Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

General: Massey: Subsciption Fee Creativity

DanaDana Member Posts: 2,415

With increased industry acceptance of micro-transaction, or so-called free-to-play MMOs, Dana looks at how companies can get creative with subscription fees to help them become a viable long term way of paying for MMOs.

Games can also get cute with multiple tiers of subscriptions. Why not provide players with options, not unlike ordering cable. When I play MMOs, I don’t raid. I don’t like raids, I don’t want to do raids and I don’t care about raids. Yet, I pay the same fee as people who raid. Why not let more casual players subscribe at lower rates, but without certain kinds of content. When you order digital cable, if you don’t want the Cooking Network, you don’t order it. Provide packages that gate content and let people trim down that monthly fee by lopping off kinds of content that they know they’ll never use. I am not saying raiders deserve to pay more, this is just an example. If the content were assemble into value packs, though, people could trim back in lean months, yet stay involved, and not have to pay for full access to a game if they don’t intend to use it all. This also gives players options. Right now the choice is simple: subscribe or not. If players could scale back, they might be more inclined to keep that account open.

Read it all here.

Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios

«134

Comments

  • fansedefansede Member UncommonPosts: 960

     Glad to see you jump in the water with us. The water is chilly, but tolerable. You problably know more than us being in the business, so answer me this.

    How hard is it to implement flexible payment options?  are there additional expense/ managing factors we are not aware of?

    That being said I cannot imagine the future of MMOs in the west not implementing RMT in their systems.  As long as games make item shops optional and not essential for the gaming experience, I have no qualms with it.  I am particularly intrigued with the free to play game Nodiatis (I posted this elsewhere too).  Players who buy goodies spread the wealth (by givign in game coin) to other players whether they subscribe or not. What I am not a big fan of, but could be a useful tool is the epic item concept. If you loot an epic item, you have to purchase 'virtues' to enable its use. Otherwise you can only sell it. This may tie in along with the non raid service subscription you offered up. If you don't like to raid, but you like the gear of raids, well $5 of unlocking fee allows you to wear / sell / trade the epic item. Of course you still have to pony up the gold to buy it at auction, etc.

    They also have 'time cards" which grants a player rested experience (increased rates of advancement, drops, etc.). $4.99 grants you 6 hours of rested time. Note the game normally grants two hours of rested time to all players per day after that advancement rates are reduced. 

    Other things that may be of value is the rebate. Buy now, get a rebate later. 

     

  • EricDanieEricDanie Member UncommonPosts: 2,238

     Well, charging REALLY like cable (item malls aren't like cable) would give some interesting development options. Instead of cycling through different focuses on each patch (say, patch 1.0 is about raiding, patch 1.1 is about PvP Battlegrounds, patch 1.2 is about new open-world areas and quests) or favoring a certain focus (patch 1.1 gives a new raid and something else, 1.2 a new raid and a new BG, etc), they would need to improve everything to keep the service appealing.

    What I don't and never will agree with is charging people for virtual items, even fluff stuff, it's a way too powerful and simple to charge for actually no-content, rather than charging for expansions, campaigns (à la GW), differential access monthly-fees, etc. And I still have my doubts on charging in the previous paragraph's ways, usually devs charge way more but don't actually give us quality worth the "more" (but worth "less" happens, and a lot), I have yet to see this happen succesfully.

    What the P2P industry needs to provide us ASAP IMO are the hourly plans for the casual players to have a choice on what to play instead of paying multiple $15 fees to play 5 hours of each MMO per week, it's simply not efficient. And it's not everyone that wants to dedicate to a simple MMO. THIS would give new ways of entry into MMOs.

  • johnspartanjohnspartan Member Posts: 172

    Counterproductive.

    Say you don't raid and only pay 11.99 a month to play instead of 14.99. Someone invites you to a raid, you get excited, you think "hey maybe I'll try it just this once" nope too bad you only play 11.99.

    It discourages people from trying new things.

    It's nickle and diming for content. Bad.

    Raiding isn't any more elite or special then anything else, it's just part of the game why should I have to pay more? 



    Bad idea. Period. 



    That being said, I agree not everyone should charge the premium 14.99. Lotro should make 9.99 their permanent price, same with games like AoC/WAR etc. and other smaller titles.

    One idea that is kind of interesting is buying blocks of time.



    14.99 or whatever for unlimited, but you could buy maybe 30-40 hours play time for $6.99... 41-80 hours $9.99 etc. just making up numbers.

    Your opinion is immaterial.

  • PEGShanePEGShane Member Posts: 25

    An interesting idea that many of us have thought about many times, but I think the core problem is the moment you charge less it reinforces the fact that "you're not as good as WoW."*

    Now that may be a reality everyone has to face. But it also may not. Pirates of the Burning Sea is a much better *pirate* game than WoW, for example. Is it as good all the way around? Nope, but it's better than WoW in the area if focuses on.

    Another factor is that the revenue from $14.95 for a base of 75K to 120K people is still pretty much the bare minimum you need to create and sustain any sort of base level world. You really just can't go below that unless you're something like Runescape which has very simple graphics and, frankly, found a niche it's not likely to be knocked out of anytime soon.

    The argument has been made that smaller games actually should charge *more* for subscriptions than larger games because there are fewer costs to absorb in the "economy of scale" than WoW. It's kinda like shopping at your local mom-and-pop versus Wal-Mart. The counter to that of course is "Why is it my duty to support a smaller game when I can save money by playing WoW?" The answer of course is that it's not. Only the individual consumer can decide whether or not a game with a higher price-tag is worth the same or more than WoW because of the experience or features it offers.

    What I like about your article is that instead of saying "how can we be bigger than WoW" you started with "what other ways might we make our subscription more desirable to customers?" That's a fascinating subject, and one I think smaller developers should consider. We can be more agile, more responsive, and perhaps offer more customized, personalized experiences than larger games, for example. Or we can just offer a very different focus (like Pirates) that can't be found elsewhere. A well-capitalized company might offer multiple games for a single price (like SOE's Station). The list goes on, but you get the point.

    Cheers :)

    Shane Hensley

  • DanaDana Member Posts: 2,415
    Originally posted by PEGShane


    An interesting idea that many of us have thought about many times, but I think the core problem is the moment you charge less it reinforces the fact that "you're not as good as WoW."*
    Now that may be a reality everyone has to face. But it also may not. Pirates of the Burning Sea is a much better *pirate* game than WoW, for example. Is it as good all the way around? Nope, but it's better than WoW in the area if focuses on.
    Another factor is that the revenue from $14.95 for a base of 75K to 120K people is still pretty much the bare minimum you need to create and sustain any sort of base level world. You really just can't go below that unless you're something like Runescape which has very simple graphics and, frankly, found a niche it's not likely to be knocked out of anytime soon.
    The argument has been made that smaller games actually should charge *more* for subscriptions than larger games because there are fewer costs to absorb in the "economy of scale" than WoW. It's kinda like shopping at your local mom-and-pop versus Wal-Mart. The counter to that of course is "Why is it my duty to support a smaller game when I can save money by playing WoW?" The answer of course is that it's not. Only the individual consumer can decide whether or not a game with a higher price-tag is worth the same or more than WoW because of the experience or features it offers.
    What I like about your article is that instead of saying "how can we be bigger than WoW" you started with "what other ways might we make our subscription more desirable to customers?" That's a fascinating subject, and one I think smaller developers should consider. We can be more agile, more responsive, and perhaps offer more customized, personalized experiences than larger games, for example. Or we can just offer a very different focus (like Pirates) that can't be found elsewhere. A well-capitalized company might offer multiple games for a single price (like SOE's Station). The list goes on, but you get the point.
    Cheers :)
    Shane Hensley

     

    Good points Shane, definitely some extra things to think about in here.

    A couple specific things though. In response to "the moment you charge less it reinforces the fact that "you're not as good as WoW." -- Bluntly, that's just fact for many. And sometimes people will take the lesser product if they feel it's the better value. See the sneaker analogy.

    It would be interesting to mine out real data on break even points for games. Admitedly, I am no expert there, but "theoretically" it could be argued that smaller companies have less costs, thus should be able to charge less, but that's just a simplistic look at it, I admit.

    In response to John's points about nickle and diming. This kind of approach opens doors. For example, what stops a game from offering non-raiders "free raids for a month" or "five free raids" or something to encourage them to upgrade. Or even, the ability to upgrade right there. Or, now I am going into micro transaction territory, the ability to buy a single raid. Think of it like cable. You order the packages you want, but they still frequently give me other ones to try and get me hooked and have PPV movies on there.

    Dana Massey
    Formerly of MMORPG.com
    Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios

  • OzmodanOzmodan Member EpicPosts: 9,726

    One thing everyone one of you miss when discussing the differences of f2p and subscription fees.  The subscription fee is guaranteed, the item shop money is not.  When you try to sell investors on the game, they are going to balk at the f2p model as a sole revenue source because it is completely indeterminent.   My experience so far with f2p game is that only 10-15% invest in the item shop and probably less than a third more than the normal monthly subscription cost.  So the bean counters are going to be less enthused about the f2p model.

    I do agree that some games need to be more flexible when it comes to subscription costs.  There is also nothing wrong with the combined subscription/item shop model as long as the item shop contains only fluff items.  One you introduce leveling aids or equipment in the item shop you will essentially kill off many of the free players because they can no longer compete and without the volume the free players add to the game the paying ones will also leave.

    I would not have a problem with a $30 subscription cost on a premium game, but it again would have to be much better than what is offered currently, or a specific niche that I wanted to experience in.

  • thaniththanith Member Posts: 144
    Originally posted by fansede


     Glad to see you jump in the water with us. The water is chilly, but tolerable. You problably know more than us being in the business, so answer me this.
    How hard is it to implement flexible payment options?  are there additional expense/ managing factors we are not aware of?
    That being said I cannot imagine the future of MMOs in the west not implementing RMT in their systems.  As long as games make item shops optional and not essential for the gaming experience, I have no qualms with it.  I am particularly intrigued with the free to play game Nodiatis (I posted this elsewhere too).  Players who buy goodies spread the wealth (by givign in game coin) to other players whether they subscribe or not. What I am not a big fan of, but could be a useful tool is the epic item concept. If you loot an epic item, you have to purchase 'virtues' to enable its use. Otherwise you can only sell it. This may tie in along with the non raid service subscription you offered up. If you don't like to raid, but you like the gear of raids, well $5 of unlocking fee allows you to wear / sell / trade the epic item. Of course you still have to pony up the gold to buy it at auction, etc.
    They also have 'time cards" which grants a player rested experience (increased rates of advancement, drops, etc.). $4.99 grants you 6 hours of rested time. Note the game normally grants two hours of rested time to all players per day after that advancement rates are reduced. 
    Other things that may be of value is the rebate. Buy now, get a rebate later. 
     

     

    despite the fountain of your knowledge about mmorpgs in the western market:

    <quote>

    I cannot imagine the future of MMOs in the west not implementing RMT in their systems

    </quote>

    the following  games fare well without microtransaction crap:

    WoW

    LotR

    Vanguard

    SoR

    AoC

    ...

     

     

    image

  • FaelanFaelan Member UncommonPosts: 819

    Regarding paying $30 or more for an MMO.

     

    This is something I'm extremely willing to do and I have in a sense done so in the past (3 EVE accounts at the same time until I got the space blues and way before that, 2 SWG accounts at the same time until the NGE nuked it).

     

    However, it doesn't have to be a "mercedes" type MMO. It just has to be what I'm looking for. A game that is a near perfect match to what I desire is a lot more worth to me than WoW which severely lacks end game content to me since I'm not much of a raider or competitive arena style PvPer. So if I'm willing to pay $14.99 for WoW which lacks several things in my eyes, why shouldn't I be willing to pay more for an MMO that has what I need?

     

    I'd pay $49.99 a month without blinking an eye for a nice up-to-date skill based solo friendly sandbox fantasy MMO with a rich crafting and housing system... and a ton of interesting races beyond the "let's so how many reskinned variations of elves, dwarves and humans we can make". It doesn't have to offer more content or shinier graphics than the average MMO. It just have to fit my prefered play style.

    I'm a big ol' fluffy carewolf. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

  • PEGShanePEGShane Member Posts: 25

    Dana, I'm told--and I have no direct knowledge of this, so please take it with a grain of salt--that one of the vodka brands (Smirnoff, I think), was the "cheap" vodka for a long time. They supposedly hired a marketing guy who did one simple thing--he raised the price to significantly higher than the biggest brand and positioned it as "better." Sales went through the roof and Smirnoff is now a huge company. (Again--so I've been told.)

    Would that work in our space? I dunno--probably depends entirely on what special experience the game provided and the customer service as well. But an intersting data point.

    And your shoe analogy works backward as well. Maybe the $30 shoes are the standard. Maybe it's the Nike--which likely costs much less to make due to volume and ability to negotiate overseas with cheap labor sources--that is the "other game" in this analogy.

    Thanks for a great discussion. :)

    Shane

  • ericbelserericbelser Member Posts: 783

    Based on forum arguments here and nearly everywhere else lately, I can see one big problem with a "tiered" subscription plan....it would take mere weeks (maybe even only days) before a vocal minority of those paying the lower price began screaming about they "deserve" access to the same content and that it's not "fair" to deny them shiny loot just because they pay less.

     

  • CarolynKohCarolynKoh Staff WriterMember Posts: 202

    EQ tried offering a premium MMO Server service a while ago and it actually lasted some time.  It had different & more quest content, more GMS on staff, and had special deals for members of the server attending the Fan Faires.  It ultimately went away but I enjoyed it while it lasted.

    Notice: The views expressed in this post are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of MMORPG.com or its management.

  • MorthaneMorthane Member Posts: 2

     Remind me again why Subscription based games are bad? 

    There's absolutely no incentive for a game to charge less than $15/mo under any circumstances. It's a minimal cost for the amount of gameplay offered, and company would do nothing but potentially dwarf itself by doing so.

    I often look at the money-saving features of MMO gaming compared to other video games. Average MMO gamers will play for approximately 20 hours a week (source http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/000891.php), while most Xbox 360 titles for example, have about 20 hours playtime. The original purchase of an MMO (if not free) is approximately $50, then you tack on $15/month. Current gen console games are about $70 each, and last about the same playtime as a week of an MMO. 

    I don't see $15 a month being an issue; it's an extremely minimal cost compared to similar fees--other video games or even cable television. If you're looking at dollar per. hour of entertainment; MMOs are ridiculously inexpensive.

  • TorikTorik Member UncommonPosts: 2,342
    Originally posted by ericbelser


    Based on forum arguments here and nearly everywhere else lately, I can see one big problem with a "tiered" subscription plan....it would take mere weeks (maybe even only days) before a vocal minority of those paying the lower price began screaming about they "deserve" access to the same content and that it's not "fair" to deny them shiny loot just because they pay less.

    No one would be taking that 'vocal minority' seriously.  People understand that in this world if you pay more money you will get better service.  It's just a 'fact of life'.

  • ghstwolfghstwolf Member Posts: 386

    There are loads of ways to work tiered services into these games.  You could charge time packages (as Jonhspartan noted), access to non-core content (I'll get back to this), or even certain perks.

    What sort of non-core content?  You could have NPCs react differently to you (responding to you by name instead of in more generalized terms) or have a few more "quest" givers (repeatable daily tasks).  You could offer "premium" areas, nothing special would be there but it would offer some convenience (for WoW it would be an objective less BG with several areas of densely packed mats and a smallish increase to honor gained for kills).  Maybe even charge for "alpha" test server access (still have a RC test server that most/all could access too).

    For perks- a lot of it depends on the game.  I'm thinking that guild membership could be capped, and a higher cap would be a perk.  Or that an in-game message board could either be bought or enhanced (officer only page or such) as a perk.  There could be other "nickle and dime" perks like an extra profession slot, bag/vault space or such.  Heck maybe you could sell the "glow" around items of interest.

    Of course anything but the time packages have to walk the fine line of offering enough to be desirable but at the same time not necessary.

  • Ulfric_DrakaUlfric_Draka Member Posts: 8

    I reckon MMOs have a lot to learn from mobile phone companies. Mobile phones offer a range of tariffs to suit every customer, from fixed payment monthly contracts to pay as you go. Because each customer can go for the package that suits them, they don't leave any money on the table.

    So, say a game offered both the full monthly contract at $14.99/month and a 'pay as you go' package that billed you at the end of each month - maybe 15 cents per hour played. Now offer the 'super casual' tariff - only 10 cents per hour, but an extra 50 cents for each raid instance you enter. Pick the plan that suits you :)

  • TorikTorik Member UncommonPosts: 2,342
    Originally posted by Morthane


     Remind me again why Subscription based games are bad? 
    There's absolutely no incentive for a game to charge less than $15/mo under any circumstances. It's a minimal cost for the amount of gameplay offered, and company would do nothing but potentially dwarf itself by doing so.
    I often look at the money-saving features of MMO gaming compared to other video games. Average MMO gamers will play for approximately 20 hours a week (source http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/000891.php), while most Xbox 360 titles for example, have about 20 hours playtime. The original purchase of an MMO (if not free) is approximately $50, then you tack on $15/month. Current gen console games are about $70 each, and last about the same playtime as a week of an MMO. 
    I don't see $15 a month being an issue; it's an extremely minimal cost compared to similar fees--other video games or even cable television. If you're looking at dollar per. hour of entertainment; MMOs are ridiculously inexpensive.

    That's a very valid point.  It really depends on how flat the demand curve for the game is.  How many players would switch games just because the other game had a lower price?  MMO games are not really substitutes for each other. 

  • Daffid011Daffid011 Member UncommonPosts: 7,945

    I wish companies would stop thinking of ways to screw players out of a few extra bucks and instead focus more on making quality games.

     

     

  • SoulfyreSoulfyre Member Posts: 1

     An interesting topic. I've taken a two year break form MMOs after EQ2, finding nothing that really appealed to me, but this summer, I finally decided to give Dofus a shot. I'm enjoying it, and one of the things I find interesting about it is the way it handles subscriptions. 

    While a sub game, Dofus has an extensive free-to-play aspect to it, called "Discovery mode" Basically,t eh newbie zone, and the starting city and it's outlaying area are free to use, but anyone. You can effectively get to about level 40 (out of 200), level any craft to 30, join a guild (Even be made leader) and explore the entirety of the world (you just cna't -do- anything int he subscription area).

     

    If youw ant to subscribe, there's no monthly fee, you buy time...almsot liek subscribing to a magazine, where you pay the flat cost of the term. Dofus offers 1 month ($6.70) 3 months ($20) 6 months ($38) and 1 year ($64) non-renewing.

    I think ti's a good system that could work well for other games, as well. For one, if you find you cna't yet subscribe, or really cna't renew one month, you don't have to cancel. You cna still hang out in game, make an alt, chat with your guild, etc. And if you have subscribed, it's one flat sum. Say you have some extra cash, and you decide "I'm gonna get 6 months" and pay the 38 bucks. If, two or three months down the line, you hit a lean month or two...it doens't matter, your gaming time is already paid, it's not a worry or expensise to think about. And if you get a bit of extra cash, you can always add another month, or three to your time.

    A poster above did mention thoughs ona  lower tier of a teir sub system feeling the "deserve" as much as the upper tiers, adn unfortunatley, this does happen in Dofus with players ont he free content. There'sa  big thread ont eh official forums of free-to-plays wanting mroe content. Unfortunatley you'll probalby see that in any game that would attempt such a model, but it's a small con to a lot of pros (and come on, $6.90 for a month is less than a two chalupa meal at Taco Bell)

    I definatley like the concept of the model (And smart o them to charge near half-price of games liek WoW) and could see it working well with other titles. A Game that doens't kick you out form the community and yoru guild if you cna't pay, one month, and doens't directly add to your monthly expensses each month is to me, definatley sitting on an attractive pay model.

     

     

  • FaelanFaelan Member UncommonPosts: 819
    Originally posted by Morthane


     Remind me again why Subscription based games are bad? 
    There's absolutely no incentive for a game to charge less than $15/mo under any circumstances. It's a minimal cost for the amount of gameplay offered, and company would do nothing but potentially dwarf itself by doing so.
    I often look at the money-saving features of MMO gaming compared to other video games. Average MMO gamers will play for approximately 20 hours a week (source http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/000891.php), while most Xbox 360 titles for example, have about 20 hours playtime. The original purchase of an MMO (if not free) is approximately $50, then you tack on $15/month. Current gen console games are about $70 each, and last about the same playtime as a week of an MMO. 
    I don't see $15 a month being an issue; it's an extremely minimal cost compared to similar fees--other video games or even cable television. If you're looking at dollar per. hour of entertainment; MMOs are ridiculously inexpensive.

     

    Not only is it money saving in many cases to the consumer, but it's also a great way to combat the whole piracy issue. When was the last time you were able to google up a bootlegged copy on some torrent website and play an MMO weeks before it was released? It's a win-win situation in my eyes. Of course, micro transactions and f2p has the same kind of advantage.

    I'm a big ol' fluffy carewolf. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

  • MorthaneMorthane Member Posts: 2
    Originally posted by Daffid011


    I wish companies would stop thinking of ways to screw players out of a few extra bucks and instead focus more on making quality games.
     

     

    I think the Pay Perks that you see in a lot of Korean MMOs (not to single them out, but come on, $5 microstransaction for a hat?) are the biggest culprit of this. The $15 rate that seems to be standard is an extremely small expense to the player, and allows the game author to reliably pay their costs for staff, server hosting, and growth. 

     

    If anything, I'm in favour of startup MMOs charging more money. If i stumble upon a game that charges $30/mo and looks amazing, I'll try it out (especially since EVERY game has a 1 month trial subscription), and if it is indeed as good as it looks, I'll gladly support it with my money. Again I'll make the point that you should compare it to your other entertainment costs and work out an hourly wage for these guys to charge you. It's peanuts.

    Remember folks, you vote with your money.

  • cressowskicressowski Member Posts: 7
    Originally posted by Ulfric_Draka


    I reckon MMOs have a lot to learn from mobile phone companies. Mobile phones offer a range of tariffs to suit every customer, from fixed payment monthly contracts to pay as you go. Because each customer can go for the package that suits them, they don't leave any money on the table.

    Or perhaps they have learnt from another charging model ... the fitness industry. Gyms are typically well over-subbed in the hope that only a certain percentage of members will be regular users. If everyone who paid the standard sub went three times a week, they couldn't cope with the demand.

    Also with variable charging models it makes it more difficult to determine infrastructure investment. If you have X players at a standard sub, you can predict the investment budget based on simple numbers (and its relatively easy to contract investment if you do not get enough numbers).

    But if half of your subscriber base switched to a half price sub, you would still need the infrastructure to cope with the same numbers, but only half the fees coming into the business. 

     

  • Oriad82Oriad82 Member Posts: 4

    Well i do see some compainies experimenting with different pay options. Take Wizard 101 for instance. It has a unique way to pay. Its has two options; a pay to play for $9.99 a month with access to all content, and a free to play with access only to the first couple areas. BUT you can spend money on crowns (the cash shop currency) and use the crowns to buy access to other areas. So for about $80 (give or take new content) you can purchase all the areas and not have to worry about a monthly fee. Though at the same time if the game constantly addds new ares you will then have to buy the new areas.

  • FaelanFaelan Member UncommonPosts: 819
    Originally posted by Sallas89


    lol... Really wasted your time to write this shit ? I this reply doesn't add much value at all, but really this is probably the most stupid idea I have seen in a long time on the internet... GJ..

     

    What can I say? Then you're not spending much time on the internet

    I'm a big ol' fluffy carewolf. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

  • DanaDana Member Posts: 2,415
    Originally posted by PEGShane


    Dana, I'm told--and I have no direct knowledge of this, so please take it with a grain of salt--that one of the vodka brands (Smirnoff, I think), was the "cheap" vodka for a long time. They supposedly hired a marketing guy who did one simple thing--he raised the price to significantly higher than the biggest brand and positioned it as "better." Sales went through the roof and Smirnoff is now a huge company. (Again--so I've been told.)
    Would that work in our space? I dunno--probably depends entirely on what special experience the game provided and the customer service as well. But an intersting data point.
    And your shoe analogy works backward as well. Maybe the $30 shoes are the standard. Maybe it's the Nike--which likely costs much less to make due to volume and ability to negotiate overseas with cheap labor sources--that is the "other game" in this analogy.
    Thanks for a great discussion. :)
    Shane

     

    Not sure about Smirnoff, Shane, but I know this is exactly what Stella Artois beer did. It's the junk beer in Europe, it's one step above malt liquor. When they wanted to move to North America, they made those fancy glasses, brought a sword to swipe the head off (imitating the Guinness ritual pour, which they FYI don't bother with in Ireland) and called it a premium beer. Same crap, but now us North Americans think its classy.

    Dana Massey
    Formerly of MMORPG.com
    Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios

  • GruugGruug Member RarePosts: 1,743

    "Free to Play" is such a joke. It is actually false advertising as far as I am concerned. Yes, you can play the game for free but lot of the game is "missing". Free to play is not free. If you really want to play the WHOLE game you end up paying more then you would if they charged the normal $14.99 per month. MTs in MMOs are going to be the same way. You are going to get LESS out of your game for that $14.99 per month (assuming they also have the MT model with the sub). So, you actually end up missing part of the game you are paying for. I am just not in favor  of any of it. Those that can't afford the sub are going "more free to play". Those that don't care about what they pay are going "more MTs". Niether is the answer. If this is the model that all MMOs are going to then I simply will not play. I can find something else worth $14.99 per month to do and it won't be an MMO.

    Let's party like it is 1863!

Sign In or Register to comment.