Howdy, Stranger!

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

Why not have seperate subscription only servers?

NildenNilden Member EpicPosts: 2,435

While reading the MMORPG.com ArcheAge review I picked up one point that made serious sense to me. Having separate servers that do not have any cash shop and are subscription only.

I hate cash shops. Even cosmetic stuff for sale in cash shops hurts the game for me. I want people running around with crazy mounts and armor and tons of gold because they crafted it, killed bosses or earned it in-game not by *CHA-CHING* getting out the credit card.

Some companies have subscription options but that cash shop is still looming there on every server. The casino, whale harpooning, greed that is going on is not something I want any part of.

Really as a consumer who would be driven off by a cash shop you provide me with an option I am willing to pay for by having cash shop free subscription only servers.

"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer


«1

Comments

  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread Member RarePosts: 6,452
    It's probably because they would make far less money that way.
  • NildenNilden Member EpicPosts: 2,435
    Originally posted by BeansnBread
    It's probably because they would make far less money that way.

    They are making zero off me right now because of the cash shop. I would be willing to actually pay a sub on a cash shop free server.

    Couldn't they in theory make even more? Or would offering the sub only servers kill the cash shop ones?

    "classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
    Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer


  • ForgrimmForgrimm Member EpicPosts: 2,845
    Originally posted by nilden
    While reading the MMORPG.com ArcheAge review I picked up one point that made serious sense to me. Having separate servers that do not have any cash shop and are subscription only. I hate cash shops. Even cosmetic stuff for sale in cash shops hurts the game for me. I want people running around with crazy mounts and armor and tons of gold because they crafted it, killed bosses or earned it in-game not by *CHA-CHING* getting out the credit card. Some companies have subscription options but that cash shop is still looming there on every server. The casino, whale harpooning, greed that is going on is not something I want any part of. Really as a consumer who would be driven off by a cash shop you provide me with an option I am willing to pay for by having cash shop free subscription only servers.

    I completely agree. I hate cash shops, micro-transactions, and nickel-and-dime nonsense in games. Just let me pay my $14.99 a month and have access to everything.

  • niceguy3978niceguy3978 Member UncommonPosts: 1,979
    Originally posted by nilden
    Originally posted by BeansnBread
    It's probably because they would make far less money that way.

    They are making zero off me right now because of the cash shop. I would be willing to actually pay a sub on a cash shop free server.

    Couldn't they in theory make even more? Or would offering the sub only servers kill the cash shop ones?

    Everquest 2 started out its F2P with only 1 server and the rest were sub only.  So essentially what you are asking for, only in reverse.  It didn't take long for it to go f2p across all servers.

  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread Member RarePosts: 6,452
    Originally posted by nilden
    Originally posted by BeansnBread
    It's probably because they would make far less money that way.

    They are making zero off me right now because of the cash shop. I would be willing to actually pay a sub on a cash shop free server.

    Couldn't they in theory make even more? Or would offering the sub only servers kill the cash shop ones?

    I understand what you're saying and we are both making a fair amount of assumptions when we express our opinion, but to me at least, offering a sub without a cash shop option would likely cause a very large amount of people to migrate to the sub-only servers. They don't actually want that to happen because cash shops bring in a helluva lot of money. Besides that, there really isn't any guarantee that "if they build it, they will come." A great many people that like the game and don't like cash shops are likely already playing the game in spite of the cash shop.

  • Superman0XSuperman0X Member RarePosts: 2,020
    Originally posted by BeansnBread
    Originally posted by nilden
    Originally posted by BeansnBread
    It's probably because they would make far less money that way.

    They are making zero off me right now because of the cash shop. I would be willing to actually pay a sub on a cash shop free server.

    Couldn't they in theory make even more? Or would offering the sub only servers kill the cash shop ones?

    I understand what you're saying and we are both making a fair amount of assumptions when we express our opinion, but to me at least, offering a sub without a cash shop option would likely cause a very large amount of people to migrate to the sub-only servers. They don't actually want that to happen because cash shops bring in a helluva lot of money. Besides that, there really isn't any guarantee that "if they build it, they will come." A great many people that like the game and don't like cash shops are likely already playing the game in spite of the cash shop.

    Actually the opposite is what happens. There are a LOT more F2P Players than P2P players. Exclusive servers end up being underpopulated, and unpopular. They are just not cost effective to operate.

  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread Member RarePosts: 6,452
    Originally posted by Superman0X
    Originally posted by BeansnBread
    Originally posted by nilden
    Originally posted by BeansnBread
    It's probably because they would make far less money that way.

    They are making zero off me right now because of the cash shop. I would be willing to actually pay a sub on a cash shop free server.

    Couldn't they in theory make even more? Or would offering the sub only servers kill the cash shop ones?

    I understand what you're saying and we are both making a fair amount of assumptions when we express our opinion, but to me at least, offering a sub without a cash shop option would likely cause a very large amount of people to migrate to the sub-only servers. They don't actually want that to happen because cash shops bring in a helluva lot of money. Besides that, there really isn't any guarantee that "if they build it, they will come." A great many people that like the game and don't like cash shops are likely already playing the game in spite of the cash shop.

    Actually the opposite is what happens. There are a LOT more F2P Players than P2P players. Exclusive servers end up being underpopulated, and unpopular. They are just not cost effective to operate.

    I think that a good amount of people that are currently paying a sub would migrate and they could easily fill a server with those types. But who knows, maybe like you said there isn't even a market for that.

  • FdzzaiglFdzzaigl Member UncommonPosts: 2,433

    Because they want F2P players to see the advantage of having a subscription by watching their subbed peers.

    If you create servers where everyone is either subbed or F2P, the latter group will not aspire to spend money.

    Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!

  • TuchakaTuchaka Member UncommonPosts: 468
           It's a interesting idea frankly there are a few MMO's i would go back to if they got rid of their cash shop model ( pay not to be annoyed etc. ) , but i think there are probably far more people that complain about cash shops while spending a lot of money.  So in the long run it would probably hurt their profits but i do like the idea. Plus from what I have seen F2P games tend to skimp on certain things. If servers with subscriptions had better customer service ( actual GM's that could come in game and assist you etc. ) we might see a lot of back lash from those that see F2P servers as having worse service and there for ....the players are being treated as second class consumers.
  • Leon1eLeon1e Member UncommonPosts: 791
    Originally posted by nilden
    Originally posted by BeansnBread
    It's probably because they would make far less money that way.

    They are making zero off me right now because of the cash shop. I would be willing to actually pay a sub on a cash shop free server.

    Couldn't they in theory make even more? Or would offering the sub only servers kill the cash shop ones?

    Don't you see it? 

    They're doing just fine without you. Quit ******** about it and move on. Nothing in your post is as black and white as you describe it. And if you deal in extremes all day everyday for everything in your life, I feel sorry for you. I truly am. 

    I can spend all evening explaining why you are completely wrong, but that'll be just a waste of time for the both of us. So move on and play Minecraft or whatever rows your boat. 

  • Superman0XSuperman0X Member RarePosts: 2,020
    Originally posted by BeansnBread
    Originally posted by Superman0X
    Originally posted by BeansnBread
    Originally posted by nilden
    Originally posted by BeansnBread
    It's probably because they would make far less money that way.

    They are making zero off me right now because of the cash shop. I would be willing to actually pay a sub on a cash shop free server.

    Couldn't they in theory make even more? Or would offering the sub only servers kill the cash shop ones?

    I understand what you're saying and we are both making a fair amount of assumptions when we express our opinion, but to me at least, offering a sub without a cash shop option would likely cause a very large amount of people to migrate to the sub-only servers. They don't actually want that to happen because cash shops bring in a helluva lot of money. Besides that, there really isn't any guarantee that "if they build it, they will come." A great many people that like the game and don't like cash shops are likely already playing the game in spite of the cash shop.

    Actually the opposite is what happens. There are a LOT more F2P Players than P2P players. Exclusive servers end up being underpopulated, and unpopular. They are just not cost effective to operate.

    I think that a good amount of people that are currently paying a sub would migrate and they could easily fill a server with those types. But who knows, maybe like you said there isn't even a market for that.

    If you think this through... you will realize that P2P isn't really that popular in comparison, and that empty servers need to be closed (i.e. why create a server that is basically doomed).

    1. P2P servers need to be exclusive (no transfers in etc) else people will just start on F2P and then transfer to P2P with the benefits that they got from the cash shop.

    2. P2P would not add anything, it would just remove access to the cash shop.

    3. People don't like to start over (for those already playing

    4. People like to play with their friends, many of which will want to try the game via F2P.

    5. Many people who are paying a monthly sub like the OPTION to do so. They don't want to be locked in.

    Bottom line, people like to have options of all types, servers, people to play with, types of payment, etc. Anything that  blocks those options reduces the number of players, and the more limiting, the more it is reduced. If is common for 90+% of all players in a F2P game to never pay for anything (9 out of 10). Those 1 in 10 that do pay, they choose from a variety of methods (cash shop, monthly sub, one time purchase, etc). Monthly game time/sub is the most common, but it is still less than 10%, and the people that would want to play on an exclusive server without anyone else (including likely friends) is going to be an even smaller subset.

     

    I think you can see why a sub only sever just isn't worth the effort. It would cater to a very small group of players, and create a server that is likely under populated (and hard/impossible to populate after the fact). The players would also likely be unhappy with the results, as they would see the stuff that people have/do on the other servers, and feel that they are left out because they don't get that stuff.

     

  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread Member RarePosts: 6,452
    Originally posted by Superman0X If you think this through... you will realize that P2P isn't really that popular in comparison, and that empty servers need to be closed (i.e. why create a server that is basically doomed). 1. P2P servers need to be exclusive (no transfers in etc) else people will just start on F2P and then transfer to P2P with the benefits that they got from the cash shop. 2. P2P would not add anything, it would just remove access to the cash shop. 3. People don't like to start over (for those already playing 4. People like to play with their friends, many of which will want to try the game via F2P. 5. Many people who are paying a monthly sub like the OPTION to do so. They don't want to be locked in. Bottom line, people like to have options of all types, servers, people to play with, types of payment, etc. Anything that  blocks those options reduces the number of players, and the more limiting, the more it is reduced. If is common for 90+% of all players in a F2P game to never pay for anything (9 out of 10). Those 1 in 10 that do pay, they choose from a variety of methods (cash shop, monthly sub, one time purchase, etc). Monthly game time/sub is the most common, but it is still less than 10%, and the people that would want to play on an exclusive server without anyone else (including likely friends) is going to be an even smaller subset.   I think you can see why a sub only sever just isn't worth the effort. It would cater to a very small group of players, and create a server that is likely under populated (and hard/impossible to populate after the fact). The players would also likely be unhappy with the results, as they would see the stuff that people have/do on the other servers, and feel that they are left out because they don't get that stuff.

    Oh, sorry. Did I make it sound like I didn't agree with you? I do agree with you that adding a sub-only server isn't in Trion's best interest. I understand the effect a pay wall can have on a game (even if it's only $1). I just happen to also think that there are likely enough people to fill at least one sub-only server to a sufficient size. I also think that it would be counter-productive for them to try anything like that because they want as many people in that cash shop as possible. And the people currently subbing? They are likely the easiest marks for the cash shop because they already have their wallets open.

     

    I do agree with you fundamentally. I understand how you came to your conclusion (all the subset stuff), I'm just not sure that the numbers are correct. But whatever. This is all really just speculation.

  • st4t1ckst4t1ck Member UncommonPosts: 753
    Are you giving f2p players housing also. or is there just gonna be a bunch of empty land that f2p people cant use.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member EpicPosts: 18,568
    The "free to play" model often relies heavily on a handful of whales paying a ton of money.  If the whales can get everything they want for $15/month on the subscription server, why would they pay $100/month on the free server?  If you get $15/month from the people willing to pay a decent amount and basically nothing from everyone else, then you likely make less than you would with either a pure subscription or a pure free to play item mall model.
  • PepeqPepeq Member UncommonPosts: 1,977

    In the case of ArcheAge, the subscribers scoffed up all the land, not the F2P players.  The game literally can't support more than x number of land owners and that number is easily well below the number of players that can play the game.  You'd still have a land issue, you'd still have labor points, and you'd still have server imbalance.  Honestly, that game would have been the same whether everyone paid or didn't pay.  Remember, the ORIGINAL version in Korea that was subscription based used labor points and had limited land.  So ArcheAge wouldn't be any different than it is today if it were 100% subscription.  It was the way the game was written to begin with.

     

    Now, that being said... even subscription games still nickel and dime you to death and have cash shops.  WoW, perhaps the richest MMO in history, charges a subscription to play, charges a fee for expansions, charges a fee to change servers (guild and individual), charges a fee to change your name or your guild name, charges a fee to change your faction faction or your guild faction, charges a fee to change appearance, and has a cash shop on top of all that.  It doesn't put out content any more frequently than a F2P game does, is constantly rebalancing the classes, and and and...

     

    Now granted they need to make money, but clearly if other games can offer free this and free that on top of a modest game fee, then you know they are milking you.  

     

    B2P is the best model.  They get the same amount of money per person who buys the game.  You are free to play or not play it whenever you like.  You pay for expansions, that's it.  You know, like the old days when you actually owned the games you bought.  As soon as you go the pay as you go route, they've got you by the balls.  And believe me, they have plenty of more ways to milk the players, they've only just begun.  All because we accepted the idea of paying to play a game we already paid for. 

  • DMKanoDMKano Member LegendaryPosts: 17,799
    Originally posted by nilden
    Originally posted by BeansnBread
    It's probably because they would make far less money that way.

    They are making zero off me right now because of the cash shop. I would be willing to actually pay a sub on a cash shop free server.

    Couldn't they in theory make even more? Or would offering the sub only servers kill the cash shop ones?

    In theory yes - but my guess is the reason why they don't - the metrics do not show significant enough gains to do so.

    If there was definitive data that sub only servers would bring in higher profits - it would be done.

    Money talks louder than anything

     

    The amount of money spent in a well monetized cash shop game per user is far higher than sub only model.

    So again IMO - whatever % of userbase chose to no play due to cash shop is more than offset by players who spend a lot in the cash shop.

    Bottom line the fact that there are so few games that mix payment options with "sub only" servers speaks for itself.

  • WaterlilyWaterlily Member UncommonPosts: 3,105

    Because whales only spend money if they can feel superior over other players. If you give other players the same for $15 a month, they will no longer feel superior.

    Ferrari could sell many more cars of their limited editions, but they don't, because the super rich would no longer feel special if everyone in their neigbourhood had one.

    P2P works because everyone agrees that everyone is treated as equals, F2P works because whales can feel superior and freeloaders can play for free. I don't think these two mix.

    You get whales to spend money by making sure they have something others don't have, if you remove this advantage, they no longer spend money. Whales will not spend $1000 a month if the person next door gets the same thing for $15 a month.

  • BladestromBladestrom Member UncommonPosts: 5,001
    Lol payment method snobbery/chip on shoulder pathetic. The only thing that matters is 1. Is a game fun, 2 does the player get what he considers value for money.

    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

  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid Member EpicPosts: 9,002
    Originally posted by BeansnBread
    It's probably because they would make far less money that way.

    the only explanation to that is that XL/Trion want subscribers to use the cash shop as well, which sucks donkey nuts. Otherwise, a subscription only separate server would make total sense.

    That way subbers play on their same level field without cash shop interference while freebies play on their same cash shop unbalanced field. Allods Online did that, but the game was already dead so it didnt help them much.

     

    EDIT: unless of course their model is based on whales like Quizzical said... better let the game die then.

    image
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 6,215

    Dunno if it's been mentioned, but EQ2 did this for a while.

    I didn't play much EQ2, but a friend who did told me that it ended up friends who would let their subs lapse wouldn't be able to stay on their servers with their friends, sub-only servers became mostly ghost towns, and they just decided to merge them all.

  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid Member EpicPosts: 9,002
    Originally posted by Ridelynn
    Dunno if it's been mentioned, but EQ2 did this for a while. I didn't play much EQ2, but a friend who did told me that it ended up friends who would let their subs lapse wouldn't be able to stay on their servers with their friends, sub-only servers became mostly ghost towns, and they just decided to merge them all.

    that is easily fixed... if your subscription lapse you cant log in. If you want to have a free character make one on the free server or manually transfer your paid character to the free server. To the company, dont let subscription characters downgrade to free automatically. There, fixed.

    image
  • DeddmeatDeddmeat Member UncommonPosts: 367

    Then people would moan about having to pay if they wanted to use a toon that's sub had lapsed, they would moan about servers with population problems and then moan that to transfer they had to pay money.

    As a sub you can do everything a f2p player can and if you wanted to use the cash shop you could, making sub only servers makes no sense to companies as they just loose out on profits from the cash shop, it would not encourage more subs either, most likely sub players would switch to f2p and just buy what they wanted.

    Also games now offer you benefits for using things like authentication tools .. So as long as you don't mind waiting a bit longer you can get the benefits a sub would and all for about £8.99

    image

  • NildenNilden Member EpicPosts: 2,435
    Originally posted by st4t1ck
    Are you giving f2p players housing also. or is there just gonna be a bunch of empty land that f2p people cant use.

    I'm not advocating doing anything different with the current servers at all. Just adding servers that are subscription only with no cash shop. I'm all for even being able to move characters off the sub only servers onto the regular servers but not the other way around. No cash shop stuff gets in.

    "classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
    Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer


  • Gregor999Gregor999 Member Posts: 86
    Originally posted by nilden
    While reading the MMORPG.com ArcheAge review I picked up one point that made serious sense to me. Having separate servers that do not have any cash shop and are subscription only. I hate cash shops. Even cosmetic stuff for sale in cash shops hurts the game for me. I want people running around with crazy mounts and armor and tons of gold because they crafted it, killed bosses or earned it in-game not by *CHA-CHING* getting out the credit card. Some companies have subscription options but that cash shop is still looming there on every server. The casino, whale harpooning, greed that is going on is not something I want any part of. Really as a consumer who would be driven off by a cash shop you provide me with an option I am willing to pay for by having cash shop free subscription only servers.

    Assuming they can keep their greedy hands out of the server and go purist with removing all traces of cashshop this wouldn't be a bad experiment.

  • laokokolaokoko Member UncommonPosts: 2,004

    Probably never going to happen.  Consider most subscription game do have a cash shop to get more money.

     

Sign In or Register to comment.