other reasons both for the consumers and the devs however the market itself is driven by the consumers choice.
By continuing to play LOTRO and by embracing the new payment model, the consumers chose the payment model. Had they rejected the new payment model, the game would have either gone under or reverted to subscription. We are talking about entertainment, not utilities.
You claim to have a PhD in Economics and this is foreign to you?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
The point still stands that the consumer of the entertainment product or service chose the payment model.
I won't even touch the language skills dig.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Are graphics the primary area where the F2P seem to fall behind, or do you feel other aspects of F2P are still lagging behind subscription games in quality?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
The only game i've played that i thought had really good graphics, is Eve online, of the P2P games that i do play, i find the stylised graphics a bit disappointing, so i can't really say that P2P games have the edge graphically, although Eve is the exception but until they actually give some real meaning to the 'walking in stations' bit, something of an aberration. I would like to see better graphics, but overall i would say that f2p games main lack, for me at least, is in the gameplay, not the graphics. so its really a case of the game mechanics for me, i like crafting so games with a player driven economy work for me, i like exploration so, including large open areas with ocasionally things to be found, is good too, and i like games where players are encouraged to work as a team, though mixing solo and team based content is also, very desirable.. basically.. im picky
But i am prepared to pay for the gameplay i like
for instance, currently subbed to both Planetside 2 and SW;TOR, something of a surprise tbh, im not sure how long i will be subbed to both those games, but as an 'addition' to Eve they do sort of 'round out' my game time.. as in.. i now no longer have time to even play the odd SPRPG, which usually means Skyrim or Oblivion.. Planetside 2, which despite it being a stripped down version of Planetside 1, and despite the game still being something of a buggy mess, it crashes to desktop far too frequently for my liking, and the game is susceptible to hacking, several times now have seen players using hacks, mostly aimbots, the game is pretty good if you are in an Outfit, i was lucky in that the Outfit i was in, in Planetside 1, is also in Planetside2 (Outcasters ftw!!)
overally im not sure what demographic i fall into.. i suspect.. i might be the banana in the orange bowl
I don't give a &$%@ if people don't like what I am about to say or not, they are my opinion and that is based on observation....
But I see 2 reasons...
1. Which was already brought up...people don't think the quality of games justify a monthly fee.
2. Companies realize they have the potential to make much more money off F2P with cash shops because a lot of players rather have vanity items and advantages (In some MMO's) they can pay for rather than work for, and get them fast. Sadly.
Yet, increasingly we're seeing people unhappy with F2P models. I won't name any names, but we've seen some recent threads about "offended by these packages"...clearly a lot of people who believed they were "getting a better deal" from F2P are waking up to how readily and efficiently monetized the model is. The real problem didn't turn out to be P2W, as initially feared, but rather PaP (Pay and Pay...and Pay...and Pay...) .
Anticipating some sort of lashback effect from gamers. But hell, this herd can be stampeded in nearly any direction Marketing wants it to go. Just part of the disillusionment with the industry.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
You can say that again. And I am sure some are waking up to it...but there is still a large number that itch to buy that next "Hey! Look at me!" item too.
Vanguard:SoH is a good example of this. It's unreal the number of keys bought apparently for the sheer numbers of people riding around on special flying mounts..which are RARE drops from chests. And that's not even all there is that people seem to gobble up like crazy.
It's a F2P model with the option to sub. It has a lot of subs too. But I will bet my left bean bag it pales in comparison to their cash shop revenue.
Runes of Magic and Allods Online are both very much pay to win.
How is 18$ for a christmas mount a "microtransaction" ?
Some F2P models are simply a ripoff, trying to lure you into the cash shop AND have a subscription. See SWTOR for reference.
Or games with treasure chests dropping ingame and having keys on the cash shop.
You know what´s a microtransaction? Everything between $ 0.01 and $ 0.10
Secrets of Dragon?s Spine Trailer.. !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwT9cFVQCMw
Best MMOs ever played: Ultima, EvE, SW Galaxies, Age of Conan, The Secret World
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2X_SbZCHpc&t=21s
.
.
The Return of ELITE !
probably because they will always charge what they think they can get away with, plus there is the whole bling thing going on, by putting a high value on something, it implies its worth more and so the person buying it becomes by definition, that bit more special
or as the saying goes, 'there's nought so daft as folk'
The price of "micro"transactions will keep going up and will encompass more and more of the MMO and its gameplay. After a while the real cost of so called F2P games will sink in. It may well be that players will start clammering for a sub and an end to microtransactions.
But lets call it what is is, macrotransactions is far more apt.
Um yes that is what I stated, as a possiblity, I stated you have to admit the possibilty that the market has responded to what players wanted, players have overwhelmning chosen f2p over p2p. One possibility is because thats what they want.
Yes your money is worthless. The market has decided to embrace lotro with the f2p model, what you choose to do is irrelavant when the market itself has embraced it.
The devs are going where the money is. The consumer is choosing which games they play and which model they prefer.
My guess is because these companies are still trying to figure out in what way they can monetize their F2P title and are still experimenting pricing and content. To be honest, seeing people complaining about either the cost or content of packages is a good sign. With enough outcry it tends to send a signal to companies that 'This is too much'. We've seen it with Allods Online where the cash shop was heavily overpriced and apparently things have changed a lot since. We've also seen it with VInidictus where players used to have a weekly limit to the number of times they could run a dungeon for free, which was eventually entirely removed from the game.
So long as players continue to say when enough is enough, then I think the F2P market will continue to serve just well. Provided of course that you don't have too many tools buying a $200 package for a game that shouldn't cost over $60...
Either way, F2P Cash Shop isn't something that's easy to figure out. If they could all sell just hats, I'm sure they would because it would make things so much simpler. Sadly hats are just not enough for most games I suppose.
Rubbish, that is not a fact that 'has been shown' at all. Player shrinkage and lack of growth is obviously the result of a number of factors, which may or may not include the sub cost. I personally have never heard *anyone* say in real life 'I didn't play that game I would love and would have tons of fun in because othe £2.50/wk charge is too expensive'.
I have heard them say other reasons though, mainly to do with core design issues, community, and boredom with the overall package being offered.
If you are gonna claim this, that history has shown us and all, then maybe show us some stats to support it? Otherwise I will just take it that you are using that statement in place of 'my personal opinion based on nothing but what I want to believe has shown'.
Same here, if an mmo is good, I'll gladly pay for it, it's cheap entertainment. I don't think subscription based mmos is dead. I think companies just need to make a quality product worthy of a subscription. Just look at how many people bought Warhammer, SWOTR etc. over 1 Million people bought them but decided they were not worth a subscription, so they went Buy to Play. Can't tell me subscriptions are dead, when people buy a game fully knowing it's a sub game. They drop the game because it doesn't warrant a subscription, simple as that.
What happens when you log off your characters????.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFQhfhnjYMk
Dark Age of Camelot
For sure, no way are subscription MMO’s dead. Every “F2P” MMO that has come out in the last year bangs on about how it is now free, you don’t need to pay anything! But did you know we have a sub? It’s a fantastic offer, gives you loads of more content, stuff or whatever. So the subscription is still there, but the game is dressed up as F2P for marketing purposes.
I believe mmo subs are dead. Simply put, in my opinion there is too much competition to be saddled with a crap mmo for a monthly fee. Too be honest, every mmo, no matter how good I thought it was, it wasn't worth a sub, and it wasn't worth my time past six months.
(in fact, I'm starting to think it's us older gamers thinking a game will be great like "insert random game from a decade or so ago here" to come around, but in all reality, even those great games we loved years ago would be considered crap now.)
The sub model will be dead in a couple years time, unless there is some unforseen game shift, like a game that's so amazingly advanced and beyond the other core games(since most pc users also own a console or two) offer, that everyone will have to play it, allowing the developer to charge a sub(like older games did, when there were only a handful online games). Till then, F2P will drive the market for awhile.
Agreed, there hasnt been a game yet that failed because it required a subscription, what there has been are a lot of games that didnt offer enough in terms of gameplay to hold players long term. The issue regardling game longevity, is really down to the quality of the game itself, and not because you might have to pay for it, and this also really applies to F2P games, which arent free at all but require a continuing number of micro (or not so micro) transactions in order to gain access to content, equipment, etc.. if paying for a subscription to a game was such a big issue, then game with cash shops would also suffer.