People don't seem to understand that a games subscription model is parallel to how good the game is. WoW can do it with much success because it's still the smoothest, most polished game on the market. If TESO can manage this then a subscription model is 100% fine.
The problem is when companies with mediocre games try to have subscription models, aka why TESO is likely to flop. Basically you have to get what you pay for, pretty simple.
People don't seem to understand that a games subscription model is parallel to how good the game is. WoW can do it with much success because it's still the smoothest, most polished game on the market. If TESO can manage this then a subscription model is 100% fine.
The problem is when companies with mediocre games try to have subscription models, aka why TESO is likely to flop. Basically you have to get what you pay for, pretty simple.
I completely agree. Subscription model is great for games that are good enough to retain their customers. I think a lot of the time, the company knows the game isn't that great so they look to grab more money up front through micro transactions and other F2P shenanigans.
Originally posted by Rinna I'm not sure why so many players say "most players don't want a sub". I think that statement is wrong. I'd MUCH rather pay a sub and hold a game company accountable for content expansions and bug fixes. Too many companies use the "well it's a free game" to dodge quality. Give me a sub and a cosmetic cash shop for over and above items. I believe you should pay for the game too. These devs worked their @sses off in a project, not only should they be compensated for a job well done but they should have some job security when their companies make money every month. I logged into Neverwinter the other night and didn't see a single 200 dollar spider mount. I think that idiocy from game devs (and mostly players) has got to stop. Non sub games are also often pay to win. I think there should be a level playing field for all players. GW2 and Rift are the only two companies that have succeeded at any F2P model that I agree with for long term play.
Rinna, I think there are a lot like you, and I think one of the things that fueled the move to F2P over the past five years was the abysmal offerings in AAA MMOs from 2008 to last year or so. People don't want to get Vanguarded again. They don't want to get SWTORed again, especially when the people most likely to invest significant time and money often do so up from with VIP, Founders and Collectors Edition purchases.
I think a string of quality subscription-based releases would go a long way toward making "subscription means better quality" a thing again. Right now, that's simply not a guarantee when a new game comes out.
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
Why wouldn't you launch as a sub, if you're Zenimax? Even using SWTOR as an example of how badly a new sub game may do, it's clear that there's a very large amount of money to be made initially from box sales and subs at the start. More importantly, even if they're forced to later transition to a B2P/Freemium/F2P model the game is likely to rebound (as fits the pattern of most AAA games that have done the same). Indeed, if they're able to plan in advance for how they'll make the transition, I've no doubt that they would make more money with this approach than if they launched F2P, missing out on box sales & subs).
Originally posted by thecapitaine Why wouldn't you launch as a sub, if you're Zenimax? Even using SWTOR as an example of how badly a new sub game may do, it's clear that there's a very large amount of money to be made initially from box sales and subs at the start. More importantly, even if they're forced to later transition to a B2P/Freemium/F2P model the game is likely to rebound (as fits the pattern of most AAA games that have done the same). Indeed, if they're able to plan in advance for how they'll make the transition, I've no doubt that they would make more money with this approach than if they launched F2P, missing out on box sales & subs).
This. The smart play in the modern era of MMOs (at least for themeparks) is to start out sub based, but have your Freemium transition planned from day one, with a defined number of players you are waiting to drop to before you make the switch.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Originally posted by Loktofeit Originally posted by RinnaI'm not sure why so many players say "most players don't want a sub". I think that statement is wrong. I'd MUCH rather pay a sub and hold a game company accountable for content expansions and bug fixes. Too many companies use the "well it's a free game" to dodge quality. Give me a sub and a cosmetic cash shop for over and above items. I believe you should pay for the game too. These devs worked their @sses off in a project, not only should they be compensated for a job well done but they should have some job security when their companies make money every month. I logged into Neverwinter the other night and didn't see a single 200 dollar spider mount. I think that idiocy from game devs (and mostly players) has got to stop. Non sub games are also often pay to win. I think there should be a level playing field for all players. GW2 and Rift are the only two companies that have succeeded at any F2P model that I agree with for long term play.
Rinna, I think there are a lot like you, and I think one of the things that fueled the move to F2P over the past five years was the abysmal offerings in AAA MMOs from 2008 to last year or so. People don't want to get Vanguarded again. They don't want to get SWTORed again, especially when the people most likely to invest significant time and money often do so up from with VIP, Founders and Collectors Edition purchases.
I think a string of quality subscription-based releases would go a long way toward making "subscription means better quality" a thing again. Right now, that's simply not a guarantee when a new game comes out.
I would like to add more to this, but I'm afraid I can't add too much. The article said ESO might fail, but it won't be because of the financial model. Makes sense to me. Write a good game and price it right and it'll sell like crazy, subscription or not. The article said that subscriptions alone do not capture all of the possible revenue that a game can capture. This makes sense too. It's a basic economic idea that if a producer can use a high degree of price discrimination, they will extract the maximum amount of money possible from consumers. The article also said that F2P doesn't mean subscriptions go away, just that subscriptions become one of several options within the F2P plan. Well, yeah. Makes sense. Plus, it's actually happening.
The one thing the article didn't address is making "smaller, more focused games" and "MMORPGs". These two things don't seem to intersect at all. A small MMORPG dwarfs a large single player game in development costs. It seems like the only possible solution is "write a good game", no matter how much it costs.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You have at least one bit of inaccurate data. STO does operate on a freemium model (as does Champions Online). Neverwinter is the only current Cryptic game that does not offer a subscription option.
Thanks, that was a fascinating look at this business model. I can't say that I totally agree with some of your guesses, but as a ball park estimate, they have some utility. Those who have been predicting the demise of the subscription model, have as usual with such things, let their preconceptions blind them.
I can't speak for others, but for me, the *game play* is the ultimate determination of what I'm willing to pay for it. In other words, the business model is irrelevant to me. Which means, that my enjoyment of the game has more utility to me, than the money involved (up to a point... ^^).
Yoshi P had a very interesting article about why SE decided to go with subscriptions for FF 14.
That stable revenue stream is a VERY important aspect of the business model they are using. Does that mean that they have to stick to it forever? Not in the least. But then neither do they have to rush the transition.
Originally posted by RinnaI'm not sure why so many players say "most players don't want a sub". I think that statement is wrong. I'd MUCH rather pay a sub and hold a game company accountable for content expansions and bug fixes. Too many companies use the "well it's a free game" to dodge quality. Give me a sub and a cosmetic cash shop for over and above items. I believe you should pay for the game too. These devs worked their @sses off in a project, not only should they be compensated for a job well done but they should have some job security when their companies make money every month. I logged into Neverwinter the other night and didn't see a single 200 dollar spider mount. I think that idiocy from game devs (and mostly players) has got to stop. Non sub games are also often pay to win. I think there should be a level playing field for all players. GW2 and Rift are the only two companies that have succeeded at any F2P model that I agree with for long term play.
Rinna, I think there are a lot like you, and I think one of the things that fueled the move to F2P over the past five years was the abysmal offerings in AAA MMOs from 2008 to last year or so. People don't want to get Vanguarded again. They don't want to get SWTORed again, especially when the people most likely to invest significant time and money often do so up from with VIP, Founders and Collectors Edition purchases.
I think a string of quality subscription-based releases would go a long way toward making "subscription means better quality" a thing again. Right now, that's simply not a guarantee when a new game comes out.
I would like to add more to this, but I'm afraid I can't add too much. The article said ESO might fail, but it won't be because of the financial model. Makes sense to me. Write a good game and price it right and it'll sell like crazy, subscription or not. The article said that subscriptions alone do not capture all of the possible revenue that a game can capture. This makes sense too. It's a basic economic idea that if a producer can use a high degree of price discrimination, they will extract the maximum amount of money possible from consumers. The article also said that F2P doesn't mean subscriptions go away, just that subscriptions become one of several options within the F2P plan. Well, yeah. Makes sense. Plus, it's actually happening.
The one thing the article didn't address is making "smaller, more focused games" and "MMORPGs". These two things don't seem to intersect at all. A small MMORPG dwarfs a large single player game in development costs. It seems like the only possible solution is "write a good game", no matter how much it costs.
I'm now curious what it cost to make ATITD and Puzzle Pirates.
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 Loktofeit Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by LoktofeitOriginally posted by RinnaI'm not sure why so many players say "most players don't want a sub". I think that statement is wrong. I'd MUCH rather pay a sub and hold a game company accountable for content expansions and bug fixes. Too many companies use the "well it's a free game" to dodge quality. Give me a sub and a cosmetic cash shop for over and above items. I believe you should pay for the game too. These devs worked their @sses off in a project, not only should they be compensated for a job well done but they should have some job security when their companies make money every month. I logged into Neverwinter the other night and didn't see a single 200 dollar spider mount. I think that idiocy from game devs (and mostly players) has got to stop. Non sub games are also often pay to win. I think there should be a level playing field for all players. GW2 and Rift are the only two companies that have succeeded at any F2P model that I agree with for long term play.
Rinna, I think there are a lot like you, and I think one of the things that fueled the move to F2P over the past five years was the abysmal offerings in AAA MMOs from 2008 to last year or so. People don't want to get Vanguarded again. They don't want to get SWTORed again, especially when the people most likely to invest significant time and money often do so up from with VIP, Founders and Collectors Edition purchases. I think a string of quality subscription-based releases would go a long way toward making "subscription means better quality" a thing again. Right now, that's simply not a guarantee when a new game comes out. I would like to add more to this, but I'm afraid I can't add too much. The article said ESO might fail, but it won't be because of the financial model. Makes sense to me. Write a good game and price it right and it'll sell like crazy, subscription or not. The article said that subscriptions alone do not capture all of the possible revenue that a game can capture. This makes sense too. It's a basic economic idea that if a producer can use a high degree of price discrimination, they will extract the maximum amount of money possible from consumers. The article also said that F2P doesn't mean subscriptions go away, just that subscriptions become one of several options within the F2P plan. Well, yeah. Makes sense. Plus, it's actually happening. The one thing the article didn't address is making "smaller, more focused games" and "MMORPGs". These two things don't seem to intersect at all. A small MMORPG dwarfs a large single player game in development costs. It seems like the only possible solution is "write a good game", no matter how much it costs. I'm now curious what it cost to make ATITD and Puzzle Pirates.
A billion dollars. Each.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I tend to agree that the Forbes article is completely out in left field. I, also, don't completely disagree with you on your numbers. It doesn't seem entirely unfair. In particular, SWTOR is relatively open about their subscription numbers, if the numbers given are accurate.
What I disagree with is the idea that a games MTX revenues are less than their subscription revenue. I think that a popular misconception is that game companies are going to an MTX system because they don't feel people will pay a subscription for their game. In reality, the F2P/MTX model is MUCH more profitable and scalable. Plus, people feel much more comfortable with these types of purchase, even if they do surpass what they'd pay as a subscription. It's monetizing your game with tangible items. I'm going to Unlock a bag slot for you, give you access to the auction house, give you this sweet smoking jacket, or this house! What do you get with a subscription? The right to play their game? HA! In actuality, you get everything, even the smoking jacket.
There are mobile games a thousand times more mind-numbing than any MMO grind that are making more on a DAILY basis than nearly every single Subscription MMO (Clash of Clans and Candy Crush are prime examples). So the idea that microtransactions are less profitable than a subscription system is completely out to lunch. Sorry.
You should say out in "right" field as they are a very well known right-wing publication...
I think that 2014 will be a challenging year for games like Elder Scrolls Online.
My opinion is that the era of the multi-hundred million dollar budget theme park style MMO is ending.
The economics of the market seem to be indicating that smaller more focused games with faster development timelines and much smaller budgets will lead to better returns and more successful outcomes.
i agree with this opinion but i have nothing to back it up with
You should say out in "right" field as they are a very well known right-wing publication...
Which is an extremely relevant observation, since this is such a political topic...
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
ps4 and Xbox1 both require you to pay each month to play games online; nothing new for Xbox, but it is for playstation.
From the way Sony was talking about the change from free online gaming to requiring a Playstation plus subscription to play online, and all of their PS4 MMO not requiring a subscription fee (they don't want us to have to pay twice to play one of their games online) it sounds very much like PS4 and XB1 gamers will have to pay twice to play ESO.
Unless Sony and Microsoft are both going to forgo the required subscriptions to PSplus and XBlive, ESO is going to have to be one hell of a game to justify spending money on a sub to play a game online on the PS4 or XB1.
I have to agree with the Forbes article, kind of, a subscription model is fine for PC MMO's, but it's asking to much for people who want to play on a PS4 or XB1 when they already have to pay to play online before they even pony up the money for the game box.
Originally posted by Loktofeit Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by LoktofeitOriginally posted by RinnaI'm not sure why so many players say "most players don't want a sub". I think that statement is wrong. I'd MUCH rather pay a sub and hold a game company accountable for content expansions and bug fixes. Too many companies use the "well it's a free game" to dodge quality. Give me a sub and a cosmetic cash shop for over and above items. I believe you should pay for the game too. These devs worked their @sses off in a project, not only should they be compensated for a job well done but they should have some job security when their companies make money every month. I logged into Neverwinter the other night and didn't see a single 200 dollar spider mount. I think that idiocy from game devs (and mostly players) has got to stop. Non sub games are also often pay to win. I think there should be a level playing field for all players. GW2 and Rift are the only two companies that have succeeded at any F2P model that I agree with for long term play.
Rinna, I think there are a lot like you, and I think one of the things that fueled the move to F2P over the past five years was the abysmal offerings in AAA MMOs from 2008 to last year or so. People don't want to get Vanguarded again. They don't want to get SWTORed again, especially when the people most likely to invest significant time and money often do so up from with VIP, Founders and Collectors Edition purchases. I think a string of quality subscription-based releases would go a long way toward making "subscription means better quality" a thing again. Right now, that's simply not a guarantee when a new game comes out. I would like to add more to this, but I'm afraid I can't add too much. The article said ESO might fail, but it won't be because of the financial model. Makes sense to me. Write a good game and price it right and it'll sell like crazy, subscription or not. The article said that subscriptions alone do not capture all of the possible revenue that a game can capture. This makes sense too. It's a basic economic idea that if a producer can use a high degree of price discrimination, they will extract the maximum amount of money possible from consumers. The article also said that F2P doesn't mean subscriptions go away, just that subscriptions become one of several options within the F2P plan. Well, yeah. Makes sense. Plus, it's actually happening. The one thing the article didn't address is making "smaller, more focused games" and "MMORPGs". These two things don't seem to intersect at all. A small MMORPG dwarfs a large single player game in development costs. It seems like the only possible solution is "write a good game", no matter how much it costs. I'm now curious what it cost to make ATITD and Puzzle Pirates.
Ok. A billion dollars was a silly answer.
Since PP was written sometime around 2003, and doesn't seem to have a lot of high end 3D graphics, or possibly any 3D graphics, a lot less than a 3D MMORPG would cost today. ATiTD is the same answer, except they have 3D graphics. Adding 3D graphics, or using a modern engine would increase the cost significantly.
However, if we could write those games today at a reasonable cost, the number of players served would be pretty small. We'd need something like 5,000 or 10,000 MMORPGs to satisfy the market demand for MMORPGs. This doesn't seem feasible. Beyond that, there would be a lot of issues getting people to play the games without modern game engines. It wouldn't do any good to write a bunch of smaller, targeted games if nobody is interested in playing them. I think this is why there aren't more smaller, targeted MMORPGs now. They're expensive to write, and writing a game that a developer wants people to play, and the people want to play is hard. That doesn't really change just because we scale down the production.
Unless there's a shift away from full on MMORPGs. That makes the production less expensive, and less time consuming. 5,000 of them is a bit much, but it might be easier to serve a larger number of people with games that are geared to serving a smaller number of people at a time rather than everyone at once.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Never in my entire existence would i believe that SWTOR has more than 2 million active players. More like 200-400k. The other games that says 20 millions can not be true either. This is bullshit.
For me at the end of the day if the game is good and it provides entertainment for me then I have no issues at all putting money towards it.
I also dont have an issue paying an up front cost for a game and then a sub... whatever as long as its a good game.
I put about £8 or whatever into world of tanks each month for a premium account.. I am happy to do this because I enjoy playing it.
The main issue with ESO is that I am pretty sure its going to end up being another themepark mmo that we have all seen before... the main issue with that is that WOW has that covered I mean why move away from a well esablished game that millions of people play to a new game that no so many people play.. people will stick with wow..
The big mmo companies need to realise they cant keep turning out themepark clones and expect to make money... SOE has realised this with Everquest Next and I am pretty sure that is going to e really popular when released because it will be something new that people are going to enjoy.
Subs are going the way of Blockbuster stores - some dev studios are still holding on to their Blockbuster membership cards that is all.
Only a matter of time before they realize that it's dead Jim.
The obvious question why are we still seeing major upcoming games with sub models - because it's easy to do, building a platform that can support MTX is *very expensive* and time consuming, also you need to hire platform devs which is an entirely different skillset from a game dev.
MTX is about 100x more complicated to pull off successfully than simply charging your players with several packages (monthly, 3month, 6month, year)
I'd say 99% of players don't realize how complex the MTX platform is (a system that can handle 10s of 1000s real time transactions) in comparison to sub with less than 5 payment options done on a monthly (or longer) basis.
Night and day.
Yeah...it's so complicated there arent websites dedicated to small business sellers with multples of 1000's of "microtransactions"....ever hear of Ebay? Then, when you consider NWN....ripped off the store from STO, seems like they even forgot to rename a couple things or some such....not quite so convinced of your....it's complicated....no, the only thing it is, is a scummy way to do business in most cases.
I tend to agree that the Forbes article is completely out in left field. I, also, don't completely disagree with you on your numbers. It doesn't seem entirely unfair. In particular, SWTOR is relatively open about their subscription numbers, if the numbers given are accurate.
What I disagree with is the idea that a games MTX revenues are less than their subscription revenue. I think that a popular misconception is that game companies are going to an MTX system because they don't feel people will pay a subscription for their game. In reality, the F2P/MTX model is MUCH more profitable and scalable. Plus, people feel much more comfortable with these types of purchase, even if they do surpass what they'd pay as a subscription. It's monetizing your game with tangible items. I'm going to Unlock a bag slot for you, give you access to the auction house, give you this sweet smoking jacket, or this house! What do you get with a subscription? The right to play their game? HA! In actuality, you get everything, even the smoking jacket.
There are mobile games a thousand times more mind-numbing than any MMO grind that are making more on a DAILY basis than nearly every single Subscription MMO (Clash of Clans and Candy Crush are prime examples). So the idea that microtransactions are less profitable than a subscription system is completely out to lunch. Sorry.
Speak for yourself about people preferring MTX because it's "more tangible." I want to pay to play a game, not run around in a virtual world with a virtual shopping mall at my fingertips. If I need another bag, I want to purchase it from a vendor with ingame gold, or even better from a real player that crafted it. MTX games just put people on uneven footing based on real money. I'd MUCH prefer to pay a flat $15 fee per month (which is basically nothing to anyone with a source of income), because this way I can worry about playing the game and working toward my goals rather than having to worry about if I'll be viable if I don't spend money in the cash shop.
As far as profitability, I can see where MTX may or may not win out for the company and I know the ultimate goal for them is to make money. However, I've seen several polls around different forums and subscription seems to almost always win out. I know you can't exactly rely on forum polls, but it feels like a large portion of the F2P advocates are people that just don't want to spend any money and play for free or the least amount possible. This is a terrible attitude in my opinion, and I'd rather support the developers with a monthly fee if the game is worth it. If it isn't worth a monthly fee, you shouldn't be playing it anyway.
I never said people preferred micro-transactions, I said they were more comfortable with them. The big issue here is that subscription == commitment, free == FREE! Until you actually get into the game and realize what "free" really means.
I would tend to agree that people say they prefer subscriptions. The reality is, though, that talk is cheap and there are fewer than a handful of games still in existence which survive solely on this model.
The idea that F2P gamers are cheap, though, isn't a new argument, but is also grossly misinformed. There is an article that indicates that core gamers in these "free" games spend, on average, up to $60 per month. You're right, there are casual gamers who play a lot of these free games, but they aren't really the target of anyone, even subscription models, because they're not going to be around long one way or another. So, you see, if anyone is "cheap" it's subscribers. Yup, that was maybe a bit of a dig (I'm a subscriber myself though, and I have friends who are subscribers, so it's ok).
The "problem" when subscription games is that they leave too much money on the table. So unless you maintain a consistently high subscription base, you're dead in the water. With F2P models, your game has to be compelling enough to engage enough people who are actually willing to open their wallets. If not, then you're also dead. I think that's why games like SWTOR, with a hybrid model, are doing well. It still presents the problem of subscriptions "topping" out at $15 a month though. For instance, I subscribed to SWTOR for 6 months while I levelled because of the bonuses I got from doing so. Afterwards I went back down to F2P, but I feel like I could have been hosed more if they didn't have a subscription option. Not that I'm looking for that, but I can see where subs could be a problem for future titles which have larger budgets (beyond a few million).
I just pray every day that we don't see more aggressive monetization strategies like with mobile games, "Would you like to be placed at the front of the Raid Finder queue? $0.99" or "Would you like to unlock this Raid for another run this week? $1.99". Don't kid yourself, I just gave WoW a billion dollar idea right there It's coming.
People don't seem to understand that a games subscription model is parallel to how good the game is. WoW can do it with much success because it's still the smoothest, most polished game on the market. If TESO can manage this then a subscription model is 100% fine.
The problem is when companies with mediocre games try to have subscription models, aka why TESO is likely to flop. Basically you have to get what you pay for, pretty simple.
and you are wrong here
ppl are just lazy or old to move to other games, thats why they stay there
for many of these ppl WoW was thier first mmo
its not like WoW is the best, if it was then the game would gain new players not lose them
I dont think the fact that ESO is sub model will have anything to do with the game, whether it fails or is a hit. Sub models are just fine. Just look at FFXIV the reboot. They are doing pretty well with the sub model, even after the disaster that was 1.0.
I personally think, that you have a massive split of the sub model vs. the f2p. You have one set of players, who would rather pay sub fee's and have no perks what so ever. I am one of these people. No you cant go and buy a potion that helps you level a little bit faster, or move faster, or anything. The only thing a cash shop should add, is strictly cosmetic stuff. Sure you might not see a problem with someone buying a exp potion to help level, because they dont get to play often. I do.
Then you have those who like f2p. They can play the game, dont have to worry about paying for anything at all, Unless they want to. I think this works great for people who dont have alot of time to invest in a game. If you can only play 15 hours a month, then i think that would be a waste of money if you were to sub.
In the case with a game like ESO, i think they are much better off with a sub model. The game looks like a time sink, vs other mmo's. Same with wildstar.
although this is mostly correct I think the numbers are sewed being he under minds the sub+micro a good chunk, If you are willing to pay $15 per month and still buy something off the market then those numbers would look much different.
Pay to win modules only work on people with money for so long because people with money tend to have money because they know how to make it and are often not in the business in losing it. Once the person investing their time and money feel they are over paying they will back off big time and cause a large lose in funds to the game.
ESO will last longer than Wild Star as a subscription based game on the sheer fact of the fan base that surrounds it. Once the hype (or over-hype) of the game settles it will be a B2P title for both console and PC.
Sorry but that list is wrong, not only wrong by misleading. Most of those games have dropped half or more of the subs you listed and are now FTP or FTP with a buy in option that almost no one takes. I know that this website really wants to hype TESO but this entire "article" is misleading to the point of propaganda.
Comments
People don't seem to understand that a games subscription model is parallel to how good the game is. WoW can do it with much success because it's still the smoothest, most polished game on the market. If TESO can manage this then a subscription model is 100% fine.
The problem is when companies with mediocre games try to have subscription models, aka why TESO is likely to flop. Basically you have to get what you pay for, pretty simple.
I completely agree. Subscription model is great for games that are good enough to retain their customers. I think a lot of the time, the company knows the game isn't that great so they look to grab more money up front through micro transactions and other F2P shenanigans.
Rinna, I think there are a lot like you, and I think one of the things that fueled the move to F2P over the past five years was the abysmal offerings in AAA MMOs from 2008 to last year or so. People don't want to get Vanguarded again. They don't want to get SWTORed again, especially when the people most likely to invest significant time and money often do so up from with VIP, Founders and Collectors Edition purchases.
I think a string of quality subscription-based releases would go a long way toward making "subscription means better quality" a thing again. Right now, that's simply not a guarantee when a new game comes out.
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
This. The smart play in the modern era of MMOs (at least for themeparks) is to start out sub based, but have your Freemium transition planned from day one, with a defined number of players you are waiting to drop to before you make the switch.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
I think a string of quality subscription-based releases would go a long way toward making "subscription means better quality" a thing again. Right now, that's simply not a guarantee when a new game comes out.
I would like to add more to this, but I'm afraid I can't add too much. The article said ESO might fail, but it won't be because of the financial model. Makes sense to me. Write a good game and price it right and it'll sell like crazy, subscription or not. The article said that subscriptions alone do not capture all of the possible revenue that a game can capture. This makes sense too. It's a basic economic idea that if a producer can use a high degree of price discrimination, they will extract the maximum amount of money possible from consumers. The article also said that F2P doesn't mean subscriptions go away, just that subscriptions become one of several options within the F2P plan. Well, yeah. Makes sense. Plus, it's actually happening.
The one thing the article didn't address is making "smaller, more focused games" and "MMORPGs". These two things don't seem to intersect at all. A small MMORPG dwarfs a large single player game in development costs. It seems like the only possible solution is "write a good game", no matter how much it costs.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Thanks, that was a fascinating look at this business model. I can't say that I totally agree with some of your guesses, but as a ball park estimate, they have some utility. Those who have been predicting the demise of the subscription model, have as usual with such things, let their preconceptions blind them.
I can't speak for others, but for me, the *game play* is the ultimate determination of what I'm willing to pay for it. In other words, the business model is irrelevant to me. Which means, that my enjoyment of the game has more utility to me, than the money involved (up to a point... ^^).
Yoshi P had a very interesting article about why SE decided to go with subscriptions for FF 14.
http://venturebeat.com/2013/06/17/final-fantasy-online-director-defends-monthly-subscriptions-in-the-golden-age-of-free-to-play-exclusive/
That stable revenue stream is a VERY important aspect of the business model they are using. Does that mean that they have to stick to it forever? Not in the least. But then neither do they have to rush the transition.
I'm now curious what it cost to make ATITD and Puzzle Pirates.
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
I would like to add more to this, but I'm afraid I can't add too much. The article said ESO might fail, but it won't be because of the financial model. Makes sense to me. Write a good game and price it right and it'll sell like crazy, subscription or not. The article said that subscriptions alone do not capture all of the possible revenue that a game can capture. This makes sense too. It's a basic economic idea that if a producer can use a high degree of price discrimination, they will extract the maximum amount of money possible from consumers. The article also said that F2P doesn't mean subscriptions go away, just that subscriptions become one of several options within the F2P plan. Well, yeah. Makes sense. Plus, it's actually happening. The one thing the article didn't address is making "smaller, more focused games" and "MMORPGs". These two things don't seem to intersect at all. A small MMORPG dwarfs a large single player game in development costs. It seems like the only possible solution is "write a good game", no matter how much it costs.
I'm now curious what it cost to make ATITD and Puzzle Pirates.
A billion dollars. Each.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You should say out in "right" field as they are a very well known right-wing publication...
I think that 2014 will be a challenging year for games like Elder Scrolls Online.
My opinion is that the era of the multi-hundred million dollar budget theme park style MMO is ending.
The economics of the market seem to be indicating that smaller more focused games with faster development timelines and much smaller budgets will lead to better returns and more successful outcomes.
i agree with this opinion but i have nothing to back it up with
EQ2 fan sites
Which is an extremely relevant observation, since this is such a political topic...
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
ps4 and Xbox1 both require you to pay each month to play games online; nothing new for Xbox, but it is for playstation.
From the way Sony was talking about the change from free online gaming to requiring a Playstation plus subscription to play online, and all of their PS4 MMO not requiring a subscription fee (they don't want us to have to pay twice to play one of their games online) it sounds very much like PS4 and XB1 gamers will have to pay twice to play ESO.
Unless Sony and Microsoft are both going to forgo the required subscriptions to PSplus and XBlive, ESO is going to have to be one hell of a game to justify spending money on a sub to play a game online on the PS4 or XB1.
I have to agree with the Forbes article, kind of, a subscription model is fine for PC MMO's, but it's asking to much for people who want to play on a PS4 or XB1 when they already have to pay to play online before they even pony up the money for the game box.
I would like to add more to this, but I'm afraid I can't add too much. The article said ESO might fail, but it won't be because of the financial model. Makes sense to me. Write a good game and price it right and it'll sell like crazy, subscription or not. The article said that subscriptions alone do not capture all of the possible revenue that a game can capture. This makes sense too. It's a basic economic idea that if a producer can use a high degree of price discrimination, they will extract the maximum amount of money possible from consumers. The article also said that F2P doesn't mean subscriptions go away, just that subscriptions become one of several options within the F2P plan. Well, yeah. Makes sense. Plus, it's actually happening. The one thing the article didn't address is making "smaller, more focused games" and "MMORPGs". These two things don't seem to intersect at all. A small MMORPG dwarfs a large single player game in development costs. It seems like the only possible solution is "write a good game", no matter how much it costs.
I'm now curious what it cost to make ATITD and Puzzle Pirates.
Ok. A billion dollars was a silly answer.
Since PP was written sometime around 2003, and doesn't seem to have a lot of high end 3D graphics, or possibly any 3D graphics, a lot less than a 3D MMORPG would cost today. ATiTD is the same answer, except they have 3D graphics. Adding 3D graphics, or using a modern engine would increase the cost significantly.
However, if we could write those games today at a reasonable cost, the number of players served would be pretty small. We'd need something like 5,000 or 10,000 MMORPGs to satisfy the market demand for MMORPGs. This doesn't seem feasible. Beyond that, there would be a lot of issues getting people to play the games without modern game engines. It wouldn't do any good to write a bunch of smaller, targeted games if nobody is interested in playing them. I think this is why there aren't more smaller, targeted MMORPGs now. They're expensive to write, and writing a game that a developer wants people to play, and the people want to play is hard. That doesn't really change just because we scale down the production.
Unless there's a shift away from full on MMORPGs. That makes the production less expensive, and less time consuming. 5,000 of them is a bit much, but it might be easier to serve a larger number of people with games that are geared to serving a smaller number of people at a time rather than everyone at once.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
For me at the end of the day if the game is good and it provides entertainment for me then I have no issues at all putting money towards it.
I also dont have an issue paying an up front cost for a game and then a sub... whatever as long as its a good game.
I put about £8 or whatever into world of tanks each month for a premium account.. I am happy to do this because I enjoy playing it.
The main issue with ESO is that I am pretty sure its going to end up being another themepark mmo that we have all seen before... the main issue with that is that WOW has that covered I mean why move away from a well esablished game that millions of people play to a new game that no so many people play.. people will stick with wow..
The big mmo companies need to realise they cant keep turning out themepark clones and expect to make money... SOE has realised this with Everquest Next and I am pretty sure that is going to e really popular when released because it will be something new that people are going to enjoy.
Yeah...it's so complicated there arent websites dedicated to small business sellers with multples of 1000's of "microtransactions"....ever hear of Ebay? Then, when you consider NWN....ripped off the store from STO, seems like they even forgot to rename a couple things or some such....not quite so convinced of your....it's complicated....no, the only thing it is, is a scummy way to do business in most cases.
I never said people preferred micro-transactions, I said they were more comfortable with them. The big issue here is that subscription == commitment, free == FREE! Until you actually get into the game and realize what "free" really means.
I would tend to agree that people say they prefer subscriptions. The reality is, though, that talk is cheap and there are fewer than a handful of games still in existence which survive solely on this model.
The idea that F2P gamers are cheap, though, isn't a new argument, but is also grossly misinformed. There is an article that indicates that core gamers in these "free" games spend, on average, up to $60 per month. You're right, there are casual gamers who play a lot of these free games, but they aren't really the target of anyone, even subscription models, because they're not going to be around long one way or another. So, you see, if anyone is "cheap" it's subscribers. Yup, that was maybe a bit of a dig (I'm a subscriber myself though, and I have friends who are subscribers, so it's ok).
The "problem" when subscription games is that they leave too much money on the table. So unless you maintain a consistently high subscription base, you're dead in the water. With F2P models, your game has to be compelling enough to engage enough people who are actually willing to open their wallets. If not, then you're also dead. I think that's why games like SWTOR, with a hybrid model, are doing well. It still presents the problem of subscriptions "topping" out at $15 a month though. For instance, I subscribed to SWTOR for 6 months while I levelled because of the bonuses I got from doing so. Afterwards I went back down to F2P, but I feel like I could have been hosed more if they didn't have a subscription option. Not that I'm looking for that, but I can see where subs could be a problem for future titles which have larger budgets (beyond a few million).
I just pray every day that we don't see more aggressive monetization strategies like with mobile games, "Would you like to be placed at the front of the Raid Finder queue? $0.99" or "Would you like to unlock this Raid for another run this week? $1.99". Don't kid yourself, I just gave WoW a billion dollar idea right there
It's coming.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
and you are wrong here
ppl are just lazy or old to move to other games, thats why they stay there
for many of these ppl WoW was thier first mmo
its not like WoW is the best, if it was then the game would gain new players not lose them
I dont think the fact that ESO is sub model will have anything to do with the game, whether it fails or is a hit. Sub models are just fine. Just look at FFXIV the reboot. They are doing pretty well with the sub model, even after the disaster that was 1.0.
I personally think, that you have a massive split of the sub model vs. the f2p. You have one set of players, who would rather pay sub fee's and have no perks what so ever. I am one of these people. No you cant go and buy a potion that helps you level a little bit faster, or move faster, or anything. The only thing a cash shop should add, is strictly cosmetic stuff. Sure you might not see a problem with someone buying a exp potion to help level, because they dont get to play often. I do.
Then you have those who like f2p. They can play the game, dont have to worry about paying for anything at all, Unless they want to. I think this works great for people who dont have alot of time to invest in a game. If you can only play 15 hours a month, then i think that would be a waste of money if you were to sub.
In the case with a game like ESO, i think they are much better off with a sub model. The game looks like a time sink, vs other mmo's. Same with wildstar.
although this is mostly correct I think the numbers are sewed being he under minds the sub+micro a good chunk, If you are willing to pay $15 per month and still buy something off the market then those numbers would look much different.
Pay to win modules only work on people with money for so long because people with money tend to have money because they know how to make it and are often not in the business in losing it. Once the person investing their time and money feel they are over paying they will back off big time and cause a large lose in funds to the game.
-Prior story writer for MMORPG.com