Your 2 examples, rift and swtor. Free 2 play quality games. Exactly. The point is, to be a p2p game, you have to deliver a quality product. Rift and SWTOR were both miserable failures that didn't deliver a nice enough product to keep their subscribers.
Switching from p2p to f2p SWTOR doubled it's sub numbers....yes it's SUB numbers. They didn't do anything to the game or add any content...but the numbers doubled. To me that means there is something else going on in the pay model market than just game X is good and ppl will pay a sub for it and game B is bad and people wont.
Players.
Who's going to pay for a game that is on a death knell, unless there's enough people to play with in MMOs?
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Swtor kept over 500k subs far far more than almost all mmo. They just didn't have enough to justify the 200 million it cost to make.
Keeping more subs than that is not realistic. Now they know it.
You don't make a $200m product unless the market has a void and is craving what you're creating.
When the market is somewhat satisfied, and the only thing you're bringing to the table is a competing alternative, you don't invest $200m. That's their foolishness.
200 mil is a huge gamble indeed.
Would be interesting to see what their initial projections were and if and how far they missed the mark.
In the end it worked out really nicely for them though.
I do think that overly simple models are probably going the way of the dodo as payment systems evolve, but even then it's hard to make sweeping statements about that without sounding sort of silly.
Ditto. The more inclusive a statement the more likely that it is incorrect. (btw: great reply)
In my opinion, the market is finding itself after a period of change. It's tough to make money, and games are so expensive and take so long to produce that coming up with a well timed winner that makes a tidy profit is one serious challenge. So they do their best to monetize in whatever ways they can find. Right now, that's charge for as many things as you can in a non-intrusive manner without alienating the playerbase. Hehe, like that's easy to do :-)
I think we're also seeing the backlash of the pay model change. Many of these game companies almost went under trying to stay with a sub model when a very large portion of the market decided they didn't want to pay like that anymore for the games that were offered. These games are making money now but dumping cash into a game that almost took the company down to expand it, isn't high on their list of things to do at the moment. I hope once they see more black and a lot less red ink, things will change.
I think change in this industry is far from over, but a great deal of it went on in the last few years and people haven't adjusted to it very well.
Another one of these dumb ass threads with somebody dense enough to be on a "team" for a payment model.
I can't explain how mentally retarded this is without getting an infraction, but please know anybody whose brain operates like his (on either side of the spectrum) are indeed dumb. TeamP2P vs TeamF2P... you're both morons.
Smart people don't care about the payment model, they care about the value of their dollar against the content and satisfaction they get for their investment. If a game and it's offerings are worth it, it's worth it. Period.
Continue trying for the gold medal in the Special Olympics though.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Swtor kept over 500k subs far far more than almost all mmo. They just didn't have enough to justify the 200 million it cost to make.
They have enough f2P revenue to justify the 200M cost.
It makes $139M based on JUST f2p revenue. Added in 500k subs ($90M a year), it made $229M in 2013 ... money back for dev costs in ONE year with change. Assuming this is the typical performance forward, it is a cash cow .. i am sure EA is very happy with it.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Swtor kept over 500k subs far far more than almost all mmo. They just didn't have enough to justify the 200 million it cost to make.
They have enough f2P revenue to justify the 200M cost.
It makes $139M based on JUST f2p revenue. Added in 500k subs ($90M a year), it made $229M in 2013 ... money back for dev costs in ONE year with change. Assuming this is the typical performance forward, it is a cash cow .. i am sure EA is very happy with it.
I agree it's not a "failure" (like some make it out to be) by any means.
They had a rough patch and had to adjust to the changing market, sure, so what.
Pay to win is kind of a joke in the industry now.. no one respects it. It's pretty much reserved for the dregs of games that a lot of people have become wise to.
Pay to play is on its way back up but people demand a lot more than just servers and some patches when the company feel like it; people want real value for their cash and not piece meal these days.
Free to play is quickly becoming anathema as well. People are starting to recognize the whole concept is a bit of a joke and often costs them much more in the long run. You also sacrifice things like graphics, gameplay, high caliber development teams and almost everything you can think of is sacrificed in the name of F2P.
Now sure, there are a couple of exceptions in the F2P market (MMOs only, btw.) but generally the games are mediocre city. Guild Wars 2 is the only game that stands out to me but it was also Buy to play. Even looking at GW2 though.. the game is kinda lame in itself. Poor PvE, generally underwhelming content updates and a game that basically hasn't evolved since release. You could look at SWTOR but let's be honest the game is horrible if you don't pay for dungeon/PvP packs or choose to sub; so free suddenly becomes even more mediocre for you.
I don't understand how people can support the F2P market so religiously just because it has the word "free" in it. It's like saying you should settle for a 3 week old hamburger some homeless man gave you when you could go and buy one at your favorite burger joint instead.
I think WoW has confused the industry to some degree. People seem to think if you don't net a bazillion subs from 230 countries around the world you're not a success. The reality is that 300,000+ subs often nets even the most expensive of games a decent return over time.
Pay 2 play companies have incentive to keep you having fun and playing.
Free 2 play companies have incentive to get you to spend money on nic-nacs and figure you'll keep playing regardless of quality because it's free.
Buy 2 play is a cash grab because they have no incentive to do ANYTHING after your initial purchase.
The fact is that you're refusing to take a look at the models which actually exist and then see how much sence it makes.
B2P games come with cash shop (if it's a good or bad one is not a subject of this thread) so the cash shop is actually the main thing where they get their money and only thing how they'll keep people from playing it continuosly is if they keep the game uptaded and get new content (big or small) to keep people interested enough so they can sell their perks on cash shops... Initial box sales are just a short boost and they do not represent huge return in the long run (which is what every developer wanst - keeping the wheel going while they can since they invested several years in developing the game).
I also don't see that P2P is retaining its sub numbers in any given game which still has it. Most games that launched failed to keep the sub numbers and also they failed to deliver the new content and/or bug fixes with new content fast enough for people to keep playing (or even return).
The only fact in here might be that games which do have steep P2P option tend to be called "money grabbers" when they switch to the model they see fit after they used up their P2P joker card - since that has been the case in the last few years with any game which went down the monthly sub line. You can defend the IDEA of P2P all you want, but the thing is - market has changed and all I can see is that the days of sub model games are gone. We have examples of which payment model does the best (if used right) so I guess there's no real point in debating that same thing.
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life." -------------------------------
I don't understand how people can support the F2P market so religiously just because it has the word "free" in it.
Because it's free, while they sub to WoW or EvE.
Can't play those games forever because of burn out, so they sample what's offered (RIGHT NARI???). Of course they'll support it, as long as it doesn't cost them an extra penny. Kind of hard to pay for 10 different games when their main game like W oW is costing them $45+/mon to play.
Think about it some are sporting toons that are almost 10 years old now.
You don't give up such toons to chase the 4 winds, you stay planted in one game and visit others.
THE problem with MMOs is: they waited too long to jump on, when MMORPGs is about long-term character development -- and something PvP games sure can't provide.
What does any of this have to do with a free market? I was expecting an analysis from an economic viewpoint. Something along the lines of how each payment model attracts different groups of people, how each payment model overlaps the other and how the payment models can affect the game's mechanics rather than a brief overview and then an editorial.
I'm with Lizard.
I'm to the left of Obama and Bill Clinton, maybe even George Clinton. But I'm having a hard time figuring out what people mean about being treated unfairly by (game of their choice).
The lottery bits I've seen(lockboxes)? Definitely deserve scrutiny.
Like Lizard, I guess I was really hoping for something that talked about the different models and what they tend to offer. Maybe that's too much to demand, but hey, there's your assignment soldier. Take it err leave it.
"B2P games come with cash shop (if it's a good or bad one is not a subject of this thread) so the cash shop is actually the main thing where they get their money and only thing how they'll keep people from playing it continuosly is if they keep the game uptaded and get new content (big or small) to keep people interested enough so they can sell their perks on cash shops... Initial box sales are just a short boost and they do not represent huge return in the long run (which is what every developer wanst - keeping the wheel going while they can since they invested several years in developing the game)."
+1. This.
If you have been playing GW2 - you will notice they keep coming out with living world updates This is to keep people coming back - and when they come back they buy stuff like bag space or bank slots of the stacking thing or a nice skin.
Now don't get me wrong some players (who IMHO likely don't play GW2) will tell you the living world updates 'suck' and so on and so forth. But I think they have been pretty fun and the servers seem to agree. Right around when each one comes out there is a considerable uptick in play. On crowded server like mine I am frequently in overflow with each new patch.
Honestly WoW's content patches don't seem that impressive in comparison - it takes them alot longer to do alot less. What's worse is that with a this HUGE warchest of money - this BILLION dollar PROFIT - they seem to put very very little back into the game on a regular basis. And yes I do still play WoW. You literally rot on the vine between content patches nowadays.
So I can't agree with the OP theory at all. You might guess its like that - in realiy P2P games will often just take advantage of the players loyalty. They think they players are so hooked in they simply don't bother to do a bang up job.
I don't get the argument. I stick to games that I can buy and enjoy, or free games because as a working adult with a lot of different interests they fit my life style better. I've been known to go months playing something at least a little bit everyday and then ignore it and read books and ride motorcycles for months, then pick it back up again, then put it back down again. I don't like subscriptions because I refuse to pay a monthly fee for something that I may or may not be using that month, and I don't like the hassle of closing and reopening subscriptions. Those are all personal preferences on my part. The first and last subscription game I actually paid for was WoW, and the first time I stopped playing it(summer time, motorcycle weather) I closed the subscription after not using it for two months and then just never went back. It also thought it was just a horrible game, no fun at all, compared to Guild Wars at the time, which also didn't penalize me or cause me any hassles when I laid it down for a bit, so that might have helped build my current bias against subscription games. That doesn't mean I'm going to go around crowing that subscription games are evil, or that the payment methods I prefer makes the games using them "better" for anyone but me. It all really comes down to personal preference. I will say, arguing that a subscription is required for a game to have quality development post release seems like a complete joke to me in a world where Guild Wars already proved that wrong.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Swtor kept over 500k subs far far more than almost all mmo. They just didn't have enough to justify the 200 million it cost to make.
They have enough f2P revenue to justify the 200M cost.
It makes $139M based on JUST f2p revenue. Added in 500k subs ($90M a year), it made $229M in 2013 ... money back for dev costs in ONE year with change. Assuming this is the typical performance forward, it is a cash cow .. i am sure EA is very happy with it.
I agree it's not a "failure" (like some make it out to be) by any means.
They had a rough patch and had to adjust to the changing market, sure, so what.
So VengeSaunsoar's point that "they just didn't have enough to justify the 200M it cost to me" is refuted. So if EA looks at future game development, TOR is an example of financial success (and how to manage a changing market place), and they may do more of it.
Originally posted by FinalFikus Seems all the free players can afford copies of GTA.
Of course. It is seldom about affordability as some here miscontrued.
It is about competition. I just bought a bottle of $60 wine but i won't drop a dime on MMORPGs. Why? Because for the wine i want, i cannot get it for anything less.
However, for MMORPGs, i don't get more fun when i pay for it, so why should i?
Of course. It is seldom about affordability as some here miscontrued.
It is about competition. I just bought a bottle of $60 wine but i won't drop a dime on MMORPGs. Why? Because for the wine i want, i cannot get it for anything less.
However, for MMORPGs, i don't get more fun when i pay for it, so why should i?
Well see I wouldn't spend more than $10 on a bottle of wine because cheap wine pretty much tastes the same as expensive wine to me. So I'm with wine like you are with MMORPGs. There is a higher standard and better quality in more expensive to play MMORPGs for the most part you just don't care enough to buy them. Just like I don't care enough to buy the $60 wine for the slight increase in quality which I could probably barely taste.
Of course. It is seldom about affordability as some here miscontrued.
It is about competition. I just bought a bottle of $60 wine but i won't drop a dime on MMORPGs. Why? Because for the wine i want, i cannot get it for anything less.
However, for MMORPGs, i don't get more fun when i pay for it, so why should i?
Well see I wouldn't spend more than $10 on a bottle of wine because cheap wine pretty much tastes the same as expensive wine to me. So I'm with wine like you are with MMORPGs. There is a higher standard and better quality in more expensive to play MMORPGs for the most part you just don't care enough to buy them. Just like I don't care enough to buy the $60 wine for the slight increase in quality which I could probably barely taste.
First, $60 a bottle is not expensive. There is wine which is orders of magnitude above $60. Second, i wouldn't pretend to be a wine expert, but i can tell the difference between a $10 bottle, and a $50-100 ... above that range, i have no experience.
Secondly, there is no higher quality in MMORPGs if you go to sub ... there are only like TWO main one.
WOW, i have played, and bored with and quit. Eve i do not like .. in fact, Eve pve is easy mode boring stuff.
Unlike wine, MMORPG's fun factor (which of course is subjective) does NOT go up with price. In fact, the one i enjoy most .. Marvel heroes .. is totally free. I can find pinot noir (wine i like) at higher price which i like better. Tell me, is there a super hero MMO that i can play marvel characters with a higher price and a higher quality than Marvel Heroes.
Unlike wine, MMORPG's fun factor (which of course is subjective) does NOT go up with price. In fact, the one i enjoy most .. Marvel heroes .. is totally free. I can find pinot noir (wine i like) at higher price which i like better. Tell me, is there a super hero MMO that i can play marvel characters with a higher price and a higher quality than Marvel Heroes.
If there is one, i will play it tomorrow.
That's fine for you. I've yet to find a game that I can play totally for free that I really enjoy for a prolonged period (Rift and Path of Exile are close but I tend to burn out on them quickly for different reasons).
Some people will be satisfied with the free games out there but others want something more and are willing to pay for it. Just like you'd probably not find the $10 wine to your liking but it's fine for me because I don't even drink wine that much and am not such a fan of the general taste that spending tons of money on it is really attractive to me.
Unlike wine, MMORPG's fun factor (which of course is subjective) does NOT go up with price. In fact, the one i enjoy most .. Marvel heroes .. is totally free. I can find pinot noir (wine i like) at higher price which i like better. Tell me, is there a super hero MMO that i can play marvel characters with a higher price and a higher quality than Marvel Heroes.
If there is one, i will play it tomorrow.
That's fine for you. I've yet to find a game that I can play totally for free that I really enjoy for a prolonged period (Rift and Path of Exile are close but I tend to burn out on them quickly for different reasons).
Some people will be satisfied with the free games out there but others want something more and are willing to pay for it. Just like you'd probably not find the $10 wine to your liking but it's fine for me because I don't even drink wine that much and am not such a fan of the general taste that spending tons of money on it is really attractive to me.
That is the point .. there is no "more" in MMORPGs. Name some sub-only MMORPGs in settings similar to those with a f2p option. There is practically nothing. As i said before, take Marvel Heroes as an example. It is a fun game, but the polish is not as high as D3. It is not like i am not willing to pay for it if there is one, but there is simply NO other.
This is very different than wine while there is a huge range of pinot wine, even in the same appellation.
And i also don't agree with the point about "prolonged period". I prefer quality (very fun when i play the game) over quantity (the game last a long time). Many of the better games i have played (Dishonored, Deus Ex Human Evolution, The Room 1 & 2 ...) are NOT long. In fact, the only long one is D3 .. and even that i am taking a hiatus before the expansion is coming out.
Gods, this arguement again. There is no "One Payment Model to Rule Them All!" in games just as there is no such thing in resteraunts or resorts, etc....just as there is no such thing that every movie must be a "Western". Anyone that tries to tell you different is selling something...and it's not entertainment.
The gaming space, including MMO's is huge with a wide diversity of audiences and preferences. However so is the competition. Each game is going to have to offer something to differentiate something to it's intended audience in order to attract them....the payment model can be part of that, or not. Also every game Developer/Publisher faces a different and unique situation and that can effect the choice of payment model.
Some of us have strong preferences for one payment model over another...others don't. Some of us strongly dislike how certain payment models OFTEN tend to get implimented or effect gameplay, even though one doesn't have to impliment the Payment model that way, it frequently happens...so it factors into or initial decision making about interest in a new game. That's it. The fact that such diversity exists (and it does and will) is a good thing for us consumers not a bad thing. Everyone needs to get used to it....and accept the fact that others have personal likes and dislikes.
For instance, I happen to personaly dislike a number of things that MANY F2P games tend to do. So when I see "F2P" in the game description it's an immediate point against the game in my decision making about whether it's worth my time to investigate further to see how the game actualy impliments those elements I dislike. On the other hand, if the game is compelling enough in other areas, it may overpower those objections and see how the game handles those specific elements that I have issues with (and not all F2P games handle them badly) and whether the game would be fun enough to play even with those elements.
This is normal behavior by consumers....and we all do this sort of things with different elements of games that meet our individual likes or dislikes.....and companies realize this as well.
For example, I also hate games that require Steam or a similar service to play.....a recent Steam automatic update hosing a game I was perfectly happy playing on the older version illustrates part of the reason why..... so I tend to avoid those as well, but if there is a game that actualy interests me so much in other regards (as illustrated by my tale here) then it will overcome my dislike of Steam os similar services.
That's just how consumers behave. We are all different, we all have different likes and dislikes....the combination of which will determine if we are even willing to try a particular game or not, let alone spend any money on it.
Unlike wine, MMORPG's fun factor (which of course is subjective) does NOT go up with price. In fact, the one i enjoy most .. Marvel heroes .. is totally free. I can find pinot noir (wine i like) at higher price which i like better. Tell me, is there a super hero MMO that i can play marvel characters with a higher price and a higher quality than Marvel Heroes.
If there is one, i will play it tomorrow.
That's fine for you. I've yet to find a game that I can play totally for free that I really enjoy for a prolonged period (Rift and Path of Exile are close but I tend to burn out on them quickly for different reasons).
Some people will be satisfied with the free games out there but others want something more and are willing to pay for it. Just like you'd probably not find the $10 wine to your liking but it's fine for me because I don't even drink wine that much and am not such a fan of the general taste that spending tons of money on it is really attractive to me.
Just shows what some of us have been saying, that a F2P vs. P2P battle is pointless.
Different target audiences. What one person likes, an other doesn't. The world would be quite boring if everyone had the same taste.
Both methods have their merits, both have their target audience, both can be used successfully.
Comments
Players.
Who's going to pay for a game that is on a death knell, unless there's enough people to play with in MMOs?
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
200 mil is a huge gamble indeed.
Would be interesting to see what their initial projections were and if and how far they missed the mark.
In the end it worked out really nicely for them though.
I think we're also seeing the backlash of the pay model change. Many of these game companies almost went under trying to stay with a sub model when a very large portion of the market decided they didn't want to pay like that anymore for the games that were offered. These games are making money now but dumping cash into a game that almost took the company down to expand it, isn't high on their list of things to do at the moment. I hope once they see more black and a lot less red ink, things will change.
I think change in this industry is far from over, but a great deal of it went on in the last few years and people haven't adjusted to it very well.
Another one of these dumb ass threads with somebody dense enough to be on a "team" for a payment model.
I can't explain how mentally retarded this is without getting an infraction, but please know anybody whose brain operates like his (on either side of the spectrum) are indeed dumb. TeamP2P vs TeamF2P... you're both morons.
Smart people don't care about the payment model, they care about the value of their dollar against the content and satisfaction they get for their investment. If a game and it's offerings are worth it, it's worth it. Period.
Continue trying for the gold medal in the Special Olympics though.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
They have enough f2P revenue to justify the 200M cost.
http://www.superdataresearch.com/blog/us-digital-games-market/
It makes $139M based on JUST f2p revenue. Added in 500k subs ($90M a year), it made $229M in 2013 ... money back for dev costs in ONE year with change. Assuming this is the typical performance forward, it is a cash cow .. i am sure EA is very happy with it.
I agree it's not a "failure" (like some make it out to be) by any means.
They had a rough patch and had to adjust to the changing market, sure, so what.
Pay to win is kind of a joke in the industry now.. no one respects it. It's pretty much reserved for the dregs of games that a lot of people have become wise to.
Pay to play is on its way back up but people demand a lot more than just servers and some patches when the company feel like it; people want real value for their cash and not piece meal these days.
Free to play is quickly becoming anathema as well. People are starting to recognize the whole concept is a bit of a joke and often costs them much more in the long run. You also sacrifice things like graphics, gameplay, high caliber development teams and almost everything you can think of is sacrificed in the name of F2P.
Now sure, there are a couple of exceptions in the F2P market (MMOs only, btw.) but generally the games are mediocre city. Guild Wars 2 is the only game that stands out to me but it was also Buy to play. Even looking at GW2 though.. the game is kinda lame in itself. Poor PvE, generally underwhelming content updates and a game that basically hasn't evolved since release. You could look at SWTOR but let's be honest the game is horrible if you don't pay for dungeon/PvP packs or choose to sub; so free suddenly becomes even more mediocre for you.
I don't understand how people can support the F2P market so religiously just because it has the word "free" in it. It's like saying you should settle for a 3 week old hamburger some homeless man gave you when you could go and buy one at your favorite burger joint instead.
I think WoW has confused the industry to some degree. People seem to think if you don't net a bazillion subs from 230 countries around the world you're not a success. The reality is that 300,000+ subs often nets even the most expensive of games a decent return over time.
The fact is that you're refusing to take a look at the models which actually exist and then see how much sence it makes.
B2P games come with cash shop (if it's a good or bad one is not a subject of this thread) so the cash shop is actually the main thing where they get their money and only thing how they'll keep people from playing it continuosly is if they keep the game uptaded and get new content (big or small) to keep people interested enough so they can sell their perks on cash shops... Initial box sales are just a short boost and they do not represent huge return in the long run (which is what every developer wanst - keeping the wheel going while they can since they invested several years in developing the game).
I also don't see that P2P is retaining its sub numbers in any given game which still has it. Most games that launched failed to keep the sub numbers and also they failed to deliver the new content and/or bug fixes with new content fast enough for people to keep playing (or even return).
The only fact in here might be that games which do have steep P2P option tend to be called "money grabbers" when they switch to the model they see fit after they used up their P2P joker card - since that has been the case in the last few years with any game which went down the monthly sub line. You can defend the IDEA of P2P all you want, but the thing is - market has changed and all I can see is that the days of sub model games are gone. We have examples of which payment model does the best (if used right) so I guess there's no real point in debating that same thing.
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life."
-------------------------------
Because it's free, while they sub to WoW or EvE.
Can't play those games forever because of burn out, so they sample what's offered (RIGHT NARI???). Of course they'll support it, as long as it doesn't cost them an extra penny. Kind of hard to pay for 10 different games when their main game like W oW is costing them $45+/mon to play.
Think about it some are sporting toons that are almost 10 years old now.
You don't give up such toons to chase the 4 winds, you stay planted in one game and visit others.
THE problem with MMOs is: they waited too long to jump on, when MMORPGs is about long-term character development -- and something PvP games sure can't provide.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
I'm with Lizard.
I'm to the left of Obama and Bill Clinton, maybe even George Clinton. But I'm having a hard time figuring out what people mean about being treated unfairly by (game of their choice).
The lottery bits I've seen(lockboxes)? Definitely deserve scrutiny.
Like Lizard, I guess I was really hoping for something that talked about the different models and what they tend to offer. Maybe that's too much to demand, but hey, there's your assignment soldier. Take it err leave it.
"B2P games come with cash shop (if it's a good or bad one is not a subject of this thread) so the cash shop is actually the main thing where they get their money and only thing how they'll keep people from playing it continuosly is if they keep the game uptaded and get new content (big or small) to keep people interested enough so they can sell their perks on cash shops... Initial box sales are just a short boost and they do not represent huge return in the long run (which is what every developer wanst - keeping the wheel going while they can since they invested several years in developing the game)."
+1. This.
If you have been playing GW2 - you will notice they keep coming out with living world updates This is to keep people coming back - and when they come back they buy stuff like bag space or bank slots of the stacking thing or a nice skin.
Now don't get me wrong some players (who IMHO likely don't play GW2) will tell you the living world updates 'suck' and so on and so forth. But I think they have been pretty fun and the servers seem to agree. Right around when each one comes out there is a considerable uptick in play. On crowded server like mine I am frequently in overflow with each new patch.
Honestly WoW's content patches don't seem that impressive in comparison - it takes them alot longer to do alot less. What's worse is that with a this HUGE warchest of money - this BILLION dollar PROFIT - they seem to put very very little back into the game on a regular basis. And yes I do still play WoW. You literally rot on the vine between content patches nowadays.
So I can't agree with the OP theory at all. You might guess its like that - in realiy P2P games will often just take advantage of the players loyalty. They think they players are so hooked in they simply don't bother to do a bang up job.
I don't get the argument. I stick to games that I can buy and enjoy, or free games because as a working adult with a lot of different interests they fit my life style better. I've been known to go months playing something at least a little bit everyday and then ignore it and read books and ride motorcycles for months, then pick it back up again, then put it back down again. I don't like subscriptions because I refuse to pay a monthly fee for something that I may or may not be using that month, and I don't like the hassle of closing and reopening subscriptions. Those are all personal preferences on my part. The first and last subscription game I actually paid for was WoW, and the first time I stopped playing it(summer time, motorcycle weather) I closed the subscription after not using it for two months and then just never went back. It also thought it was just a horrible game, no fun at all, compared to Guild Wars at the time, which also didn't penalize me or cause me any hassles when I laid it down for a bit, so that might have helped build my current bias against subscription games. That doesn't mean I'm going to go around crowing that subscription games are evil, or that the payment methods I prefer makes the games using them "better" for anyone but me. It all really comes down to personal preference. I will say, arguing that a subscription is required for a game to have quality development post release seems like a complete joke to me in a world where Guild Wars already proved that wrong.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
So VengeSaunsoar's point that "they just didn't have enough to justify the 200M it cost to me" is refuted. So if EA looks at future game development, TOR is an example of financial success (and how to manage a changing market place), and they may do more of it.
Of course. It is seldom about affordability as some here miscontrued.
It is about competition. I just bought a bottle of $60 wine but i won't drop a dime on MMORPGs. Why? Because for the wine i want, i cannot get it for anything less.
However, for MMORPGs, i don't get more fun when i pay for it, so why should i?
Well see I wouldn't spend more than $10 on a bottle of wine because cheap wine pretty much tastes the same as expensive wine to me. So I'm with wine like you are with MMORPGs. There is a higher standard and better quality in more expensive to play MMORPGs for the most part you just don't care enough to buy them. Just like I don't care enough to buy the $60 wine for the slight increase in quality which I could probably barely taste.
Now they can by the amount of money they are making.
So next time, all they need to do is to plan for a f2p-sub hybrid model from the start.
First, $60 a bottle is not expensive. There is wine which is orders of magnitude above $60. Second, i wouldn't pretend to be a wine expert, but i can tell the difference between a $10 bottle, and a $50-100 ... above that range, i have no experience.
Secondly, there is no higher quality in MMORPGs if you go to sub ... there are only like TWO main one.
WOW, i have played, and bored with and quit. Eve i do not like .. in fact, Eve pve is easy mode boring stuff.
Unlike wine, MMORPG's fun factor (which of course is subjective) does NOT go up with price. In fact, the one i enjoy most .. Marvel heroes .. is totally free. I can find pinot noir (wine i like) at higher price which i like better. Tell me, is there a super hero MMO that i can play marvel characters with a higher price and a higher quality than Marvel Heroes.
If there is one, i will play it tomorrow.
That's fine for you. I've yet to find a game that I can play totally for free that I really enjoy for a prolonged period (Rift and Path of Exile are close but I tend to burn out on them quickly for different reasons).
Some people will be satisfied with the free games out there but others want something more and are willing to pay for it. Just like you'd probably not find the $10 wine to your liking but it's fine for me because I don't even drink wine that much and am not such a fan of the general taste that spending tons of money on it is really attractive to me.
That is the point .. there is no "more" in MMORPGs. Name some sub-only MMORPGs in settings similar to those with a f2p option. There is practically nothing. As i said before, take Marvel Heroes as an example. It is a fun game, but the polish is not as high as D3. It is not like i am not willing to pay for it if there is one, but there is simply NO other.
This is very different than wine while there is a huge range of pinot wine, even in the same appellation.
And i also don't agree with the point about "prolonged period". I prefer quality (very fun when i play the game) over quantity (the game last a long time). Many of the better games i have played (Dishonored, Deus Ex Human Evolution, The Room 1 & 2 ...) are NOT long. In fact, the only long one is D3 .. and even that i am taking a hiatus before the expansion is coming out.
Gods, this arguement again. There is no "One Payment Model to Rule Them All!" in games just as there is no such thing in resteraunts or resorts, etc....just as there is no such thing that every movie must be a "Western". Anyone that tries to tell you different is selling something...and it's not entertainment.
The gaming space, including MMO's is huge with a wide diversity of audiences and preferences. However so is the competition. Each game is going to have to offer something to differentiate something to it's intended audience in order to attract them....the payment model can be part of that, or not. Also every game Developer/Publisher faces a different and unique situation and that can effect the choice of payment model.
Some of us have strong preferences for one payment model over another...others don't. Some of us strongly dislike how certain payment models OFTEN tend to get implimented or effect gameplay, even though one doesn't have to impliment the Payment model that way, it frequently happens...so it factors into or initial decision making about interest in a new game. That's it. The fact that such diversity exists (and it does and will) is a good thing for us consumers not a bad thing. Everyone needs to get used to it....and accept the fact that others have personal likes and dislikes.
For instance, I happen to personaly dislike a number of things that MANY F2P games tend to do. So when I see "F2P" in the game description it's an immediate point against the game in my decision making about whether it's worth my time to investigate further to see how the game actualy impliments those elements I dislike. On the other hand, if the game is compelling enough in other areas, it may overpower those objections and see how the game handles those specific elements that I have issues with (and not all F2P games handle them badly) and whether the game would be fun enough to play even with those elements.
This is normal behavior by consumers....and we all do this sort of things with different elements of games that meet our individual likes or dislikes.....and companies realize this as well.
For example, I also hate games that require Steam or a similar service to play.....a recent Steam automatic update hosing a game I was perfectly happy playing on the older version illustrates part of the reason why..... so I tend to avoid those as well, but if there is a game that actualy interests me so much in other regards (as illustrated by my tale here) then it will overcome my dislike of Steam os similar services.
That's just how consumers behave. We are all different, we all have different likes and dislikes....the combination of which will determine if we are even willing to try a particular game or not, let alone spend any money on it.
Just shows what some of us have been saying, that a F2P vs. P2P battle is pointless.
Different target audiences. What one person likes, an other doesn't. The world would be quite boring if everyone had the same taste.
Both methods have their merits, both have their target audience, both can be used successfully.
Not to mention, many games are hybrids anyway.
^ agree to GrumpyMel2's post.
It is only pointless if you expect a resolution, or a "win" or "loss".
It is not pointless if you are enjoying drama and debate.
There surely is no shortage of drama in those threads