I like the B2P model best. Though I think F2P is good as well.
I have said it before and I will say it again. People will swear up and down how P2P has better quality games. I don't see it. I have played probably close to 50 or so MMOs .. and the payment model didn't make any difference in quality at all from what I have seen.
Now don't get me wrong, I have played some pretty crappy F2P games, but that is more likely to happen because there are more of them.
However, I feel it is much worse to play a P2P game and it turning out to being crappy, because you pay a whole lot more. It's a lot more risky.
I also love how people will tell others how cheap $15 a month is. Then they will tell people to get jobs. How much you want to bet the people who say that crap .. don't work. Or they are thinking about it entirely differently then I am.
$15 a month isn't a lot ... in general. However we are talking about a single game. It's a heck of a lot for a single game to me. I can buy many games that will give me the same entertainment value for far far less.
Some people will compare it to movies, cable and other crap. Why not compare it to other games? Oh .. ya .. cause other games are CHEAPER and your argument would fall apart if you did that lol.
Play Skyrim for 2 years. $60
Play a P2P MMO for 2 years. $405
Is it me or does one seem a tad bit more expensive then the other.
Oh and I know MMO games require servers, maintenance costs, and a pretty good net connection. However, why do those fees have to be passed onto the players? If the player is going to be paying those fees, shouldn't we be getting something more in return? Something more then we can get in another game?
In plus cash shops work just fine as long as they are done right. It covers those costs. It's a win win for devs and players.
Though a fairly small but vocal minority doesn't see it that way.
I'm tired of people saying no one wants sub games. Go ahead, vote and let me see it on paper. I read it everywhere on gaming sites that people are tired of free games, I'm not imagining it.
If your perfect game came along - simple question, do you want it to be a sub game or a free to play game. I don't want to argue about it, just put it on paper please.
I voted free, but in reality, this is moot.
The original post and poll implies that "what the player's want" has any bearing on the pricing model. Companies are not making subscription games because that particular financial model has not proven to be more lucrative than a F2P model with a cash shop. Quite simply, what the gamers want doesn't matter. It's what fuels the company's bottom line.
If a company determined it could make more money by coming over weekly and kicking your dog, the SPCA would be a lot more over-worked.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
My personal favorite is pay by the minute. This is the single most fair way to do a pay to play game.This way, people who want to play 100 hours a week, can do so, and will support the game. Those of us that only have an hour to two a week, can pay for the time we spend.
Originally posted by Superman0X My personal favorite is pay by the minute. This is the single most fair way to do a pay to play game.This way, people who want to play 100 hours a week, can do so, and will support the game. Those of us that only have an hour to two a week, can pay for the time we spend.
That's how it was done in the 90's and everyone hated it. Part of EQ1's sales pitch back in 98 or so was that you could play the game without having to count hours. Also remember that internet was largely billed this way as well, so it was pretty bad trying to juggle various hourly-subscriptions for everything.
Anyway, if MMO subs were more expensive, I could see how you'd only want to spend money on the few hours a week you play. But since we're talking about something that costs $3.75 a week anyway, asking for it to be less is just kind of crazy. Any less and the credit processing fee would be more expensive.
A good game will be a good game, sub or free or B2P or some hybrid. DDO I found much more fun that most sub MMOs, GW2 is certainly more fun than the majority of MMOs, WoW I found the best because of the features but even being the best MMO I still need to take extended breaks time to time.
Horrid poll options, need an indifferent option for those that will play any fun MMO regardless of the model as long as it is not overly intrusive unlike Neverwinter.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I mostly like free because I think most games aren't that good, and are just copy-catting other games.
However, if there's ever a really innovative and groundbreaking game, a subscription would be fine.
I don't really mind cash shops, BUT I think many of them are greedy and overpriced, considering they do designs once and then keep milking them for $$. Also the things players buy in games are virtual, and pricing those should be very low considering they could disappear if the game closes. Sony has one of the better cash shop models, because players can design and sell their own stuff for real money. If that model takes off, it will give players a more meaningful stake.
Is a vote on this site an honest sample of the mmo market ?
Of course not. Research shows that F2P players outnumbered sub-only by a large margin. You will never know this if you look at this forum.
what research shows is that F2P outnumber P2P 6 to 1.
it also shows that F2P players have 1 in 10 paying.
common sense shows that P2P players have almost 1 in 1 paying. ALMOST? WH...well, son, PLEX.
therefore Robokapp concludes that for every 3 F2P players investing, there are 5 P2P players investing.
since the F2P market can't survive or make any profit on the other 9 out of 10, only 1 in 10 F2P players is business-relevant.
therefore while F2P players outnumber P2P players by 6 to 1, the F2P customers are outnumbered by P2P customers 5 to 3.
This math brought to you by...Robokapp.
F2P customers are outnumbered by P2P customers by a large margin.
But you make the common mistake of saying a non paying player contributes nothing to a game. ( sort of )
A git of an over simplification but it's just to make an example.... but
If you try and make a group and you can't in a p2p game because there isn't enough people to make one...you quit and find a game that isn't dead so that game now has 0 paying players. This is often what happened to mmos over the last 5 or so years.
You try the same thing in a f2p and sure only 1 in 10 is paying but unless you have some agenda or personal issue it wont change the outcome for the day...and that is you get to make your group and do the content.
There is far more to the equation than just how many actually pay. I don't think anyone can really argue that an mmo suffers if it can't get to a critical mass of players.
so anyone that plays a f2p game is a f2p customer, some are just more like content than others
I'd much rather pay a sub and get a playing experience equal to everyone else, knowing that everyone else is also pitching into the pot. Content is delivered on a regular basis, and I don't have to pay large gobs of cash just to open content or achieve gear that I could manage to get if I put the time into it. F2P is always pay 2 win. Those who are willing, or dunb enough to dump thousands a year really do themselves no favors. IMO it cheapens the game and the experience within the game. Why try hard, when you can just buy what you need to be the best? PLEX is a great system. I used it for all of my accounts when I played EVE. I had more ISK than I could ever spend, and made incredible amounts sitting in jita, waiting for something more interesting to do.
Not many games out there are worth paying a sub for. Majority of the F2P games are pure garbage, funded by suckers who pay too much for the illusion of being awesome. W/o a cash shop, they would still be the same useless, casual scrub they always were.
I much prefer to try out a game before paying any money. I don't care to pay $15 a month. If I feel the game is worth I usually indulge in the cash shop.
I was going to write about the whole "free players are not the customers but the content" but I realised...the numbers I posted are true NOW. the 5 to 3 ratio is true WITH the free players in there. If you take them away then that 6 to 1 would become 0.6 to 1. the 5 to 3 would become 50 to 3.
F2P i not beating P2P now and removing the free players will not improve the ratio. Even without any loss from paying F2P players as result.
these free players are adding to the revenue of F2P companies indirectly. You are absolutely correct. However my statistics were made assuming these guys are in there.
the ratio of 5 consumers to 3 consumers is not negatively affected by the 90% non-consumers. They arent factored in here. The F2P customers that the free players keep in game however are.
I am giving you the statistics based on best-case scenario. the detail you're pointing out is 100% true but it's already considered in those numbers.
Then the only conclusion you can make from all that is p2p players aren't paying. If they outnumber f2p players so much we wouldn't be seeing what we're seeing. A total failure of the sub market and a shift of all games to either a hybrid sub/cash shop or f2p cash shop.
That makes the sub model a pretty risky undertaking. Even a bad f2p still makes money. A sub has to be right from the start or players have demonstrated they will walk away from your game leaving you only one option....go f2p and have a bad rep as a " failed" game.
I was going to write about the whole "free players are not the customers but the content" but I realised...the numbers I posted are true NOW. the 5 to 3 ratio is true WITH the free players in there. If you take them away then that 6 to 1 would become 0.6 to 1. the 5 to 3 would become 50 to 3.
F2P i not beating P2P now and removing the free players will not improve the ratio. Even without any loss from paying F2P players as result.
these free players are adding to the revenue of F2P companies indirectly. You are absolutely correct. However my statistics were made assuming these guys are in there.
the ratio of 5 consumers to 3 consumers is not negatively affected by the 90% non-consumers. They arent factored in here. The F2P customers that the free players keep in game however are.
I am giving you the statistics based on best-case scenario. the detail you're pointing out is 100% true but it's already considered in those numbers.
Here is the problem with what you're saying. Despite all the napkin math and mental gymnastics to prove your point, the bottom line is sub-free/optional (F2P/B2P) revenues overshadow sub-locked (P2P) revenues. This is especially true when you remove WoW from the equation which is important.
It's important to remove WoW from the equation because that highlights what the rest of the P2P world and more than one game generates for revenue.
In the end all this "on paper" stuff in the OP doesn't matter. What matters is how revenue is flowing. And to me, all that is important is that I have fun sub-optional (F2P or B2P) games to play.
For once, I was way nicer about it than you were :P
If the sub is $15 or less a month, the extra cost means nothing to me, so I voted sub.
I would prefer no cash shop either, or at least no way to buy anything of value in the game. You buy the game, pay a sub, and get the entire game, no questions asked.
As stated, I'm presenting information that sub preferring players exist. They aren't a figment of imagination and they don't even have to be a majority. All that matters for this particular thread is that they do exist.
Has anyone ever...in any thread actually said they don't exist ? I've seen "thousands" of posts that they're not the majority but never once, that no one wants a sub game or would prefer it. Shit...most of the things we argue about revolve around sub vrs f2p.....
I much prefer to try out a game before paying any money. I don't care to pay $15 a month. If I feel the game is worth I usually indulge in the cash shop.
That is the point. The worth of a game, an entertainment product, is determined by its competition. If i can get the same amount of fun (or almost) for free, why would i even pay $1 per month .. not to mention $15?
The money would be better used funding 1/3 of my next bottle of Pinot Noir (yes, wine is also one of my hobbies), or even go to charity.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
Comments
I like the B2P model best. Though I think F2P is good as well.
I have said it before and I will say it again. People will swear up and down how P2P has better quality games. I don't see it. I have played probably close to 50 or so MMOs .. and the payment model didn't make any difference in quality at all from what I have seen.
Now don't get me wrong, I have played some pretty crappy F2P games, but that is more likely to happen because there are more of them.
However, I feel it is much worse to play a P2P game and it turning out to being crappy, because you pay a whole lot more. It's a lot more risky.
I also love how people will tell others how cheap $15 a month is. Then they will tell people to get jobs. How much you want to bet the people who say that crap .. don't work. Or they are thinking about it entirely differently then I am.
$15 a month isn't a lot ... in general. However we are talking about a single game. It's a heck of a lot for a single game to me. I can buy many games that will give me the same entertainment value for far far less.
Some people will compare it to movies, cable and other crap. Why not compare it to other games? Oh .. ya .. cause other games are CHEAPER and your argument would fall apart if you did that lol.
Play Skyrim for 2 years. $60
Play a P2P MMO for 2 years. $405
Is it me or does one seem a tad bit more expensive then the other.
Oh and I know MMO games require servers, maintenance costs, and a pretty good net connection. However, why do those fees have to be passed onto the players? If the player is going to be paying those fees, shouldn't we be getting something more in return? Something more then we can get in another game?
In plus cash shops work just fine as long as they are done right. It covers those costs. It's a win win for devs and players.
Though a fairly small but vocal minority doesn't see it that way.
I voted free, but in reality, this is moot.
The original post and poll implies that "what the player's want" has any bearing on the pricing model. Companies are not making subscription games because that particular financial model has not proven to be more lucrative than a F2P model with a cash shop. Quite simply, what the gamers want doesn't matter. It's what fuels the company's bottom line.
If a company determined it could make more money by coming over weekly and kicking your dog, the SPCA would be a lot more over-worked.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
That's how it was done in the 90's and everyone hated it. Part of EQ1's sales pitch back in 98 or so was that you could play the game without having to count hours. Also remember that internet was largely billed this way as well, so it was pretty bad trying to juggle various hourly-subscriptions for everything.
Anyway, if MMO subs were more expensive, I could see how you'd only want to spend money on the few hours a week you play. But since we're talking about something that costs $3.75 a week anyway, asking for it to be less is just kind of crazy. Any less and the credit processing fee would be more expensive.
You make me like charity
A good game will be a good game, sub or free or B2P or some hybrid. DDO I found much more fun that most sub MMOs, GW2 is certainly more fun than the majority of MMOs, WoW I found the best because of the features but even being the best MMO I still need to take extended breaks time to time.
Horrid poll options, need an indifferent option for those that will play any fun MMO regardless of the model as long as it is not overly intrusive unlike Neverwinter.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
I mostly like free because I think most games aren't that good, and are just copy-catting other games.
However, if there's ever a really innovative and groundbreaking game, a subscription would be fine.
I don't really mind cash shops, BUT I think many of them are greedy and overpriced, considering they do designs once and then keep milking them for $$. Also the things players buy in games are virtual, and pricing those should be very low considering they could disappear if the game closes. Sony has one of the better cash shop models, because players can design and sell their own stuff for real money. If that model takes off, it will give players a more meaningful stake.
But you make the common mistake of saying a non paying player contributes nothing to a game. ( sort of )
A git of an over simplification but it's just to make an example.... but
If you try and make a group and you can't in a p2p game because there isn't enough people to make one...you quit and find a game that isn't dead so that game now has 0 paying players. This is often what happened to mmos over the last 5 or so years.
You try the same thing in a f2p and sure only 1 in 10 is paying but unless you have some agenda or personal issue it wont change the outcome for the day...and that is you get to make your group and do the content.
There is far more to the equation than just how many actually pay. I don't think anyone can really argue that an mmo suffers if it can't get to a critical mass of players.
so anyone that plays a f2p game is a f2p customer, some are just more like content than others
I'd much rather pay a sub and get a playing experience equal to everyone else, knowing that everyone else is also pitching into the pot. Content is delivered on a regular basis, and I don't have to pay large gobs of cash just to open content or achieve gear that I could manage to get if I put the time into it. F2P is always pay 2 win. Those who are willing, or dunb enough to dump thousands a year really do themselves no favors. IMO it cheapens the game and the experience within the game. Why try hard, when you can just buy what you need to be the best? PLEX is a great system. I used it for all of my accounts when I played EVE. I had more ISK than I could ever spend, and made incredible amounts sitting in jita, waiting for something more interesting to do.
Not many games out there are worth paying a sub for. Majority of the F2P games are pure garbage, funded by suckers who pay too much for the illusion of being awesome. W/o a cash shop, they would still be the same useless, casual scrub they always were.
I much prefer to try out a game before paying any money. I don't care to pay $15 a month. If I feel the game is worth I usually indulge in the cash shop.
Once upon a time....
Then the only conclusion you can make from all that is p2p players aren't paying. If they outnumber f2p players so much we wouldn't be seeing what we're seeing. A total failure of the sub market and a shift of all games to either a hybrid sub/cash shop or f2p cash shop.
That makes the sub model a pretty risky undertaking. Even a bad f2p still makes money. A sub has to be right from the start or players have demonstrated they will walk away from your game leaving you only one option....go f2p and have a bad rep as a " failed" game.
For once, I was way nicer about it than you were :P
I doubt such a piece of advice will have any impact on an internet forum.
Now this is the kind of choice I like!
You want it free of charge? Or do you want to pay for it :-)
Perhaps you should give the question a little bit of context
If the sub is $15 or less a month, the extra cost means nothing to me, so I voted sub.
I would prefer no cash shop either, or at least no way to buy anything of value in the game. You buy the game, pay a sub, and get the entire game, no questions asked.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
Has anyone ever...in any thread actually said they don't exist ? I've seen "thousands" of posts that they're not the majority but never once, that no one wants a sub game or would prefer it. Shit...most of the things we argue about revolve around sub vrs f2p.....
That is the point. The worth of a game, an entertainment product, is determined by its competition. If i can get the same amount of fun (or almost) for free, why would i even pay $1 per month .. not to mention $15?
The money would be better used funding 1/3 of my next bottle of Pinot Noir (yes, wine is also one of my hobbies), or even go to charity.
Voted "Sub" , I also don't mind if they have a cash shop for pretty mounts that give money to charities and what not.
Please explain to me again how WoW's cash shop cripples your gaming experience?
Help support an artist and gamer who has lost his tools to create and play: http://www.gofundme.com/u63nzcgk
No vote.
What I'm playing lately isn't an MMORPG.