What would be acceptable to keep your mmo financially floating ?

Sulaa · May 2013

Mmorpg that went micrtotransactions is a good as dead for me.

DavisFlight · May 2013

Originally posted by apanz3r
Originally posted by DavisFlight
Here's what'd be acceptable... designing a game that encourages people to form social ties and stay playing longer, not a game that is a series of set pieces people burn through and then leave, forcing me to fire most of my dev team.

still how would the players pay ? or it would be free to play with no item mall ?

Subscription. The sub model works great for people who plan to play long term. It only really hurts people who just wanna jump in for a few days.

DavisFlight · May 2013

Originally posted by Madimorga
Originally posted by DavisFlight
Here's what'd be acceptable... designing a game that encourages people to form social ties and stay playing longer, not a game that is a series of set pieces people burn through and then leave, forcing me to fire most of my dev team.

Game devs that try to fill in content gaps with forced socialization have my eternal enmity and do not have my cash. To be fair I think this does work very well on some players, but it can never work on players like me. All it does is annoy us and make us leave.

Social mechanics ARE content. They are constantly evolving emergent content that literally cannot run out. That's what made the original MMOs stand so far above modern MMOs, both in design, and profitability/longevity.

"content" is expensive and only lasts for a few weeks. I'd much rather have a well designed game than a WoW clone with a ton of "content" that all plays the same anyway.

But sure, if socializing with people online makes you want to quit an online game, maybe online games weren't meant for you.

danwest58 · May 2013

Originally posted by apanz3r
Like the title said - What would be acceptable to keep your mmo financially floating and why?

The game developers seems to move away from the previous sub based model and going towards item mall.

Many players feels like they are betrayed , others prefer it to the previously "gold from farmers" solution. At least with mall the money get to developer and supports the game.

If your MMO is not making a profit or barely making a profit the MMO should shut down. We have too many MMOs as it is.

Madimorga · May 2013

Originally posted by DavisFlight
Originally posted by Madimorga
Originally posted by DavisFlight
Here's what'd be acceptable... designing a game that encourages people to form social ties and stay playing longer, not a game that is a series of set pieces people burn through and then leave, forcing me to fire most of my dev team.

Game devs that try to fill in content gaps with forced socialization have my eternal enmity and do not have my cash. To be fair I think this does work very well on some players, but it can never work on players like me. All it does is annoy us and make us leave.

Social mechanics ARE content. They are constantly evolving emergent content that literally cannot run out. That's what made the original MMOs stand so far above modern MMOs, both in design, and profitability/longevity.

"content" is expensive and only lasts for a few weeks. I'd much rather have a well designed game than a WoW clone with a ton of "content" that all plays the same anyway.

But sure, if socializing with people online makes you want to quit an online game, maybe online games weren't meant for you.

You're wrong. I like MMOs much better than single player games. My first MMO was Anarchy Online way back in 2001 or 2002. I played it for years. I played with others sometimes (open world grind teams mostly) and chit-chatted with other players even more often about everything and anything, but when I felt FORCED to be social, especially to do those 200+ dungeons I got really pissed and quit.

Also years ago the community was much friendlier and seemed older, too, if not always more mature. To talk about other players as constantly evolving emergent content is nice and all, but not if that content is a bunch of ganking, meme-spewing, moronic little chat trolls.

I won't pay any money for anything that forces me to endure much of that kind of content. And it's especially bad in games that allow players to buy power.

Livnthedream · May 2013

Originally posted by Beatnik59
As a consumer, naturally I'd put more emphasis on the "floating" part than on the "financially" part. The first question I ask myself before I throw money at something like this is "How long is this damn thing gonna last?" Because if I throw some money at the game, only to see a post a week later that "We're sorry to announce we are closing the game," I look like a damn fool.

And that's the big rub, isn't it? Because there's no way for us to tell whether a game--any game--is "floating" by their metrics, until it is already sunk.

Can you please keep your tantrums to the cereal aisle?

DavisFlight · May 2013

Originally posted by Madimorga
Originally posted by DavisFlight
Originally posted by Madimorga
Originally posted by DavisFlight
Here's what'd be acceptable... designing a game that encourages people to form social ties and stay playing longer, not a game that is a series of set pieces people burn through and then leave, forcing me to fire most of my dev team.

Game devs that try to fill in content gaps with forced socialization have my eternal enmity and do not have my cash. To be fair I think this does work very well on some players, but it can never work on players like me. All it does is annoy us and make us leave.

Social mechanics ARE content. They are constantly evolving emergent content that literally cannot run out. That's what made the original MMOs stand so far above modern MMOs, both in design, and profitability/longevity.

"content" is expensive and only lasts for a few weeks. I'd much rather have a well designed game than a WoW clone with a ton of "content" that all plays the same anyway.

But sure, if socializing with people online makes you want to quit an online game, maybe online games weren't meant for you.

You're wrong. I like MMOs much better than single player games. My first MMO was Anarchy Online way back in 2001 or 2002. I played it for years. I played with others sometimes (open world grind teams mostly) and chit-chatted with other players even more often about everything and anything, but when I felt FORCED to be social, especially to do those 200+ dungeons I got really pissed and quit.

Also years ago the community was much friendlier and seemed older, too, if not always more mature. To talk about other players as constantly evolving emergent content is nice and all, but not if that content is a bunch of ganking, meme-spewing, moronic little chat trolls.

I won't pay any money for anything that forces me to endure much of that kind of content. And it's especially bad in games that allow players to buy power.

You won't spend money on a multiplayer game that rewards you for working with other people, got it.

You like soloing while using the chat box. Got it. Well you're in luck, there's tons of other games that do that, but that is not what all MMORPGs should be. That's so limited.

So either, you'll quite when you run out of content (which is fast, no dev team can make enough content to keep up with players) or quit if the game encourages you to embrace the multiplayer aspect of the game. So either way you quit.

Madimorga · May 2013

Originally posted by DavisFlight
Originally posted by Madimorga
Originally posted by DavisFlight
Originally posted by Madimorga
Originally posted by DavisFlight
Here's what'd be acceptable... designing a game that encourages people to form social ties and stay playing longer, not a game that is a series of set pieces people burn through and then leave, forcing me to fire most of my dev team.

Game devs that try to fill in content gaps with forced socialization have my eternal enmity and do not have my cash. To be fair I think this does work very well on some players, but it can never work on players like me. All it does is annoy us and make us leave.

Social mechanics ARE content. They are constantly evolving emergent content that literally cannot run out. That's what made the original MMOs stand so far above modern MMOs, both in design, and profitability/longevity.

"content" is expensive and only lasts for a few weeks. I'd much rather have a well designed game than a WoW clone with a ton of "content" that all plays the same anyway.

But sure, if socializing with people online makes you want to quit an online game, maybe online games weren't meant for you.

You're wrong. I like MMOs much better than single player games. My first MMO was Anarchy Online way back in 2001 or 2002. I played it for years. I played with others sometimes (open world grind teams mostly) and chit-chatted with other players even more often about everything and anything, but when I felt FORCED to be social, especially to do those 200+ dungeons I got really pissed and quit.

Also years ago the community was much friendlier and seemed older, too, if not always more mature. To talk about other players as constantly evolving emergent content is nice and all, but not if that content is a bunch of ganking, meme-spewing, moronic little chat trolls.

I won't pay any money for anything that forces me to endure much of that kind of content. And it's especially bad in games that allow players to buy power.

You won't spend money on a multiplayer game that rewards you for working with other people, got it.

You like soloing while using the chat box. Got it. Well you're in luck, there's tons of other games that do that, but that is not what all MMORPGs should be. That's so limited.

So either, you'll quite when you run out of content (which is fast, no dev team can make enough content to keep up with players) or quit if the game encourages you to embrace the multiplayer aspect of the game. So either way you quit.

You didn't really pay attention to the part where I said I grouped up too. When I want to. Never mind though, this thread isn't about that. It's supposed to be about how we pay for our content.

And I still go with buy to play, cosmetic and convenience only in the cash shop, lots of DLC-type stuff and expansions, and no currency exchange.

Beatnik59 · May 2013

Originally posted by Livnthedream
Originally posted by Beatnik59
As a consumer, naturally I'd put more emphasis on the "floating" part than on the "financially" part. The first question I ask myself before I throw money at something like this is "How long is this damn thing gonna last?" Because if I throw some money at the game, only to see a post a week later that "We're sorry to announce we are closing the game," I look like a damn fool.

And that's the big rub, isn't it? Because there's no way for us to tell whether a game--any game--is "floating" by their metrics, until it is already sunk.

Can you please keep your tantrums to the cereal aisle?

You can polish a turd until it looks like a chocolate diamond. But if it smells like a turd, it's still a turd.

Agent_Joseph · May 2013

for me best options are sub with full acces to game content or B2P with pay for expansions

Madimorga · May 2013

Originally posted by Beatnik59
Originally posted by Livnthedream
Originally posted by Beatnik59
As a consumer, naturally I'd put more emphasis on the "floating" part than on the "financially" part. The first question I ask myself before I throw money at something like this is "How long is this damn thing gonna last?" Because if I throw some money at the game, only to see a post a week later that "We're sorry to announce we are closing the game," I look like a damn fool.

And that's the big rub, isn't it? Because there's no way for us to tell whether a game--any game--is "floating" by their metrics, until it is already sunk.

Can you please keep your tantrums to the cereal aisle?

You can polish a turd until it looks like a chocolate diamond. But if it smells like a turd, it's still a turd.

Maybe not. It might be a diamond that has recently resided somewhere stinky.

DavisFlight · May 2013

Originally posted by Madimorga
Originally posted by DavisFlight
Originally posted by Madimorga
Originally posted by DavisFlight
Originally posted by Madimorga
Originally posted by DavisFlight
Here's what'd be acceptable... designing a game that encourages people to form social ties and stay playing longer, not a game that is a series of set pieces people burn through and then leave, forcing me to fire most of my dev team.

Game devs that try to fill in content gaps with forced socialization have my eternal enmity and do not have my cash. To be fair I think this does work very well on some players, but it can never work on players like me. All it does is annoy us and make us leave.

Social mechanics ARE content. They are constantly evolving emergent content that literally cannot run out. That's what made the original MMOs stand so far above modern MMOs, both in design, and profitability/longevity.

"content" is expensive and only lasts for a few weeks. I'd much rather have a well designed game than a WoW clone with a ton of "content" that all plays the same anyway.

But sure, if socializing with people online makes you want to quit an online game, maybe online games weren't meant for you.

You're wrong. I like MMOs much better than single player games. My first MMO was Anarchy Online way back in 2001 or 2002. I played it for years. I played with others sometimes (open world grind teams mostly) and chit-chatted with other players even more often about everything and anything, but when I felt FORCED to be social, especially to do those 200+ dungeons I got really pissed and quit.

Also years ago the community was much friendlier and seemed older, too, if not always more mature. To talk about other players as constantly evolving emergent content is nice and all, but not if that content is a bunch of ganking, meme-spewing, moronic little chat trolls.

I won't pay any money for anything that forces me to endure much of that kind of content. And it's especially bad in games that allow players to buy power.

You won't spend money on a multiplayer game that rewards you for working with other people, got it.

You like soloing while using the chat box. Got it. Well you're in luck, there's tons of other games that do that, but that is not what all MMORPGs should be. That's so limited.

So either, you'll quite when you run out of content (which is fast, no dev team can make enough content to keep up with players) or quit if the game encourages you to embrace the multiplayer aspect of the game. So either way you quit.

You didn't really pay attention to the part where I said I grouped up too. When I want to.

I was entirely aware of that. Old games did not force you to group. Grouping gave better rewards, because it was a lot harder, and that's how almost all game design works.

Modern MMOs actually legit FORCE you to solo, because it is the most profitable way to play the game most of the time.

And as there are no social mechanics like RvR, or player run shops, or housing, or a crafting market, or ANYTHING like that in modern MMOs, once the solo content is gone, the players are gone, having never formed any social ties.

Gardavsshade · May 2013

I voted "just subscription". I have seen too many times where a MMO Publisher will say that their item mall will only offer cosmetic and convenience items, but eventually the borderline pay2win items always creep into it. I no longer believe any MMO Publisher that says their Item mall will be free of p2w.

So I feel for Players, the Community, and the overall long term of the Game itself that Subscriptions is the only way to properly fund a MMO....

...However....

There are simply too many PLAYERS that just cannot discipline themselves... those Players want P2W items and....

There are simply too many MMO Publishers and DEVS that want huge profits even at the expense of the integrity and reputation of their own MMO, and they will give the Players above what they want in order to make much more money long term than they ever made when their MMO was funded by just a Subsciption.

Greed wins. One of the Seven Deadly sins wins. Humans can always be counted on for doing what they should not do.....As usual.

Madimorga · May 2013

Originally posted by DavisFlight
Originally posted by Madimorga
Originally posted by DavisFlight
Originally posted by Madimorga
Originally posted by DavisFlight
Originally posted by Madimorga
Originally posted by DavisFlight
Here's what'd be acceptable... designing a game that encourages people to form social ties and stay playing longer, not a game that is a series of set pieces people burn through and then leave, forcing me to fire most of my dev team.

Game devs that try to fill in content gaps with forced socialization have my eternal enmity and do not have my cash. To be fair I think this does work very well on some players, but it can never work on players like me. All it does is annoy us and make us leave.

Social mechanics ARE content. They are constantly evolving emergent content that literally cannot run out. That's what made the original MMOs stand so far above modern MMOs, both in design, and profitability/longevity.

"content" is expensive and only lasts for a few weeks. I'd much rather have a well designed game than a WoW clone with a ton of "content" that all plays the same anyway.

But sure, if socializing with people online makes you want to quit an online game, maybe online games weren't meant for you.

You're wrong. I like MMOs much better than single player games. My first MMO was Anarchy Online way back in 2001 or 2002. I played it for years. I played with others sometimes (open world grind teams mostly) and chit-chatted with other players even more often about everything and anything, but when I felt FORCED to be social, especially to do those 200+ dungeons I got really pissed and quit.

Also years ago the community was much friendlier and seemed older, too, if not always more mature. To talk about other players as constantly evolving emergent content is nice and all, but not if that content is a bunch of ganking, meme-spewing, moronic little chat trolls.

I won't pay any money for anything that forces me to endure much of that kind of content. And it's especially bad in games that allow players to buy power.

You won't spend money on a multiplayer game that rewards you for working with other people, got it.

You like soloing while using the chat box. Got it. Well you're in luck, there's tons of other games that do that, but that is not what all MMORPGs should be. That's so limited.

So either, you'll quite when you run out of content (which is fast, no dev team can make enough content to keep up with players) or quit if the game encourages you to embrace the multiplayer aspect of the game. So either way you quit.

You didn't really pay attention to the part where I said I grouped up too. When I want to.

I was entirely aware of that. Old games did not force you to group. Grouping gave better rewards, because it was a lot harder, and that's how almost all game design works.

Modern MMOs actually legit FORCE you to solo, because it is the most profitable way to play the game most of the time.

And as there are no social mechanics like RvR, or player run shops, or housing, or a crafting market, or ANYTHING like that in modern MMOs, once the solo content is gone, the players are gone, having never formed any social ties.

I've seen guild drama drive players out of games quite a few times and my own unpleasant experiences with guilds in various games keeps me from joining or creating them. So lack of group content can drive players out, but so can forced group content.

I really like housing and crafting and I'm sad so many MMOs neglect those aspects, but If the housing and crafting are tied to being in a guild it might be a sandbox but it's not one I'm interested in because the house isn't mine, it really belongs to the guild and if I leave the guild or get kicked, I lose everything. That would suck. I would never put myself in a position for that to happen.

As a solo player if devs provided me with the ability to choose to solo or group when and how I please for the best possible gear it's true I might not stay as long as someone who is forced join a guild, group up, raid, or defend themselves from other players in open world. It's true I won't develop those ties. But then I wasn't going to anyway because MMO socialization has left me pretty soured on it thanks to the drama and types of players I've run into in more recent years. So they weren't going to get more money from me no matter what.

But if the devs then also give me a big plot of land, the option to build a complex house that other players can visit but not destroy, and crafting material drops off mobs that I can use to expand, decorate, mine, farm, whatever, then I'll happily stay for months if not years past the point where I have all the levels and all the shiny gear.

But to tie this back into the thread subject, what I won't do is constantly visit the cash shop to purchase my house, furniture, farm tools, guards, and whatever. Because that feels like a game my wallet is playing and not me. I think that would be #2 on my list of worst ways to monetize, right under paying for power items not reasonably available in game.

apanz3r · May 2013

I am fine with the items in item mall as long as they are not any better than the ones that can be obtained trough normal playing. I really don;t see why some people are concerned how other people get their gear as long as it is inline with the in-game gear.

Jemcrystal · May 2013

I don't care what is in the item mall except that it makes them money so I can play for free. The more people spend the better my game gets as they can afford to pay for it's maintenance. I wish the Cash Shops were bigger! But yeah, I'd like enough free content that I don't feel robbed.

Loktofeit · May 2013

Originally posted by apanz3r
Originally posted by Livnthedream
Originally posted by apanz3r

Ok so that means you would not have a problem with any of the options presented in the pool ?

Why do you think what one random forum thinks matters? Players will pay whatever they deem reasonable. If players do not pay the game loses money. If super op items are what works for them who are you to say its bad?

I didn't said is bad or good.

All i asked is what would players think is acceptable for them. If i don't find something acceptable i don;t play the game.

The problem is that lately there is a lot of discussion about pay2win and I have the feeling that may be a small community that have it's own interests.

Then you'd benefit far greater from polling a more diverse community than MMORPG.com. Asking a community that is this polarized will certainly reaffirm your beliefs but won't give you any reasonable perspective of the greater MMO gamer audience.

thinktank001 · May 2013

Originally posted by apanz3r
Like the title said - What would be acceptable to keep your mmo financially floating and why?

The game developers seems to move away from the previous sub based model and going towards item mall.

Many players feels like they are betrayed , others prefer it to the previously "gold from farmers" solution. At least with mall the money get to developer and supports the game.

I think it is a tough line to draw. From my own personal experiences I don't like cash shop games that give a significant advantage.

Xthos · May 2013

I prefer sub, and if it has to be f2p or b2p, purely cosmetic, and xp potions are not cosmetic imo.

Jemcrystal · May 2013

One thing that is unacceptable which I see with this new Age of Wushu and in other games, Forsaken World off top head, EQII-free when I played, is when game play is filled with begging for irl cash. Cash Shop yes amen yes. Game play restrictions no. I'm not playing your free to play if you restrict my movement or advancement or deny me a log off timer boost or whatever. Put a potion in the cash shop that enhances skill ups for 24hrs - sure no problem. That is an outside force effecting game play. I don't have to think about it if I don't want to. Put a bar over my character's head with a flashing red line in it to always remind me that I could of had that extra xp if I would just pay for a VIP account monthly - hell no.

You can get mad at me for my next words if you want I am not a bigot I love the oriental people - but I notice this idea that up in your face buy my shiz so I will not annoy you anymore seems to be an okay business practice with many overseas peeps. Okay, Oriental peeps. Along with those damn lotteries. I hate chance and I don't want to spin a damn wheel!

Basically this is my GET OUT OF MY FACE post.

Akulas · May 2013

Runescape for example is a game which springs to mind although it's sub based they added f2p options like Squeel of Fortune and Solomans store where if you don't participate / buy more spins you are at a disadvantage. They said it was to fund a larger team but I liked how it was say back in 2007 when it was just a regular sub based game with an ok amount of updates.

worldalpha · May 2013

I guess there is no end to this type of question on mmorpg.com. Not sure there will ever be one answer. Do we need to move on?

Howdy, Stranger!

What would be acceptable to keep your mmo financially floating ?

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

What would be acceptable to keep your mmo financially floating ?

Comments