Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Traditional monthly sub for a traditional, old school sandboxish MMO (like original SWG in the number, depth of non-combat roles along with combat roles, housing, land capture, etc.) that basically copies 99.99% of the SWG crafting model.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Back on Stormhammer in EQ1 the $29 subscription really only lowered the population. The actual diversity of the server was not much different than a normal one. You still had the idiots in OOC, the killstealers, the people with illegible grammar and the standard jerks. The added price did not add much quality to the player-base.
Didn't have Chuck Norris jokes back then, but I think that's what the idiots in OOC evolved into.
I guess it could be different now, seeing as how there are many free games for people to go and spam their knowledge of Chuck Norris and how mad you are in every global channel, but meh.
I prefer the Guild Wars/ArenaNet model. You pay for the game once, you can play it online from there on out. As expansions and major content are rolled out, they are separately charged as well, but you don't need them to play the game, just access the content they provide. And then there is a cash shop, but it's mostly convienence/cosmetic items (Which as much as I hate cash shops, I accept this since it doesn't make or break the game, and can be ignored without affecting gameplay). I even don't mind the DLC-type cash shop in LOTRO or DDO (although I think EA takes it way to far with their single-player games, where they charge $60 for the box and 25 hours of gameplay, and have $15 DLC packs with 1-2 hours of content on Day 1 of release)
The ArenaNet model isn't any different from the subscription model, where you have to buy the game box, then pay the monthly subscription, then pay for each expansions separately anyway, and then still have a cash shop in them. You just cut out the monthly sub, and make up for it with box sales. I wouldn't even mind if they pushed micro-content every quarter or so - $5 or $10 for a mini-expansion (something to help fund development in the mean time, while still making us players feel like we are getting something for our money), for instance, and then $30-40 for a full expansion that comes every 12-18 months. Sure, it comes out to similar income as a subscription, but it's not something that auto-reoccurs, and I can chose to continue to play without it if it doesn't have content I care to utilize (think... LoY expansion for EQ).
I have no problem with the F2P model, I think it works very well in some cases. I just don't like the Pay2Win model, which many F2P cash shops degrade into. There are many F2P games that aren't Pay2Win, and you don't have to spend any more than you would on a regular subscription-based title, but they all get a bad rap because some people can't control their credit card habits, and some titles have the clear Pay2Win mentality.
I'm very tired of the subscription model. If anything, the SoE hacks proved to me that it's not a good practice to let some other company store your credit info and bill you periodically. Following the hack, I've disabled all my reoccurring subscriptions (along with putting on my tinfoil hat). If I want to play another sub-based game, I'll do it via game cards. Sure, plenty of other online shopping places store credit information as well, but as far as I'm concerned, the fewer places that have it on file, the less chance there is that I will be a victim.
Buy to play. The Guild Wars model is the best I've ever seen, from a consumer stand point. Considering they're bringing that back with Guild Wars 2, I know where I'll be.
After years playing World of Warcraft, I'm done with the subscription model. It forced a feeling of obligation on me that shouldn't exist when I play a game.
B2P like GW. A cash shop is fine as long as it doesn't sell stuff with stats (or if the game have a subscription fee). I will also pay for full expansions, and miniexpansions but not for a single dungeon or for quests.
F2P is a nice idea once we have socialism / star trek society / whatever and can do things without having to think about making money.
In capitalism, making a MMORPG requires investing in the game development over years before game launch, extensive multiprocessor hardware and a commercial large bandwidth internet connect. Therefore, the game NEEDS an investor and has to make quite an amount of money SOMEHOW.
Therefore, so far F2P is nothing but buy to win. Which makes the game itself capitalistic, i.e. the real life money of the gamer matters. I dont want that.
Additionally, most F2P games arent really high quality.
Thats why I prefer P2P. Yes you need to have SOME money to play it. Its what, 15$ or 15€ per month ? Thats available even to poor people. In industrial states, anyway. Therefore I can play the game under the same conditions than everybody else. If at all, the poor have an advantage - as they are usually unemployed or got only part time jobs, they have more time for playing.
So yeah, I definitely want P2P.
B2P has only be realized with Guild Wars. Its a very problematic design. Yeah one can play it anytime, but the running costs of the game arent compensated. Also, unlike P2P MMOs - no game patching with bugfixes and game improvements. Still they have the constant cost of paying for the servers. I guess at some point they'll just shut down the servers and there would be nothing anybody can do about it, as there is simply no monetary reason to keep the servers running.
B2P has only be realized with Guild Wars. Its a very problematic design. Yeah one can play it anytime, but the running costs of the game arent compensated. Also, unlike P2P MMOs - no game patching with bugfixes and game improvements. Still they have the constant cost of paying for the servers. I guess at some point they'll just shut down the servers and there would be nothing anybody can do about it, as there is simply no monetary reason to keep the servers running.
I'm pretty sure the fact that Guild Wars is still up and running disproves every sentence in this paragraph except the first one.
B2P has only be realized with Guild Wars. Its a very problematic design. Yeah one can play it anytime, but the running costs of the game arent compensated. Also, unlike P2P MMOs - no game patching with bugfixes and game improvements. Still they have the constant cost of paying for the servers. I guess at some point they'll just shut down the servers and there would be nothing anybody can do about it, as there is simply no monetary reason to keep the servers running.
I'm pretty sure the fact that Guild Wars is still up and running disproves every sentence in this paragraph except the first one.
Thats simply because Guild Wars was an enormous success. Which happened to (a) a good game design and (b) the uniqueness of their financial model.
However, would more companies copy this concept, they would NOT have the success of GW. Thus, their monetary input would be a lot smaller and yes, you would see the effect I described. These companies would simply go bankrupt.
B2P has only be realized with Guild Wars. Its a very problematic design. Yeah one can play it anytime, but the running costs of the game arent compensated. Also, unlike P2P MMOs - no game patching with bugfixes and game improvements. Still they have the constant cost of paying for the servers. I guess at some point they'll just shut down the servers and there would be nothing anybody can do about it, as there is simply no monetary reason to keep the servers running.
I'm pretty sure the fact that Guild Wars is still up and running disproves every sentence in this paragraph except the first one.
Thats simply because Guild Wars was an enormous success. Which happened to (a) a good game design and (b) the uniqueness of their financial model.
However, would more companies copy this concept, they would NOT have the success of GW. Thus, their monetary input would be a lot smaller and yes, you would see the effect I described. These companies would simply go bankrupt.
I would really love to see more companies use B2P just to see if it actually would work.
ultimately the subscription system is going nuts....
F2P games are more unbalanced due to cash shop crap... and now developers/publishers of sub-based mmo want to charge for cash shop (or services like changing name, server, etc etc etc) as well as subscription + box / digital download + all the xpacs while at the same time providing less and less fun and content in their games...
ill stick with F2P for a while untill sub based mmos got fixxed.... i dont really care if im not the best in an mmo (due to not buying cash shop) as long as i have fun, and i dont have to pay for an mmo if im not having enough fun (unless the game really worth the money) and no sub based games these days are worth any money at all....
i hope devs start realising the crap they are making before they start charging for everything....
im excited about blade n soul, and TSW, and i hope they are worth the sub if not ill move on... so far swtor wont do it for me cos as far as we all know, sci fi theme is the only thing that differentiate swtor from all the generic fantasy mmos we have already..... other than that it is the same of the same..... of the same....
I did not vote since this poll is very limited. There is no Buy to play and there is no mention of the Freemium games like LOTRO, and DDO. Instead you just lump all free to play into one package with the pay to win. Maybe make a realistic poll that shows all the available options now days and I will vote in your poll.
Subscription based all the way for me. I pay a fixed fee a month and I get access to EVERYTHING. It's a level playing field with all the players. There's no cheesey-a** stuff like "Double Hit Point Potions" in an item mall to throw the game out of whack, especially PvP. It's how much worthwhile effort you've put into the toon, how well you know the game.
That's that.
I can tolerate B2P, as was the case with Guild Wars. But my account magically disappeared by those jerks. Since GW was the only B2P that I played, I'm wary about it. But that's a far more tolerable pill to take than P2Win/F2P. At least with B2P I don't have to worry about being "Nickle & Dimed" by the company.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
At least with B2P I don't have to worry about being "Nickle & Dimed" by the company.
nowaddays we are being nickled n dimed by sub based companies as well... just take a look a what Blizzard have become, charging extra fees for every single extra feature they add + cash shop for mounts and b***s***... and since most new mmos still follow WoWs trail hoping to become as popular, they also charge for extra stuff...
in the end.... we are still being nickle n dimed by those sub based gaming companies too, with the exception that you dont pay to win... here you pay to lose actually... cos the more you pay the less content you are getting in time...these days
edit: i miss-read the quoted sentence, i read P2P lol.. so yes as B2P i do agree with you
At least with B2P I don't have to worry about being "Nickle & Dimed" by the company.
nowaddays we are being nickled n dimed by sub based companies as well... just take a look a what Blizzard have become, charging extra fees for every single extra feature they add + cash shop for mounts and b***s***... and since most new mmos still follow WoWs trail hoping to become as popular, they also charge for extra stuff...
in the end.... we are still being nickle n dimed by those sub based gaming companies too, with the exception that you dont pay to win... here you pay to lose actually... cos the more you pay the less content you are getting in time...these days
edit: i miss-read the quoted sentence, i read P2P lol.. so yes as B2P i do agree with you
Matticus75:
Im not even subscribed to a MMO right now, been playing RTS and FPS games recently till i see something better come hopefully.......Im tired of it
In fact I know its off topic but Ive been thinking about getting into Warhammer 40k table top; At least I wont have to worry about bugs, some of the old "manual stuff" is still fun to get into, but thats me
I would really love to see more companies use B2P just to see if it actually would work.
Investors arent known for being that experimental.
Also note that GW is optimized for minimal network traffic to the server - once you leave town or one of the other gathering places, you are in your own gaming instance and dont need squad in respect to server traffic any more.
The reasons that I listed in this thread is why I really wonder if GW2 will succeed. Because GW2 will be really a MMO, not a glorified Diablo 2 like GW.
There's a real stigma against Free-to-Play (F2P) games, or Pay-to-Win (P2W) as the less kind reference goes. One resaon for this is companies are able to tack on items, content, efficiency bonuses, whenever they feel and you're always in a very unique sort of grind. No matter what you can do this month, there's more to buy next month.
Additionally, the major releases tend to release on a subscription basis only going F2P when the numbers decline.
* * * *
The direct alternative is Subscription based. These have two key downfalls of their own--1) Once you stop paying and your subscription period has run out, access is prohibited. It doesn't matter if you've payed >$1000 in subscriptions, once you can not or will not pay, the deal is done. 2) This is not usually the primay method but the backup plan to bring people back, and more importantly, bring people in. This gets a negative feel to it because it's used by companies that have no alternatives.
* * * *
The behemoth is the hybrid. This is a monster that should never be allowed to exist. You're never done paying . The company can expect [x] for subscription income and slowly leak more items and content into the market for a boost to income, or just release another exp/bonus gains pack.
It lacks the benefit of the subcription--you pay, you get it--and it lacks the benefit of the F2P--as long as the servers are online, you can still play.
Some would argue that even Blizzard is approaching this with their "premimum service", a slap in the face to people, again, who have >$350, >$600 or >$1300 in the game. My only counter to that is that the premium services (real ID invites, and online Auction House) are not having a direct impact on gameplay or what your character is capable of in game yet. Blizzard has also sold mounts and compansions in the past from their store.
So which do you prefer? I personally prefer a flat fee I know I'm paying each month. No premium service garbage. I pay a bill, just like I pay my cable company, and I get to use their services.
I'm pretty impressed with EVE's PLEX system. I guess this is kind of a "hybrid" system, in that it allowed free play right alongside subscribed, but it lacks the characteristics that you seem to ascribe to hybrids. All content is available to all players on the same terms. But it could equally be described as a subscription system, since every account is in the end a paid account so far as CCP is concerned. According to your conceptions, which option in your poll should describe EVE?
Monthly Subs will be the cheapest method possible. Sure F2P=cash shops which you don't have to use. But; most F2P games make it so that you can't win/compete without spending; hence, the new "Freemium" Term thats been bouncing about for months. In the end, F2P => cost than monthly subs.
For a game that I KNOW I will enjoy long enough, I will prefer a sub over a cash shop or hybrid model any day.
I can appreciate the f2p / hybrid models though. Without having these payment methods in place I would not return to DDO or LoTRO on occasion because I never feel my desire to replay them warrants the fifteen bucks for the monthly fee.
Comments
I want to pay a $29.95 sub fee for a feature rich, old school, sandpark style MMO that would weed out the "riff raff" from my world.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Traditional monthly sub for a traditional, old school sandboxish MMO (like original SWG in the number, depth of non-combat roles along with combat roles, housing, land capture, etc.) that basically copies 99.99% of the SWG crafting model.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
Back on Stormhammer in EQ1 the $29 subscription really only lowered the population. The actual diversity of the server was not much different than a normal one. You still had the idiots in OOC, the killstealers, the people with illegible grammar and the standard jerks. The added price did not add much quality to the player-base.
Didn't have Chuck Norris jokes back then, but I think that's what the idiots in OOC evolved into.
I guess it could be different now, seeing as how there are many free games for people to go and spam their knowledge of Chuck Norris and how mad you are in every global channel, but meh.
Honestly, I don't like any of your options.
I prefer the Guild Wars/ArenaNet model. You pay for the game once, you can play it online from there on out. As expansions and major content are rolled out, they are separately charged as well, but you don't need them to play the game, just access the content they provide. And then there is a cash shop, but it's mostly convienence/cosmetic items (Which as much as I hate cash shops, I accept this since it doesn't make or break the game, and can be ignored without affecting gameplay). I even don't mind the DLC-type cash shop in LOTRO or DDO (although I think EA takes it way to far with their single-player games, where they charge $60 for the box and 25 hours of gameplay, and have $15 DLC packs with 1-2 hours of content on Day 1 of release)
The ArenaNet model isn't any different from the subscription model, where you have to buy the game box, then pay the monthly subscription, then pay for each expansions separately anyway, and then still have a cash shop in them. You just cut out the monthly sub, and make up for it with box sales. I wouldn't even mind if they pushed micro-content every quarter or so - $5 or $10 for a mini-expansion (something to help fund development in the mean time, while still making us players feel like we are getting something for our money), for instance, and then $30-40 for a full expansion that comes every 12-18 months. Sure, it comes out to similar income as a subscription, but it's not something that auto-reoccurs, and I can chose to continue to play without it if it doesn't have content I care to utilize (think... LoY expansion for EQ).
I have no problem with the F2P model, I think it works very well in some cases. I just don't like the Pay2Win model, which many F2P cash shops degrade into. There are many F2P games that aren't Pay2Win, and you don't have to spend any more than you would on a regular subscription-based title, but they all get a bad rap because some people can't control their credit card habits, and some titles have the clear Pay2Win mentality.
I'm very tired of the subscription model. If anything, the SoE hacks proved to me that it's not a good practice to let some other company store your credit info and bill you periodically. Following the hack, I've disabled all my reoccurring subscriptions (along with putting on my tinfoil hat). If I want to play another sub-based game, I'll do it via game cards. Sure, plenty of other online shopping places store credit information as well, but as far as I'm concerned, the fewer places that have it on file, the less chance there is that I will be a victim.
Yup, B2P should definitely be in the options. Still, I'd prefer a free trial first.
Sturgeon's Law: "90% of everything is crud."
Buy to play. The Guild Wars model is the best I've ever seen, from a consumer stand point. Considering they're bringing that back with Guild Wars 2, I know where I'll be.
After years playing World of Warcraft, I'm done with the subscription model. It forced a feeling of obligation on me that shouldn't exist when I play a game.
I will pay a subscription, or Buy to Play.
I will not play cash shop games. I do not think they are fun.
B2P like GW. A cash shop is fine as long as it doesn't sell stuff with stats (or if the game have a subscription fee). I will also pay for full expansions, and miniexpansions but not for a single dungeon or for quests.
GW have handled the whole thing best.
I prefer NOT paying.
And research has shown that F2P is flavored by a LARGE majority (70+%) of MMO players in 2010.
F2P is a nice idea once we have socialism / star trek society / whatever and can do things without having to think about making money.
In capitalism, making a MMORPG requires investing in the game development over years before game launch, extensive multiprocessor hardware and a commercial large bandwidth internet connect. Therefore, the game NEEDS an investor and has to make quite an amount of money SOMEHOW.
Therefore, so far F2P is nothing but buy to win. Which makes the game itself capitalistic, i.e. the real life money of the gamer matters. I dont want that.
Additionally, most F2P games arent really high quality.
Thats why I prefer P2P. Yes you need to have SOME money to play it. Its what, 15$ or 15€ per month ? Thats available even to poor people. In industrial states, anyway. Therefore I can play the game under the same conditions than everybody else. If at all, the poor have an advantage - as they are usually unemployed or got only part time jobs, they have more time for playing.
So yeah, I definitely want P2P.
B2P has only be realized with Guild Wars. Its a very problematic design. Yeah one can play it anytime, but the running costs of the game arent compensated. Also, unlike P2P MMOs - no game patching with bugfixes and game improvements. Still they have the constant cost of paying for the servers. I guess at some point they'll just shut down the servers and there would be nothing anybody can do about it, as there is simply no monetary reason to keep the servers running.
I'm pretty sure the fact that Guild Wars is still up and running disproves every sentence in this paragraph except the first one.
Thats simply because Guild Wars was an enormous success. Which happened to (a) a good game design and (b) the uniqueness of their financial model.
However, would more companies copy this concept, they would NOT have the success of GW. Thus, their monetary input would be a lot smaller and yes, you would see the effect I described. These companies would simply go bankrupt.
I would really love to see more companies use B2P just to see if it actually would work.
ultimately the subscription system is going nuts....
F2P games are more unbalanced due to cash shop crap... and now developers/publishers of sub-based mmo want to charge for cash shop (or services like changing name, server, etc etc etc) as well as subscription + box / digital download + all the xpacs while at the same time providing less and less fun and content in their games...
ill stick with F2P for a while untill sub based mmos got fixxed.... i dont really care if im not the best in an mmo (due to not buying cash shop) as long as i have fun, and i dont have to pay for an mmo if im not having enough fun (unless the game really worth the money) and no sub based games these days are worth any money at all....
i hope devs start realising the crap they are making before they start charging for everything....
im excited about blade n soul, and TSW, and i hope they are worth the sub if not ill move on... so far swtor wont do it for me cos as far as we all know, sci fi theme is the only thing that differentiate swtor from all the generic fantasy mmos we have already..... other than that it is the same of the same..... of the same....
How do you want to pay for your games?
With sex.
I did not vote since this poll is very limited. There is no Buy to play and there is no mention of the Freemium games like LOTRO, and DDO. Instead you just lump all free to play into one package with the pay to win. Maybe make a realistic poll that shows all the available options now days and I will vote in your poll.
Subscription based all the way for me. I pay a fixed fee a month and I get access to EVERYTHING. It's a level playing field with all the players. There's no cheesey-a** stuff like "Double Hit Point Potions" in an item mall to throw the game out of whack, especially PvP. It's how much worthwhile effort you've put into the toon, how well you know the game.
That's that.
I can tolerate B2P, as was the case with Guild Wars. But my account magically disappeared by those jerks. Since GW was the only B2P that I played, I'm wary about it. But that's a far more tolerable pill to take than P2Win/F2P. At least with B2P I don't have to worry about being "Nickle & Dimed" by the company.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
i am afraid all games will have a cash-shop in future. this alone, in order to sell downoladable expansions and account services.
i dont care if its B2B or subscription as long as this cash-shop just includes a few categories which are:
- expansions
- acoount services
- fashion
and perhaps
- xp-boosters (make normal levelling hard and interesting please and milk these endgame-rushers, thanks)
played: Everquest I (6 years), EVE (3 years)
months: EQII, Vanguard, Siedler Online, SWTOR, Guild Wars 2
weeks: WoW, Shaiya, Darkfall, Florensia, Entropia, Aion, Lotro, Fallen Earth, Uncharted Waters
days: DDO, RoM, FFXIV, STO, Atlantica, PotBS, Maestia, WAR, AoC, Gods&Heroes, Cultures, RIFT, Forsaken World, Allodds
Took the poll and so far
Subscription - 70.6%
Free to Play w purchasable additions (item malls) - 16.2%
Hybrid - 13.2%
I like how the "free market" gives the consumers what they want.....what a joke
Im seeing Pay to win all over the place; even on the ad here at MMORPG.com more than Sub games
nowaddays we are being nickled n dimed by sub based companies as well... just take a look a what Blizzard have become, charging extra fees for every single extra feature they add + cash shop for mounts and b***s***... and since most new mmos still follow WoWs trail hoping to become as popular, they also charge for extra stuff...
in the end.... we are still being nickle n dimed by those sub based gaming companies too, with the exception that you dont pay to win... here you pay to lose actually... cos the more you pay the less content you are getting in time...these days
edit: i miss-read the quoted sentence, i read P2P lol.. so yes as B2P i do agree with you
Investors arent known for being that experimental.
Also note that GW is optimized for minimal network traffic to the server - once you leave town or one of the other gathering places, you are in your own gaming instance and dont need squad in respect to server traffic any more.
The reasons that I listed in this thread is why I really wonder if GW2 will succeed. Because GW2 will be really a MMO, not a glorified Diablo 2 like GW.
I'm pretty impressed with EVE's PLEX system. I guess this is kind of a "hybrid" system, in that it allowed free play right alongside subscribed, but it lacks the characteristics that you seem to ascribe to hybrids. All content is available to all players on the same terms. But it could equally be described as a subscription system, since every account is in the end a paid account so far as CCP is concerned. According to your conceptions, which option in your poll should describe EVE?
Give me liberty or give me lasers
Monthly Subs will be the cheapest method possible. Sure F2P=cash shops which you don't have to use. But; most F2P games make it so that you can't win/compete without spending; hence, the new "Freemium" Term thats been bouncing about for months. In the end, F2P => cost than monthly subs.
For a game that I KNOW I will enjoy long enough, I will prefer a sub over a cash shop or hybrid model any day.
I can appreciate the f2p / hybrid models though. Without having these payment methods in place I would not return to DDO or LoTRO on occasion because I never feel my desire to replay them warrants the fifteen bucks for the monthly fee.