I'm curious about something. What is the difference in costs between maintaining an MMO server and maintaining a server for an FPS or other type of competitive game? If it's that much bigger than I can understand a sub, but I still think good F2P/B2P models can be much more profitable.
Originally posted by jdizzle2k13 I'm curious about something. What is the difference in costs between maintaining an MMO server and maintaining a server for an FPS or other type of competitive game? If it's that much bigger than I can understand a sub, but I still think good F2P/B2P models can be much more profitable.
Yes. I read somewhere (no I dont' have a link) that years ago when mmo's such as WoW were released it cost a lot to support game servers. Now they are less expensive and yet the norm is still $14.99 a month. They should scale back or go with the other models as you suggested.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
Originally posted by Amjoco Originally posted by jdizzle2k13I'm curious about something. What is the difference in costs between maintaining an MMO server and maintaining a server for an FPS or other type of competitive game? If it's that much bigger than I can understand a sub, but I still think good F2P/B2P models can be much more profitable.
Yes. I read somewhere (no I dont' have a link) that years ago when mmo's such as WoW were released it cost a lot to support game servers. Now they are less expensive and yet the norm is still $14.99 a month. They should scale back or go with the other models as you suggested.
Game development in general, including expansions and updates is much more expensive than it used to be. Even if developers are saving money on server costs, they are spending it elsewhere.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by jdizzle2k13I'm curious about something. What is the difference in costs between maintaining an MMO server and maintaining a server for an FPS or other type of competitive game? If it's that much bigger than I can understand a sub, but I still think good F2P/B2P models can be much more profitable.
Yes. I read somewhere (no I dont' have a link) that years ago when mmo's such as WoW were released it cost a lot to support game servers. Now they are less expensive and yet the norm is still $14.99 a month. They should scale back or go with the other models as you suggested.
Game development in general, including expansions and updates is much more expensive than it used to be. Even if developers are saving money on server costs, they are spending it elsewhere.
A console or PC game can have as much content and even more detail when it is developed and it has no server cost and this is what I was alluding to. Running servers now compared to years ago is cheaper. If I buy a game for $59 just like a console game, I should only have to pay to maintain a server. Patches are part of the upkeep of any computer game be it an mmo or a single player console/pc game.
edit: I guess what I'm trying to say is game development may have gone up in price but that is tacked on to the box you purchase. The cost to run a server has gone down so we shouldn't pay as much for a monthly subscription.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
Originally posted by jdizzle2k13I'm curious about something. What is the difference in costs between maintaining an MMO server and maintaining a server for an FPS or other type of competitive game? If it's that much bigger than I can understand a sub, but I still think good F2P/B2P models can be much more profitable.
Yes. I read somewhere (no I dont' have a link) that years ago when mmo's such as WoW were released it cost a lot to support game servers. Now they are less expensive and yet the norm is still $14.99 a month. They should scale back or go with the other models as you suggested.
Game development in general, including expansions and updates is much more expensive than it used to be. Even if developers are saving money on server costs, they are spending it elsewhere.
Spending it elsewhere on things which imho are not important....
How many MILLIONS of dollars did SWTOR spend on voice actors? That could have been eaily shaved off the price OR than money used to create content.
Lowering the graphics. Most games these days are selling on graphics and how they can make their game look in a 30 second trailer. This isnt just with MMOs either... I understand the need for the highest quality graphics in certain types of games but mmorpg/rpg's not so much. Playing text based games back in the day and Pen and Paper games has benen the most "immersive" I have ever been able to get. Instead of wasting most of a budget on "eye catching graphics" those could be toned down, money saved and tons more content added for far cheaper.
Eye candy is nice, but not very important once it reaches a certain point (reached long ago) and voice acting totally dumbs things down based on cost. The writers could crafty a hell of world, complete with tons of C&C but it would cost far too much to "voice over" all the text so the text (and the depth) is dumbed down to accomadate the costs of voicing everything.
-This is where indies will shine imho. As the tech gets cheaper the AAA will be trying to say 'on top' and thus giving us streamlined games that continue to further become dumbed down. Indies will use the old tech to bring us depth...I hope...
I will go for the subscription model. I'm against micro-transactions in games. Everyone should be on the same level and have equal access to what the game offers. Even if it's "useless" stuff like pets, mounts & cosmetics.
Cash Shops to me is like a stain that doesnt come off. It feels greedy to me. Cash up front. Hopefully the game will be rewarding.
This polls results are not surprising. MMORPG.com's fanbase always seems to lean more towards sub based opinions. Whereas if you go to a site like OnRPG.com, the base will seem a lot more to lean towards F2P. I personally think subs are a waste of money cause most people are done with them after like 2 months and the game will just go F2P or die anyway.
Originally posted by Otakun This polls results are not surprising. MMORPG.com's fanbase always seems to lean more towards sub based opinions. Whereas if you go to a site like OnRPG.com, the base will seem a lot more to lean towards F2P. I personally think subs are a waste of money cause most people are done with them after like 2 months and the game will just go F2P or die anyway.
Well, if you're going to publish a subscription game it has to be good enough to sell the sub. Not many are, and most that are barely are. Making them FtP doesn't make them better products, it only makes them more agreeable for the cost of $0.
Is the sub all-inclusive, or is there still a cash shop? Do you need that cash shop to win? Is added content free for subs or does it require purchase?
Is the f2p a p2w model? Will I end up spending more than 15 bucks a month to stay viable? Do you have access to all content or do you have to pay to access new content?
I would take a fantastic f2p over a ho-hum sub.
I'd take a fantastic sub over a ho-hum f2p.
To me, the determining factor is always the quality of the game. If that can happen with a sub, great. If it can happen with a f2p model, great.
Seems to me, that people want to ascribe quality to a payment model here. I.E. if it is a sub game than it is unarguably a 'good' game ..... or ....if a game is f2p it is automatically a 'good' game.
I cry bullocks.
The fun, quality and innovation does not come from any particular added feature. Whether it be its payment model, a death penalty, forced grouping or soloability, etc. - Whether a game is 'good' or not doesn't rely on the type of features implemented ,it depends on if those features are implemented well.
Sorry to split hairs....but, just for a real world example: Did the 'sub' feature in SWtOR on release make it a 'good' game? Was WAR a better game than EQ because it had a sub and EQ has a f2p feature? Or to go further, is EQ a bad game because it has a f2p option? How about LotRO?
See....sometimes, we need to look differently at how we place value, imo.
Comments
Yes. I read somewhere (no I dont' have a link) that years ago when mmo's such as WoW were released it cost a lot to support game servers. Now they are less expensive and yet the norm is still $14.99 a month. They should scale back or go with the other models as you suggested.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
Once you find that perfect MMO......
Do me a favor
AND
Quit, because it won't be perfect any longer!
Just like there is no such thing as a free lunch, there will never be a "perfect" MMO.
Subscription based MMOs have ALWAYS been far better in overall experience than any F2P MMO I have ever tried to be a part of!
Game development in general, including expansions and updates is much more expensive than it used to be. Even if developers are saving money on server costs, they are spending it elsewhere.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I don't see why they should expect the same amount of revenue from everyone. They only need *someone* to pay ... like the whales.
Plus, all business have risks. Just look at investment banking.
A console or PC game can have as much content and even more detail when it is developed and it has no server cost and this is what I was alluding to. Running servers now compared to years ago is cheaper. If I buy a game for $59 just like a console game, I should only have to pay to maintain a server. Patches are part of the upkeep of any computer game be it an mmo or a single player console/pc game.
edit: I guess what I'm trying to say is game development may have gone up in price but that is tacked on to the box you purchase. The cost to run a server has gone down so we shouldn't pay as much for a monthly subscription.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
Spending it elsewhere on things which imho are not important....
How many MILLIONS of dollars did SWTOR spend on voice actors? That could have been eaily shaved off the price OR than money used to create content.
Lowering the graphics. Most games these days are selling on graphics and how they can make their game look in a 30 second trailer. This isnt just with MMOs either... I understand the need for the highest quality graphics in certain types of games but mmorpg/rpg's not so much. Playing text based games back in the day and Pen and Paper games has benen the most "immersive" I have ever been able to get. Instead of wasting most of a budget on "eye catching graphics" those could be toned down, money saved and tons more content added for far cheaper.
Eye candy is nice, but not very important once it reaches a certain point (reached long ago) and voice acting totally dumbs things down based on cost. The writers could crafty a hell of world, complete with tons of C&C but it would cost far too much to "voice over" all the text so the text (and the depth) is dumbed down to accomadate the costs of voicing everything.
-This is where indies will shine imho. As the tech gets cheaper the AAA will be trying to say 'on top' and thus giving us streamlined games that continue to further become dumbed down. Indies will use the old tech to bring us depth...I hope...
I will go for the subscription model. I'm against micro-transactions in games. Everyone should be on the same level and have equal access to what the game offers. Even if it's "useless" stuff like pets, mounts & cosmetics.
Cash Shops to me is like a stain that doesnt come off. It feels greedy to me. Cash up front. Hopefully the game will be rewarding.
-Kirrik
Well, if you're going to publish a subscription game it has to be good enough to sell the sub. Not many are, and most that are barely are. Making them FtP doesn't make them better products, it only makes them more agreeable for the cost of $0.
Once upon a time....
Is the sub all-inclusive, or is there still a cash shop? Do you need that cash shop to win? Is added content free for subs or does it require purchase?
Is the f2p a p2w model? Will I end up spending more than 15 bucks a month to stay viable? Do you have access to all content or do you have to pay to access new content?
I would take a fantastic f2p over a ho-hum sub.
I'd take a fantastic sub over a ho-hum f2p.
To me, the determining factor is always the quality of the game. If that can happen with a sub, great. If it can happen with a f2p model, great.
Seems to me, that people want to ascribe quality to a payment model here. I.E. if it is a sub game than it is unarguably a 'good' game ..... or ....if a game is f2p it is automatically a 'good' game.
I cry bullocks.
The fun, quality and innovation does not come from any particular added feature. Whether it be its payment model, a death penalty, forced grouping or soloability, etc. - Whether a game is 'good' or not doesn't rely on the type of features implemented ,it depends on if those features are implemented well.
Sorry to split hairs....but, just for a real world example: Did the 'sub' feature in SWtOR on release make it a 'good' game? Was WAR a better game than EQ because it had a sub and EQ has a f2p feature? Or to go further, is EQ a bad game because it has a f2p option? How about LotRO?
See....sometimes, we need to look differently at how we place value, imo.
This is the exact experience I have had as well.