I don't really think all MMOs should be anything except massive multiplayer games.... I do think there should be more B2P and P2P games on the market, the so called "Freemium" games don't work that well for me but MMOs needs to differ both mechanics wise and how you pay for them or we will have a rather stale bunch of similar games.
And we seen more than a few P2P games that have spent most of the work in the early levels of the game and hyping things up so they sell a lot of initial boxes (and a gamecard for anyone paranoid enough to not use their card when they sign up for that matter).
What we do need is games that are fully developed at release and who gets support and new content on a regular basis. If you then prefer to pay monthly fees, an initial box + expansions and vanity items or if you prefer a "free" game with a cashshop should be up to you as a customer.
I am absolutely against and do not support the F2P model. Thereby, I prefer a subscription model in which I have from the beginning on access to the full game and all its contents in order to enjoy the game to the fullest and not to find myself directly in front of a non-accessible area , a " lockbox " or during character generation to have to pay to unlock a certain race or class.
In F2P you always have the impression that something is not accessible before not paying for an unlock option or that the game is somehow an incomplete "demo" version , in which you have to buy the "special content" first. In this context terms like " exclusivity" and "better" are used in advertisements... stiring up a split in the community of players from the beginning on and not particularly contributing to solidarity. Moreover, the basic principles of an RPG suffer where you should have the opportunity to earn everything in the game by yourself through playing freely, even if it requires some diligence or several attempts. But at least the incentive is much better. The motivation is also very much lowered when you try to save some in-game currency by investing about 200 hours of gameplay for spending in e.g. some nice item/mount, and next to you someone else indulge himself the same item with a one time investment of 15 EUR / USD (etc., real money) in a few minutes. The other way around, players are supposed to buy so-called (overpriced) in-game packages in F2P games that contain supposedly "great" or "exclusive" stuff, but ultimately only serve to suck the money out of the pockets of players, by applying more subtle kind of psychological tricks what is no longer concealed any more by the developers of f2p titles. Finally, in F2P making money at any price is in the foreground, even if it sounds contradictory ... Accordingly, these games are designed with a greate Focus to get Money from players opposed to the traditional payment model where the game design is concentrated on the exploration of the game world without limitations and competition between players. A reasonable subscription model, which introduces ALL players with the same conditions into the game and provides access to all Content without preferences, still gives me the greatest charm to play a MMORPG with a high grade of fun and competition and longevity for the game in contrast to a so-called F2P game, which later develops itself to a P2W game from the perspective of a non-payer, while paying for it can quickly become an endless spiral of purchases in order to keep up with the "best" or "most extraordinary" players in the game. Furthermore, the item shop in some of F2P, and also B2P only titles is not without pitfalls: e.g. I want to play an archer and a visible quiver on the character is only obtainable by investing in the item shop, what should I make of it as a role player? You feel somekind to be hookwinked by that. For me many so-called items only purchasable through the in-game store belong BY DEFAULT in the Basic game and not in the Item Shop. Thereby, item Shops can also contribute to destroy the atmosphere of role-Play.
I some titles of can have time-limited (e.g. 14-30 days) Trial-keys with a Level-cap to test the game before having to purchase it, which I already find usefull to get an Impression of the game.
Furtheremore, my experience with F2P MMORPGs is that they have quite a lack of Quality and depth/Immersion and make loose the interest quite quickly.
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.
I don't agree with this because it is the business model that is determining the quality of games.
The problem however is there will ALWAYS be a market for pretty much anything,so devs are banking on not competing against each other from a technical standpoint but choosing to win fans through slick marketing and non game play videos.
Like everywhere in life,there are bored and impatient,no matter how bad a game is many will still buy it and play it at any cost.
Also imo and i am quite certain of it ,no matter we as consumers stopped buying into anything they sell us,they still would not make a quality game because they will always strive for EVERY market.Catering to everyone or as high a number as they can is not going to create quality in any one area.You have the PVE,the PVP,Linear and non linear questing driven by xp,then you have group versus solo,then you have camping type xp,then you have those that just like to explore or craft.
No developer is going to risk making ALL those areas top notch, so we get what we have been getting from them, half ass in every area but claim they cater to everyone.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
i believe money should fall from the sky too. Keeping up a subscription for 5 games i would like to play its not my idea gaming dream. 1 sub, the rest b2p, thats more like it. Not free, but buying the box.,
Originally posted by vgamer I think you are absolutely right, my friend. Why not do it yourself? Take your lifesavings and loans, start up a make or break company and become a smashing hit. I will eagerly await your first success or failure!
These are not make it or break it,they are either already rich from previous venues and or using investors money and they by no means are starving either.Then we have the new wave of crowd funding,again they are not taking out loans or using their own money.
Also a total no namer out of the blue is not going to get past the loan part let alone make a game.
MOST of these guys started back in the day when it was MUCH cheaper and less demand.Also many were already making a living working for other big firms,slowly dabbling in their own concepts while getting paid to work.
I can simply point to Smedley,he did not have to get a loan,he simply used his power within SOE to hire a few friends and make EQ.Imagine if we the forum users had access to money and hiring like he did,i am sure MANY of us could make a lot better game with a lot more creativity.IMO a lot of these old school guys don't have the vision and creativity to move on to better things,they still think old school is the way to go,well that and they are running a BUSINESS designed to make profit,not to make the best game they can make.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
However,in my opinion games which are f2p are just inferior games which can't justify charging a sub. That or they were a subscription MMO which went f2p because of severe decline in subscribers.
I find that subsription games like ESO and Final Fantasy XIV pump out more meaningful content that free to play games. WoW is the exception to the rule. They just don't release any new content through patches except during the first 1-6 months after an expansion. Then it's 1-2 years of nothing.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
Originally posted by vgamer I think you are absolutely right, my friend. Why not do it yourself? Take your lifesavings and loans, start up a make or break company and become a smashing hit. I will eagerly await your first success or failure!
These are not make it or break it,they are either already rich from previous venues and or using investors money and they by no means are starving either.Then we have the new wave of crowd funding,again they are not taking out loans or using their own money.
Also a total no namer out of the blue is not going to get past the loan part let alone make a game.
MOST of these guys started back in the day when it was MUCH cheaper and less demand.Also many were already making a living working for other big firms,slowly dabbling in their own concepts while getting paid to work.
I can simply point to Smedley,he did not have to get a loan,he simply used his power within SOE to hire a few friends and make EQ.Imagine if we the forum users had access to money and hiring like he did,i am sure MANY of us could make a lot better game with a lot more creativity.IMO a lot of these old school guys don't have the vision and creativity to move on to better things,they still think old school is the way to go,well that and they are running a BUSINESS designed to make profit,not to make the best game they can make.
Yeah, like Burning Labs... hmmm... no, not them. Heatwave Interactive? Hmmmm... they didn't have money thrown at them either. CCP? Artix? The eGenesis team? Iron Realms? Iron Will Games? Three Rings? KingsIsle? Guild Software?
You didn't research this much did you?
Riot Games?
Wait... Riot did manage to secure six million back in 2008 or so, well before Steve Snow joined the team. I wonder how a bunch of 'no namers' managed that. Maybe..... MAYBE it's because they had a sound business plan and the talent to pull it off.
Anyone that thinks money is their main obstacle is someone that doesn't realize the real obstacle is themselves.
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
Another reason why I don't like pay2win games is this:
A developer creating a game without a cash shop (no matter if subscription based and/or just having an initial payment) tries to create the best game possible for the available amount of money and time. The better the result, the more people will buy it and play it longer and the more profit the developer gains.
With a cash shop game it's different. If you have lots of fun playing it, just like that, the developer failed. The aim has to be to first get you easily into the game, and then throw more and more obstacles into your path, that can only be removed or lessened by spending money. That continues until you end up with a game so annoying that you stop playing, or you start paying.
So if you pay nothing, you get a bad game.
If you pay a decent amount of money, about the same as a subscription fee, you end up with a mediocre game. For this amount of money you could be as well playing a subscription game, where the developer tries to give you the best possible experience for your money. But instead you play a game, where the developer tries to make the game not too good, since you'd then stop spending money.
And if you play a lot of money (reading hundreds and hundreds of $$$), then you either get a good game, or one where you just faceroll through the content.
In the average, the free 2 play players pay more money for a worse game. Which is the reason why "free" to play games are now the norm, while subscription games died out.
"xpowderx" 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.
Your opening statement indicates that you do not truly understand how the process works. The people that work on making a product, are generally not the same people that market and sell the product. This applies to almost all products, real or virtual. It is very common for companies to have people who are really good at one thing, but not as good at another. This is why they have people/teams who do marketing, and sales strategies and other people who do game design and/or the actual coding.
"xpowderx" As long as we the player have f2p mmos. The chances of us ever seeing that ultimate mmo is very slim.
Why cant there be multiple types? Why are they exclusive. Even if your ultimate mmo is not F2P, why does the fact that they exist prevent if from happening?
"xpowderx" 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.
Right now the gaming industry is in the midst of the largest amount of mergers and aquisitions every. This means that more companies are being bought out or merging than in the past. This is what happens when companies are not doing well, but dont totally fail. The crash of 1983 is an example of when a huge amounf of gaming companies just fall of the face of the earth (totally fail).
"iridescence" 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.
It is generally assumed that a good product will make more money than a poor product (if all else remains the same).
"Loktofeit" 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.
Products that offer options to their consumers are generally more financially successful than products that limit the options. In retail, this is offering cash, credit card, debit cards, etc. In mmo's this is offering direct purchase, monthly sub, and in game purchase. The 'best' option may vary both by product, and by consumer... so the more options available, the more likely you are to make a sale.
"Tara_Windwalker" The best example of a game that was funded by subscription only, with no micro-transactions is Lego Universe. Whatever was needed in the game was earned, traded, gifted from another player, or given through codes from Lego. Everyone had an equal ability to advance in the game. Unfortunately, it did not receive the publicity it needed to survive.
When Lego Universe made the change from promotional product, to comercial product, it was found to not be commercially viable. It was a great game to promote Lego's... but a terrible game to make a profit.
"k61977" I wish game companies were forced to release information on exactly were subs revenue was spent, since it is a contract with the customer. If at least half didn't go into future development the game should be shut down.
Most of the money generated for the first few years of a game go towards recoving the money spent on initial development. Most games try to pay off this investment with 2 years of operation. Atthat time they then assess the lifespan of the game.
"Muntz" I don't not believe the payment model has any real tangible effect on quality of product. Not sure why socialism is always equated to f2p. I blame the current popular boogie man use of the word. Neither the government nor any other group owns a f2p MMO as far as I know. They appear to me to be highly capitalistic. The current MMO climate has boat loads of competition making it healthy capitalism.
It is true that all games must be tailored to the payment model. However, these changes come at the end of the development, and are generally superficial.
As for socialist/capitolist... well P2P is socialist. Everyone pays one price, and gets the same thing. F2P is capitolist. People pay as much/little as they want, and get varied return.
"Jemcrystal" It would be nice to know what the average overhead is to run an mmo.
An 'average' cost would be 20k per server, per month (server holds up to 3k concurrent users) for a no frills operation. If you start adding service, support, and actual development, the cost easily goes up to 50-100k (or more if you dont have scale).
The bottom line is this. MMO's are a form of entertainment.There is no one right way to monetize entertainment. Let me use television as an example.
F2P is like cable. There is a large variety of content, but it generally doesnt get the depth of content upfront. P2P is like premium channels.You get 'premium' content, but you have to pay for it upfront.
The issue today is that there are no premium channels, only premium shows. Imaging having to pay an extra fee just to watch Game of Thrones. It would not have been the hit it is today, if it stood alone. However, because it was part of a larget premium network, it got wide endought viewing to takeoff.
Today you are starting to see the formation of these premium channels. SOE is bundling all of its games under one sub. Trion, Nexon, Perfect World and others are in the position to do the same, and are watching to see how it works for SOE. This is the change that will allow these companies to compete with WoW and to operate in a manner similar to other entertainment medium (as shown with my tv example).
It is generally assumed that a good product will make more money than a poor product (if all else remains the same).
Would be nice if that were true but when FarmVille makes millions while Vanguard shuts down it seems overly optimistic to assume that quality and ambition always win out and some companies definitely are out just to make a quick buck duping people into buying poor quality games.
Trying to make all MMOs going forward have nothing but Subscription is the best way to crash the MMO market. The few remaining MMO gamers willing to pay a subscription will be spread thin and in combative stances for their game versus other ones; they will be compared to the best B2P or F2P has to offer in addition to WoW, and those who aren't absolutely 100% perfect will collapse to past games and or the one that does stand out. It just isn't a smart business move for the industry as a whole and should be avoided like the plague.
The market needs diversity and options to grow -- this includes P2P and other payment types, as well as new ones that haven't been established as of yet.
Due to frequent travel in my youth, English isn't something I consider my primary language (and thus I obtained quirky ways of writing). German and French were always easier for me despite my family being U.S. citizens for over a century. Spanish I learned as a requirement in school, Japanese and Korean I acquired for my youthful desire of anime and gaming (and also work now). I only debate in English to help me work with it (and limit things). In addition, I'm not smart enough to remain fluent in everything and typically need exposure to get in the groove of things again if I haven't heard it in a while. If you understand Mandarin, I know a little, but it has actually been a challenge and could use some help.
Also, I thoroughly enjoy debates and have accounts on over a dozen sites for this. If you wish to engage in such, please put effort in a post and provide sources -- I will then do the same with what I already wrote (if I didn't) as well as with my responses to your own. Expanding my information on a subject makes my stance either change or strengthen the next time I speak of it or write a thesis. Allow me to thank you sincerely for your time.
It is generally assumed that a good product will make more money than a poor product (if all else remains the same).
Would be nice if that were true but when FarmVille makes millions while Vanguard shuts down it seems overly optimistic to assume that quality and ambition always win out and some companies definitely are out just to make a quick buck duping people into buying poor quality games.
Why do you assume everyone would like an mmo over a little time waster at lunch ? It wasn't a poor quality game if all you wanted it for was 5 or 10 minutes of simple entertainment instead of a substitute for your real life.
no I never played it. It's not in the genre of games I even look at.
Agree fully. I see F2P as killer of good gaming. Should be banned by law. Mainly because it is NEVER actually free. If you wan't to play decently such games, you spend a lot of money. Company that is unable to create game that would make money from subs should switch to another area.
Trying to make all MMOs going forward have nothing but Subscription is the best way to crash the MMO market. The few remaining MMO gamers willing to pay a subscription will be spread thin and in combative stances for their game versus other ones; they will be compared to the best B2P or F2P has to offer in addition to WoW, and those who aren't absolutely 100% perfect will collapse to past games and or the one that does stand out. It just isn't a smart business move for the industry as a whole and should be avoided like the plague.
The market needs diversity and options to grow -- this includes P2P and other payment types, as well as new ones that haven't been established as of yet.
This assumes of course that the MMO market needs to grow. Personally, I feel the 'MMO' market needs to shrink before there will be any meaningful progress.
Getting back to grass-roots, bringing back the 'RPG', losing the jocks/hipsters/soccer mums/cool kids would go a long way to rehabilitating the genre. Then I would just blatantly say right on the box... "IF YOU CAN'T PLAY AT LEAST 3 HOURS AT A TIME DO NOT BUY THIS'.
Then once you have your audience that actually wants deep, engaging gameplay, you can really determine whether charging them monthly fee for access or selling them bits and pieces at a time brings in more revenue.
The thing I've noticed is when there is a convergence of sub/f2p (eg swtor) it tends to create a tier of 'second class citizens' within the player community. As soon as someone says they cannot participate in xyz activity or wear xyz gear because of f2p limitations they will often be derided as f2p trash. I'm not saying this is fair but it happens.
Having games as sub only or f2p only is tempting, and would certainly stop the incessant crying is see in Archeage forums about the inequity of the f2p model compared to subs.
Originally posted by maji I just think that it's depressing that people are not equal in MMORPGs anymore, since subscription MMORPGs died out.When there were still non-cash shop MMORPGs, people were equal. It didn't matter whether you were a rich kid in real life or a student scrounging up some coins each day, people in the game were the same. Not anymore. The guy next to you has a mount that looks better than yours? Buy one in the cash shop. You are gaining XP not quickly enough? Buy XP boosts. You keep dying in PvP? Buy equipment with stats.
It was never equal though was it, if you had more time you could be more powerful. I would argue that because of that there has always been people looking for ways to even the playing field. Gold selling, exploiting, and hacks far pre-date F2P. Because they see the need and they could never stop it companies have come up with a way to make money off it now.
But it is. No one has more than 24 hours in a given day. If a player has more free time, that is due to choices made and priorities set.
If Player A gets to max level in 90 days, that affects Player B in no manner. Player B still can make it to max level, in their own time. If a player falls behind their friends, there are more players to make friends with as they level more slowly.
Cash shops divide players by the money the earn. Not everyone can make the same amount of money, or have the opportunity to do so.
Time is a finite number for everyone, equally. Money is not.
- 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
I actually don't mind cash shops or pay for perks, as long as they're not thrown in my face the instant I start playing. Theres way too many MMOs where you're getting ads for BUY THIS SWORD ITS ON SALE LIMITED TIME ONLY!!!! like right out of the freaking gate. Wait till I'm like almost max level before you start throwing ads at me. When I'm invested in the game, thats when I'll think about making cash shop purchases, not 20 seconds after I've rolled a freaking character.
Comments
I don't really think all MMOs should be anything except massive multiplayer games.... I do think there should be more B2P and P2P games on the market, the so called "Freemium" games don't work that well for me but MMOs needs to differ both mechanics wise and how you pay for them or we will have a rather stale bunch of similar games.
And we seen more than a few P2P games that have spent most of the work in the early levels of the game and hyping things up so they sell a lot of initial boxes (and a gamecard for anyone paranoid enough to not use their card when they sign up for that matter).
What we do need is games that are fully developed at release and who gets support and new content on a regular basis. If you then prefer to pay monthly fees, an initial box + expansions and vanity items or if you prefer a "free" game with a cashshop should be up to you as a customer.
I am absolutely against and do not support the F2P model. Thereby, I prefer a subscription model in which I have from the beginning on access to the full game and all its contents in order to enjoy the game to the fullest and not to find myself directly in front of a non-accessible area , a " lockbox " or during character generation to have to pay to unlock a certain race or class.
In F2P you always have the impression that something is not accessible before not paying for an unlock option or that the game is somehow an incomplete "demo" version , in which you have to buy the "special content" first. In this context terms like " exclusivity" and "better" are used in advertisements... stiring up a split in the community of players from the beginning on and not particularly contributing to solidarity. Moreover, the basic principles of an RPG suffer where you should have the opportunity to earn everything in the game by yourself through playing freely, even if it requires some diligence or several attempts. But at least the incentive is much better. The motivation is also very much lowered when you try to save some in-game currency by investing about 200 hours of gameplay for spending in e.g. some nice item/mount, and next to you someone else indulge himself the same item with a one time investment of 15 EUR / USD (etc., real money) in a few minutes.
The other way around, players are supposed to buy so-called (overpriced) in-game packages in F2P games that contain supposedly "great" or "exclusive" stuff, but ultimately only serve to suck the money out of the pockets of players, by applying more subtle kind of psychological tricks what is no longer concealed any more by the developers of f2p titles. Finally, in F2P making money at any price is in the foreground, even if it sounds contradictory ... Accordingly, these games are designed with a greate Focus to get Money from players opposed to the traditional payment model where the game design is concentrated on the exploration of the game world without limitations and competition between players.
A reasonable subscription model, which introduces ALL players with the same conditions into the game and provides access to all Content without preferences, still gives me the greatest charm to play a MMORPG with a high grade of fun and competition and longevity for the game in contrast to a so-called F2P game, which later develops itself to a P2W game from the perspective of a non-payer, while paying for it can quickly become an endless spiral of purchases in order to keep up with the "best" or "most extraordinary" players in the game.
Furthermore, the item shop in some of F2P, and also B2P only titles is not without pitfalls: e.g. I want to play an archer and a visible quiver on the character is only obtainable by investing in the item shop, what should I make of it as a role player? You feel somekind to be hookwinked by that. For me many so-called items only purchasable through the in-game store belong BY DEFAULT in the Basic game and not in the Item Shop. Thereby, item Shops can also contribute to destroy the atmosphere of role-Play.
I some titles of can have time-limited (e.g. 14-30 days) Trial-keys with a Level-cap to test the game before having to purchase it, which I already find usefull to get an Impression of the game.
Furtheremore, my experience with F2P MMORPGs is that they have quite a lack of Quality and depth/Immersion and make loose the interest quite quickly.
I don't agree with this because it is the business model that is determining the quality of games.
The problem however is there will ALWAYS be a market for pretty much anything,so devs are banking on not competing against each other from a technical standpoint but choosing to win fans through slick marketing and non game play videos.
Like everywhere in life,there are bored and impatient,no matter how bad a game is many will still buy it and play it at any cost.
Also imo and i am quite certain of it ,no matter we as consumers stopped buying into anything they sell us,they still would not make a quality game because they will always strive for EVERY market.Catering to everyone or as high a number as they can is not going to create quality in any one area.You have the PVE,the PVP,Linear and non linear questing driven by xp,then you have group versus solo,then you have camping type xp,then you have those that just like to explore or craft.
No developer is going to risk making ALL those areas top notch, so we get what we have been getting from them, half ass in every area but claim they cater to everyone.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
i believe money should fall from the sky too. Keeping up a subscription for 5 games i would like to play its not my idea gaming dream. 1 sub, the rest b2p, thats more like it. Not free, but buying the box.,
These are not make it or break it,they are either already rich from previous venues and or using investors money and they by no means are starving either.Then we have the new wave of crowd funding,again they are not taking out loans or using their own money.
Also a total no namer out of the blue is not going to get past the loan part let alone make a game.
MOST of these guys started back in the day when it was MUCH cheaper and less demand.Also many were already making a living working for other big firms,slowly dabbling in their own concepts while getting paid to work.
I can simply point to Smedley,he did not have to get a loan,he simply used his power within SOE to hire a few friends and make EQ.Imagine if we the forum users had access to money and hiring like he did,i am sure MANY of us could make a lot better game with a lot more creativity.IMO a lot of these old school guys don't have the vision and creativity to move on to better things,they still think old school is the way to go,well that and they are running a BUSINESS designed to make profit,not to make the best game they can make.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Choice is never a bad thing.
However,in my opinion games which are f2p are just inferior games which can't justify charging a sub. That or they were a subscription MMO which went f2p because of severe decline in subscribers.
I find that subsription games like ESO and Final Fantasy XIV pump out more meaningful content that free to play games. WoW is the exception to the rule. They just don't release any new content through patches except during the first 1-6 months after an expansion. Then it's 1-2 years of nothing.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
Yeah, like Burning Labs... hmmm... no, not them. Heatwave Interactive? Hmmmm... they didn't have money thrown at them either. CCP? Artix? The eGenesis team? Iron Realms? Iron Will Games? Three Rings? KingsIsle? Guild Software?
You didn't research this much did you?
Riot Games?
Wait... Riot did manage to secure six million back in 2008 or so, well before Steve Snow joined the team. I wonder how a bunch of 'no namers' managed that. Maybe..... MAYBE it's because they had a sound business plan and the talent to pull it off.
Anyone that thinks money is their main obstacle is someone that doesn't realize the real obstacle is themselves.
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
Another reason why I don't like pay2win games is this:
A developer creating a game without a cash shop (no matter if subscription based and/or just having an initial payment) tries to create the best game possible for the available amount of money and time. The better the result, the more people will buy it and play it longer and the more profit the developer gains.
With a cash shop game it's different. If you have lots of fun playing it, just like that, the developer failed. The aim has to be to first get you easily into the game, and then throw more and more obstacles into your path, that can only be removed or lessened by spending money. That continues until you end up with a game so annoying that you stop playing, or you start paying.
So if you pay nothing, you get a bad game.
If you pay a decent amount of money, about the same as a subscription fee, you end up with a mediocre game. For this amount of money you could be as well playing a subscription game, where the developer tries to give you the best possible experience for your money. But instead you play a game, where the developer tries to make the game not too good, since you'd then stop spending money.
And if you play a lot of money (reading hundreds and hundreds of $$$), then you either get a good game, or one where you just faceroll through the content.
In the average, the free 2 play players pay more money for a worse game. Which is the reason why "free" to play games are now the norm, while subscription games died out.
Let's play Fallen Earth (blind, 300 episodes)
Let's play Guild Wars 2 (blind, 45 episodes)
Why cant there be multiple types? Why are they exclusive. Even if your ultimate mmo is not F2P, why does the fact that they exist prevent if from happening?
Right now the gaming industry is in the midst of the largest amount of mergers and aquisitions every. This means that more companies are being bought out or merging than in the past. This is what happens when companies are not doing well, but dont totally fail. The crash of 1983 is an example of when a huge amounf of gaming companies just fall of the face of the earth (totally fail). It is generally assumed that a good product will make more money than a poor product (if all else remains the same). Products that offer options to their consumers are generally more financially successful than products that limit the options. In retail, this is offering cash, credit card, debit cards, etc. In mmo's this is offering direct purchase, monthly sub, and in game purchase. The 'best' option may vary both by product, and by consumer... so the more options available, the more likely you are to make a sale. When Lego Universe made the change from promotional product, to comercial product, it was found to not be commercially viable. It was a great game to promote Lego's... but a terrible game to make a profit. Most of the money generated for the first few years of a game go towards recoving the money spent on initial development. Most games try to pay off this investment with 2 years of operation. Atthat time they then assess the lifespan of the game. It is true that all games must be tailored to the payment model. However, these changes come at the end of the development, and are generally superficial.As for socialist/capitolist... well P2P is socialist. Everyone pays one price, and gets the same thing. F2P is capitolist. People pay as much/little as they want, and get varied return.
An 'average' cost would be 20k per server, per month (server holds up to 3k concurrent users) for a no frills operation. If you start adding service, support, and actual development, the cost easily goes up to 50-100k (or more if you dont have scale).The bottom line is this. MMO's are a form of entertainment.There is no one right way to monetize entertainment. Let me use television as an example.
F2P is like cable. There is a large variety of content, but it generally doesnt get the depth of content upfront. P2P is like premium channels.You get 'premium' content, but you have to pay for it upfront.
The issue today is that there are no premium channels, only premium shows. Imaging having to pay an extra fee just to watch Game of Thrones. It would not have been the hit it is today, if it stood alone. However, because it was part of a larget premium network, it got wide endought viewing to takeoff.
Today you are starting to see the formation of these premium channels. SOE is bundling all of its games under one sub. Trion, Nexon, Perfect World and others are in the position to do the same, and are watching to see how it works for SOE. This is the change that will allow these companies to compete with WoW and to operate in a manner similar to other entertainment medium (as shown with my tv example).
Would be nice if that were true but when FarmVille makes millions while Vanguard shuts down it seems overly optimistic to assume that quality and ambition always win out and some companies definitely are out just to make a quick buck duping people into buying poor quality games.
Trying to make all MMOs going forward have nothing but Subscription is the best way to crash the MMO market. The few remaining MMO gamers willing to pay a subscription will be spread thin and in combative stances for their game versus other ones; they will be compared to the best B2P or F2P has to offer in addition to WoW, and those who aren't absolutely 100% perfect will collapse to past games and or the one that does stand out. It just isn't a smart business move for the industry as a whole and should be avoided like the plague.
The market needs diversity and options to grow -- this includes P2P and other payment types, as well as new ones that haven't been established as of yet.
Why do you assume everyone would like an mmo over a little time waster at lunch ? It wasn't a poor quality game if all you wanted it for was 5 or 10 minutes of simple entertainment instead of a substitute for your real life.
no I never played it. It's not in the genre of games I even look at.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
This assumes of course that the MMO market needs to grow. Personally, I feel the 'MMO' market needs to shrink before there will be any meaningful progress.
Getting back to grass-roots, bringing back the 'RPG', losing the jocks/hipsters/soccer mums/cool kids would go a long way to rehabilitating the genre. Then I would just blatantly say right on the box... "IF YOU CAN'T PLAY AT LEAST 3 HOURS AT A TIME DO NOT BUY THIS'.
Then once you have your audience that actually wants deep, engaging gameplay, you can really determine whether charging them monthly fee for access or selling them bits and pieces at a time brings in more revenue.
The thing I've noticed is when there is a convergence of sub/f2p (eg swtor) it tends to create a tier of 'second class citizens' within the player community. As soon as someone says they cannot participate in xyz activity or wear xyz gear because of f2p limitations they will often be derided as f2p trash. I'm not saying this is fair but it happens.
Having games as sub only or f2p only is tempting, and would certainly stop the incessant crying is see in Archeage forums about the inequity of the f2p model compared to subs.
My favorite payment model was GW1 btw
If Player A gets to max level in 90 days, that affects Player B in no manner. Player B still can make it to max level, in their own time. If a player falls behind their friends, there are more players to make friends with as they level more slowly.
Cash shops divide players by the money the earn. Not everyone can make the same amount of money, or have the opportunity to do so.
Time is a finite number for everyone, equally. Money is not.
- 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