Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Why developers should make all mmos subscription based.
xpowderx
Member UncommonPosts: 2,078
I believe that game developers should at least charge for a game. Make it not F2P. As well as make the game subscription based. You see, through the years I have watched mmo companies survive by makinga horrible or mediocre games f2p with cash shop options.
As long as we the player have f2p mmos. The chances of us ever seeing that ultimate mmo is very slim. It is my belief that game developers and companies should die out or go away if they cannot make a good mmo. Rather than hang on and try to make that good game by suckering players into the ftp cash shop venue. That way those developers which are truly talented can offer us the player a more substantive, outstanding, mmorpg to play. The point is simple. If you cannot make a good mmo now, what makes you think any of your derived conclusions to a new mmo to work towards will be any better?
Just as in the stock market. The mmo companies should follow the make or break ideology. Rather than the socialistic substandard gaming that many developers offer now. I know some companies do offer subs as well as f2p. I would offer let go of those and stick with the games people like.
I know some of you would disagree with me. (IMO)But until there is a change in the current industry the great mmo will never return!
What do you think needs to change in the mmo industry?
Comments
Disagreed. The best way to populate and diversify the market is through variety not only in content and style, but in business model as well. The genre needs f2p, b2p, and subscription.
And, quite frankly, buy-to-play is the best model, IMO.
Also, the primary source of bad f2p MMOs is the publishing sector of the genre - games localized from the East by terrible publishers like Aeria, Perfect World, gPotato, Nexon, and others.
There was an article I read a couple weeks ago where John Romero (co-creator of Doom for those that don't know) compares the F2P model to that of the shareware model back in the day. He states, if I recall correctly that if the shareware did not exist, Doom would have never been made.
I have to agree with him. F2P gives everyone a free demonstration of your game. Of course, the gameplay is limited. It's a demo! The whole free to play term itself is really where the problem is. The way it is being used today is downright misleading.
Nah, my investments are in gold and silver. Not the stuff you see on T.V offering the product. But rather the small and big mining companies that produce it :-) The stuff you see on T.V is just like these upstart companies and mediocre gaming companies that put out a bad product. Just ONE BIG SCAM! Ill stick to quality over quantity any day!
So why did you invest in gold and silver and not some tech startup or foreign stocks? Maybe because you didn't like the risk? Maybe because you wanted profit? So if you have a shitty mmo but could make a decent profit by turning it f2p, would you go for it? Purely from a financial pov?
From a financial POV yes. But as a gamer I have a conscience. I want the best experience a gamer can have. Currently there are very few titles that offer such.
You're assuming that the majority of companies are even motivated to make good games as opposed to just making as much money as possible. The only reason cash shops are everywhere now is that they make more money for most games than sub-only models do. As long as some people keep spending way more than a subscription price on lock boxes and powerups we're not going to get rid of cash shops even though I agree that they're mostly bad for games and gamers. They're good for the bottom line. For someone who claims to advocate capitalism you don't seem to have much understanding of how it actually works.
I think the game companies are doing just fine. There was a time when there were only subscription games and only about three available. Now we have hundreds of MMO's of nearly every type you can think of. Variety means something for everyone. There is no such thing as an MMO that everyone will say is the greatest, cause people just don't work that way. There are a lot of people who only like FTP MMO's so your idea excludes them right off the bat.
Customers shape MMO's cause if enough don't like it, it won't survive.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
with companies like riot making money literally hand over fist (i know, riot's game isnt an MMO but there is MAJOR overlap between the two) it's easy to see why companies want to try and exploit the model. Just like when WoW hit the big time everyone and their aunt flo tried to make a subscription based MMO. However i agree with your implied point that on average there is a heavy gap in quality between sub games and f2p games (excluding the ones that started off p2p like LOTRO and even those have somewhat suffered). look at the games list on this site and OMG there are a lot of games out there that are f2p that nobody has heard of, 'cus they suck.
I guess if market theory is correct eventually people will put their money where the quality is and we'll see a shift back to b2p and p2p games.... but then again that's given the assumption that the average consumer knows quality when they see it, which given a quick glance around the internet (slotomania for christ's sake) might very well not be the case.
the place where i think we will really see the big leap in mmo quality is the crowd-funding revolution... it allows people to directly support a game that more or less perfectly matches their desired game.
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Dwight D Eisenhower
My optimism wears heavy boots and is loud.
Henry Rollins
Variety is what the genre needs, not sameness. We are pretty close to this already.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
While I would agree that the payment model can have an effect on the overall quality of a game (i.e. micro-transactions being "promoted" by the design of the game, etc), I don't think that any one type of payment model is more (or less) likely to result in a game being good or not. The payment model used reflects what the developer "believes" in the most or believes will get them the most return. My idea is further supported by other MMO markets in which different types of payment models are much more or less successful.
As far as what the industry needs to change (and give us the next-gen MMO)... Essentially, there needs to be far more developers who are willing to push entirely new systems and game mechanics. That's kinda a "well-duh" answer, but it's exactly correct. Unfortunately, the MMO industry is incredibly risk adverse at the moment. No one wants to shell out millions of dollars in the hopes that a new MMO system will be successful. Some smaller developers are trying (to varied success), but there needs to be way more developers putting forth the effort before we're gonna see a truly next-gen MMO. (I realize you said "great", but imho the next great one will be next-gen - and not just because the developers call it that).
To be fair to the MMO industry, all entertainment markets are incredibly risk adverse right now. I mean, there are so many cop-drama knockoffs that they just gave up on making new names and just call them "NCIS-random city." New movie IP? Naw, just rehash one from 30-50 years ago and if it does well, make sequels until they're unprofitable. Why try to make a new TV series when you can make 50 "reality" shows and cancel the 49 that tank and keep the one blockbuster?
Edit: For reference, EQN seems to have potential when we talk about the next great MMO (or first truly next-gen mmo) if they can pull off all the stuff they're talking about.
"great mmo"? There is no such thing. Players have different preferences. MMO great for you probably is not great for me.
And devs are not obligated to do anything .. their game .. they can charge it anyway they want.
It doesn't matter what you think or like or whatever.
It matters what makes profit.
The production criteria on capitalism is exactly that, making profit.
And MMO companies make profit with all those ways, f2p, p2p, b2p, etc. If they don't, they alter their marketing scheme, or close down.
And there isn't anything "socialistic" in production as you claim. Socialism is when the means of production are owned by society as a whole. When they are owned by individuals, like it's now, it's called capitalism.
Oh jesus share ware reference.... just had to time warp back to the 90's. When I was typing out commands in mdos and doom was a common one or should i say
C:doomdoom.exe or something like that lol but yes shareware is a good analogy to f2p in a modern sense.
Want to buy this game, not sure play my demo. Change your mind, well give us some money and here are some extra features.
Heh, "most" includes who?
Currently 4 of top 5 mmos, population and financially are subscription based games. WOW, ESO, and Wildstar, EVE. The other, GW2 you have to buy the full game for.
Would you care to clarify?
Isn't only WoW the most "financially successful" of those 4 sub MMOs you listed? Or at least, the only one confirmed? I don't think there's any hard data that would say that ESO, Wildstar, and Eve are financially better than many F2P MMOs (SWTOR is especially doing well from what I hear, though that's a hybrid model so might not count).
The MMO company behind shovelware like League of Angels seems to be doing INSANELY well from financial reports leaked out, which I guess isn't surprising given that those games have tons of pay-to-win whales in them that give the game and compnay more money than like, 500+ subscribers would have. But... admittingly I hesitate to call League of Angels a game in the first place, much less an MMO.
I'm okay with box+sub if the game producers do not get greedy and :
(1) Add a cash shop.
(2) Charge more than $5 a month.
(3) Keep ultimate box sales over $20 (it's okay to widdle down from new release date).
(4) Give Steam sole rights to their game pushing an illegal and immoral MONOPOLY on consumers.
(5) Create exclusive content for VIP players (same principle as a cash shop).
If the game corp can avoid those five evils I will happily pay a monthly fee.
I think all developers should use a business model that generates positive revenue and that fits with how their consumer wants to spend their money. In my experience so far, there is little correlation between the business model after release and the quality of the product developed before it.
Actually, what we have seen is that MMOs that failed under the subscription model were able to improve in both quality and revenue once they switched to free to play.
"mediocre... suckering... [crazy analogy]... socialistic substandard..."
You forgot "poor people" and "real MMO/players/RPG/etc"
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
+1 to both these posters.
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
Dead? Really? I guess those of us that are playing them are just playing figments of our imagination then. I really must see my Doctor and get some stronger meds then, or I need to try that one size fits all white dinner jacket out and go to the hotel where I can sleep anyway because the floors and walls are all padded. I hear the food isn't very good but the sleeping accommodations are very comfy.
Edit:
By the way, I do not agree with the OP. I would never pay a sub for a game like Neverwinter, but I have no problem paying a sub for a game that doesn't have a cash shop for instance and keeps my attention for more than a few weeks.
Meh, PS2; Landmark, SWTOR all F2P, all great games in their own right and seem to be doing very well with that payment model.
not sure how much money they make - for them i hope it's enough- but i like the model TSW has (or in non mmo examples, LoL).
yes they started on a sub, yes they switched to B2P, and they have an awesome shop selling awesome clothings, i spend like 30 euro this month. more than i ever spend for WoW... per month.
the prob with MOST f2p games is plain and simple: you spend money, you get "good". that's not how it should work, kinda kills the idea of gaming, at least for me.
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"