Howdy, Stranger!

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

How Can MMOs Be Monetized Fairly? a Column at MMORPG.com

2456710

Comments

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,687
    Torval said:
    Single player games or games with single player and multiplayer components operate on a much smaller revenue chunk per person.
    Do they...?
  • NildenNilden Member EpicPosts: 2,899
    Gdemami said:
    You either pay or don't pay, it isn't a matter of "fairness".
      What if people are paying based on if they think the monetization is fair?

    "You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon

    "classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon

    Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer



  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,663
    I think the author wrote the article through some serious rose tinted glasses.

    "There was a time when MMO’s felt ‘fair’. You’d hand over $15 a month, have access to everything and be safe in the knowledge that the game made no effort to manipulate your playtime."

    "For me and perhaps it’s because I’m of a generation that is used to the subscription model, it is still, unquestionably, the fairest of them all. The development team is guaranteed income, all players are equal on arrival and game systems don’t have to be manipulated in order to nudge players into buying from any in-game store."

    That is just a nostalgic fantasy. They've always tried to manipulate our time. They've tried to keep us playing one game. They've strung out game play to keep us subbed. They have effectively ignored the 800lb gorrilla of third party RMT.

    It's never been a level playing field or fair because people who buy gold have a big advantage. People who have tons of time to spend on the game have a big advantage. No one has ever been equal in an mmo and game systems were designed to keep players grinding and chasing that RNG carrot for months and years on end.

    For a small subset of the playing demographic it seemed like a very fair system because the setup benefitted them. For a larger majority it wasn't and it didn't benefit them, thus why sub revenue plummeted. MMOs didn't suddenly get bad one month and everyone stopped paying and playing. People just got tired of being nickled and dimed for a rental bill every month regardless of how much they played or how poorly the RNG was to them.

    The fair fee is the one you're willing to pay in order to participate in what you enjoy. Anything else is just moralization and projection of personal preferences onto others.
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

    It only took 3 people 8 words to rock Blizzard to its core.
  • syriinxsyriinx Member UncommonPosts: 1,383
    Torval said:
    I do not think an MMO can survive much less thrive with just a box and sub. Some people here are even saying to lower the sub price.
    Game development cost's have sky rocketed over the years yet games remain virtually the same price. The market has shifted and publishers are struggling to keep a positive residual income flowing in that pays for the overhead of running an always on game that needs constant updates and attention. Yes 'back in the day' it was possible but things have grown more expensive. In the genre's infancy it was possible but now.
    Box,Sub and a cosmetic cash shop is fine. ESO does a decent job but they even have had to add loot boxes now to make up costs. It is not always just about making more and more money. Sometimes it is just about paying the bills and having enough money to keep your people employed to create new content.

    Some are suggesting paying a higher sub fee on top of a box price. That I think is fair. I know many of us here would willingly pay $20 to $25 USD a month for a good game. If it had a box price of say $40 tp $50 and a sub of $20 to $25 or so that would perhaps generate a steady enough flow of income to keep a game running for some time all while affording the developer the cash to create new content. 
    I think mmos charge too much, way more than their online components warrant. Single player games or games with single player and multiplayer components operate on a much smaller revenue chunk per person.

    Think about how much your typical MMO wants you to spend a year and compare that to how much more entertainment you can buy that aren't mmos.

    Annual sub at $15 / mo = $180 annually. If it were $25 that would be $300.

    Then there are box / xpac fees. Let's say that's $60 annually.

    Then there are digital extras. Let's not even count those for now.

    So an MMO would like us to spend about $240 per year per game at the very minimum (or $360/yr at the higher rate). Are they really delivering $240 a year in entertainment? That's more than my annual Netflix bill and I get way more out of it than any single mmo.

    Maybe the industry needs a paradigm shift away from spending $300M on a game and then expecting billions in return. We may have moved on from trying to create WoW clones, but I think the industry is still chasing that carrot. It's just trying a bunch of different stuff now hoping for that WoW / LoL / GTA payout.
    Annual subs are typically 12-13 a month and expansions more like 40, so its a bit closer to 200 annually.

    And 200 annually?  Thats pretty cheap if I'm getting even as low as 100 hours a year of entertainment.  Its certainly a hell of a lot cheaper considering what i would probably do as an alternative.

    I think the 'fair' sub price scales with the player base.  WoW probably makes a hell of a lot more profit per player than a game like EQ2 (before its freemium model).

    I do know this:  i think 12-15 a month is acceptable if the amount of content is reasonable (WoW kind of fails here).
    I also know this:  every single game, without fail, that has gone from sub to freemium has delivered considerably worse and/or less frequent content after the transition.  the design shifts from keeping people playing to keeping people paying.
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,687
    Nilden said:
    What if people are paying based on if they think the monetization is fair?
    Fair to whom? People with low income? People that want to drop money on the game? People who have lots of free time or on the opposite, not much spare time? etc. etc.

    It makes no sense whatsoever, just another mmorpg.com article...
  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,826
    Torval said:
    I do not think an MMO can survive much less thrive with just a box and sub. Some people here are even saying to lower the sub price.
    Game development cost's have sky rocketed over the years yet games remain virtually the same price. The market has shifted and publishers are struggling to keep a positive residual income flowing in that pays for the overhead of running an always on game that needs constant updates and attention. Yes 'back in the day' it was possible but things have grown more expensive. In the genre's infancy it was possible but now.
    Box,Sub and a cosmetic cash shop is fine. ESO does a decent job but they even have had to add loot boxes now to make up costs. It is not always just about making more and more money. Sometimes it is just about paying the bills and having enough money to keep your people employed to create new content.

    Some are suggesting paying a higher sub fee on top of a box price. That I think is fair. I know many of us here would willingly pay $20 to $25 USD a month for a good game. If it had a box price of say $40 tp $50 and a sub of $20 to $25 or so that would perhaps generate a steady enough flow of income to keep a game running for some time all while affording the developer the cash to create new content. 
    I think mmos charge too much, way more than their online components warrant. Single player games or games with single player and multiplayer components operate on a much smaller revenue chunk per person.

    Think about how much your typical MMO wants you to spend a year and compare that to how much more entertainment you can buy that aren't mmos.

    Annual sub at $15 / mo = $180 annually. If it were $25 that would be $300.

    Then there are box / xpac fees. Let's say that's $60 annually.

    Then there are digital extras. Let's not even count those for now.

    So an MMO would like us to spend about $240 per year per game at the very minimum (or $360/yr at the higher rate). Are they really delivering $240 a year in entertainment? That's more than my annual Netflix bill and I get way more out of it than any single mmo.

    Maybe the industry needs a paradigm shift away from spending $300M on a game and then expecting billions in return. We may have moved on from trying to create WoW clones, but I think the industry is still chasing that carrot. It's just trying a bunch of different stuff now hoping for that WoW / LoL / GTA payout.
    I agree we need to see developers create games for less money and we are seeing those.


    Netflix is not a good example though because they do not make enough money and have been in financial trouble for some time.

    If we exclude the positive effect from the cash flows from financing, we will see that the real cash flow has been catastrophic: $2.5B of cash outflow divided by 426M shares outstanding means that in 2015 each common investor of Netflix has lost more than $6 from each share he or she owned, not taking into account losses before this financial year.
    http://seekingalpha.com/article/4000441-netflix-worth-penny?page=2

    (I was one of those that lost money on Netflix. They simply do not generate enough revenue)



    Charging more for a MMO that creates a walled garden effect that just allows a player to play the game in all it's glory without a cashshop button or paywalls is something I feel would be very welcomed by the community.


    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • ScorchienScorchien Member LegendaryPosts: 6,871
    Scorchien said:
    Separating the MMO business from shareholders is a good start.
    no:)
    That is what every Indie studio is doing
    lol didnt mean to agree there Blue , thats a freebie...

      Anyhow , not by choice they arent .. They cant
  • sketocafesketocafe Member UncommonPosts: 950
    ESO is the worst model. "B2P" and then you have to pay for content patches.

    A sub without any bullshit cash shop is best for consumers. Charging a $15 subscription allowed CCP to grow EVE from their initial user base through dozens of free expansions to the point where they had millions to literally throw away on stupid decisions to make other games. They did this because they funneled the money they were taking in back into the game. That part may be a sticking point for shareholders but it's not like corporations are capable of making good games anyways.
  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,826
    Scorchien said:
    Scorchien said:
    Separating the MMO business from shareholders is a good start.
    no:)
    That is what every Indie studio is doing
    lol didnt mean to agree there Blue , thats a freebie...

      Anyhow , not by choice they arent .. They cant
    No worries!
    you can click the agree again and it will remove it =)

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • RPGMASTERGAMERRPGMASTERGAMER Member UncommonPosts: 516
    you have reply to your question yourself actualy ; There was a time when MMO’s felt ‘fair’. You’d hand over $15 a month, have access to everything and be safe in the knowledge that the game made no effort to manipulate your playtime. As it stands now,

    there you go, subs are fine we just lack good games worth subs... quality mmorpg require more investment and time, when they fail that big loss for dev so they just go safe and f2p + cash shop or just translate korean or asian games and cash them hardcore before drop them...
  • TalulaRoseTalulaRose Member RarePosts: 1,247
    Netflicks is cheaper because they don't develop or create anything. They leverage what others have put the time/money into. So yes it is cheaper for them. The closest to them would be a company who offered multiple MMOs created by other companies in some sort of right of use agreement.
  • H0urg1assH0urg1ass Member EpicPosts: 2,235
    Separating the MMO business from shareholders is a good start.
    This is really the first step.  The second you have shareholders, then you have a group of people who:

    1. Have zero interest in any part of the game mechanics, game play or anything else associated with the finer details of what makes a game "fun".
    2. Are only interested in whether the game is profitable, how profitable and how to make it more profitable.

    By removing these blind, greedy suits from the process and funding the game by any other means necessary, then you retain control over point one and can make a game that people will enjoy playing.

    These RNG loot boxes that are becoming the rage in games recently, for instance, are all in response to point two.  They are a despicable means of drawing cash out of gamers by preying on the randomness of gambling.

    Personally, I prefer my MMO style games to have a flat subscription and no cash shop whatsoever.  I want to pay my monthly fee and have everything that's in the game be earned through in-game means.  I don't like shortcuts or exclusives in any way at all.
  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,826
    Netflicks is cheaper because they don't develop or create anything. They leverage what others have put the time/money into. So yes it is cheaper for them. The closest to them would be a company who offered multiple MMOs created by other companies in some sort of right of use agreement.
    Yes they do create content. Quite a bit of it actually. 

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • ScorchienScorchien Member LegendaryPosts: 6,871
    edited August 2016
    H0urg1ass said:
    Separating the MMO business from shareholders is a good start.
    This is really the first step.  The second you have shareholders, then you have a group of people who:

    1. Have zero interest in any part of the game mechanics, game play or anything else associated with the finer details of what makes a game "fun".
    2. Are only interested in whether the game is profitable, how profitable and how to make it more profitable.

    By removing these blind, greedy suits from the process and funding the game by any other means necessary, then you retain control over point one and can make a game that people will enjoy playing.

    These RNG loot boxes that are becoming the rage in games recently, for instance, are all in response to point two.  They are a despicable means of drawing cash out of gamers by preying on the randomness of gambling.

    Personally, I prefer my MMO style games to have a flat subscription and no cash shop whatsoever.  I want to pay my monthly fee and have everything that's in the game be earned through in-game means.  I don't like shortcuts or exclusives in any way at all.
    This isnt true in my experience , I have been a major shareholder with ATVI , EA , FCMKF, Sqnx, etc.. for many many years .. Got involved because i love games ...

       I will tell you this , None of them have ever , ever in anyway asked for input on Game direction , development or monetization...
  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,826
    Scorchien said:
    H0urg1ass said:
    Separating the MMO business from shareholders is a good start.
    This is really the first step.  The second you have shareholders, then you have a group of people who:

    1. Have zero interest in any part of the game mechanics, game play or anything else associated with the finer details of what makes a game "fun".
    2. Are only interested in whether the game is profitable, how profitable and how to make it more profitable.

    By removing these blind, greedy suits from the process and funding the game by any other means necessary, then you retain control over point one and can make a game that people will enjoy playing.

    These RNG loot boxes that are becoming the rage in games recently, for instance, are all in response to point two.  They are a despicable means of drawing cash out of gamers by preying on the randomness of gambling.

    Personally, I prefer my MMO style games to have a flat subscription and no cash shop whatsoever.  I want to pay my monthly fee and have everything that's in the game be earned through in-game means.  I don't like shortcuts or exclusives in any way at all.
    This isnt true , I have been a major shareholder with ATVI , EA , FCMKF, Sqnx, etc.. for many many years .. Got involved because i love games ...

       I will tell you this , None of them have ever , ever in anyway asked for input on Game direction , development or monetization...
    I invest in many as well but what I think Hourglass is saying is the publisher answers to the shareholders looking for a positive ROI on their investments which in turn puts the publishers in a situation where they feel the need to pressure the developers. When ever you add layers of accountability to a process it becomes overly complicated and influences the product. 

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,663
    edited August 2016
    Ugh, I have to get back to writing code and processing data so no long winded stuff.

    @blueturtle13
    Netflix may not be the best example, but I still think it's applicable from an end user point of view. I don't care that they aren't profitable on paper. Amazon went through this for years and certain parts still aren't profitable. What matters, as a consumer, is what I get for what I pay. That is what mmos and games in general are competing against. It's not really a fair system in that regard, but it's the reality.

    My main point of the need for lowered costs and revenue expectations seem to make its way through though. I agree that it needs to happen and I think with some indies it is happening. I imagine there is a lot of inertia in the industry working against that though.

    @syriinx
    I think there are drawbacks to paying annually and it doesn't save that much. The four subs I have right now are all at 3 months blocks of time except WoW (that's a month to month sub). I don't like committing to 12 months at a time. It's risky. It's also a large chunk of change to drop all at once.

    I disagree that all content has gotten worse/less frequent for games that have transitioned from sub to hybrid. WoW is a sub game and has an abysmal track record for updates. FF14 was great for the first year but then has dropped off on the content updates since then. ESO has picked up on the pace and quality of updates. I think SWTOR is a better game now than ever before and it still gets consistent updates.

    Well so much for not writing a novel lol......
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

    It only took 3 people 8 words to rock Blizzard to its core.
  • ScorchienScorchien Member LegendaryPosts: 6,871
    edited August 2016
    Scorchien said:
    H0urg1ass said:
    Separating the MMO business from shareholders is a good start.
    This is really the first step.  The second you have shareholders, then you have a group of people who:

    1. Have zero interest in any part of the game mechanics, game play or anything else associated with the finer details of what makes a game "fun".
    2. Are only interested in whether the game is profitable, how profitable and how to make it more profitable.

    By removing these blind, greedy suits from the process and funding the game by any other means necessary, then you retain control over point one and can make a game that people will enjoy playing.

    These RNG loot boxes that are becoming the rage in games recently, for instance, are all in response to point two.  They are a despicable means of drawing cash out of gamers by preying on the randomness of gambling.

    Personally, I prefer my MMO style games to have a flat subscription and no cash shop whatsoever.  I want to pay my monthly fee and have everything that's in the game be earned through in-game means.  I don't like shortcuts or exclusives in any way at all.
    This isnt true , I have been a major shareholder with ATVI , EA , FCMKF, Sqnx, etc.. for many many years .. Got involved because i love games ...

       I will tell you this , None of them have ever , ever in anyway asked for input on Game direction , development or monetization...
    I invest in many as well but what I think Hourglass is saying is the publisher answers to the shareholders looking for a positive ROI on their investments which in turn puts the publishers in a situation where they feel the need to pressure the developers. When ever you add layers of accountability to a process it becomes overly complicated and influences the product. 
    Most of the better games are run by Publisher(companies) that are publicly owned , the privatley owned games are the more agrievous cashshop games
    with less success long term....


     But I will add this as an investor and gamer , i think that the sub model with cosmetic cash shop only , is a win/win for everyone involved
  • waynejr2waynejr2 Member EpicPosts: 7,768
    Torval said:
    I think the author wrote the article through some serious rose tinted glasses.

    "There was a time when MMO’s felt ‘fair’. You’d hand over $15 a month, have access to everything and be safe in the knowledge that the game made no effort to manipulate your playtime."

    "For me and perhaps it’s because I’m of a generation that is used to the subscription model, it is still, unquestionably, the fairest of them all. The development team is guaranteed income, all players are equal on arrival and game systems don’t have to be manipulated in order to nudge players into buying from any in-game store."

    That is just a nostalgic fantasy. They've always tried to manipulate our time. They've tried to keep us playing one game. They've strung out game play to keep us subbed. They have effectively ignored the 800lb gorrilla of third party RMT.

    It's never been a level playing field or fair because people who buy gold have a big advantage. People who have tons of time to spend on the game have a big advantage. No one has ever been equal in an mmo and game systems were designed to keep players grinding and chasing that RNG carrot for months and years on end.

    For a small subset of the playing demographic it seemed like a very fair system because the setup benefitted them. For a larger majority it wasn't and it didn't benefit them, thus why sub revenue plummeted. MMOs didn't suddenly get bad one month and everyone stopped paying and playing. People just got tired of being nickled and dimed for a rental bill every month regardless of how much they played or how poorly the RNG was to them.

    The fair fee is the one you're willing to pay in order to participate in what you enjoy. Anything else is just moralization and projection of personal preferences onto others.

    Fairness shouldn't be the goal. 
    http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html  

    Epic Music:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1

    https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1

    Kyleran:  "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."

    John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."

    FreddyNoNose:  "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."

    LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"




  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,826
    Scorchien said:
    Scorchien said:
    H0urg1ass said:
    Separating the MMO business from shareholders is a good start.
    This is really the first step.  The second you have shareholders, then you have a group of people who:

    1. Have zero interest in any part of the game mechanics, game play or anything else associated with the finer details of what makes a game "fun".
    2. Are only interested in whether the game is profitable, how profitable and how to make it more profitable.

    By removing these blind, greedy suits from the process and funding the game by any other means necessary, then you retain control over point one and can make a game that people will enjoy playing.

    These RNG loot boxes that are becoming the rage in games recently, for instance, are all in response to point two.  They are a despicable means of drawing cash out of gamers by preying on the randomness of gambling.

    Personally, I prefer my MMO style games to have a flat subscription and no cash shop whatsoever.  I want to pay my monthly fee and have everything that's in the game be earned through in-game means.  I don't like shortcuts or exclusives in any way at all.
    This isnt true , I have been a major shareholder with ATVI , EA , FCMKF, Sqnx, etc.. for many many years .. Got involved because i love games ...

       I will tell you this , None of them have ever , ever in anyway asked for input on Game direction , development or monetization...
    I invest in many as well but what I think Hourglass is saying is the publisher answers to the shareholders looking for a positive ROI on their investments which in turn puts the publishers in a situation where they feel the need to pressure the developers. When ever you add layers of accountability to a process it becomes overly complicated and influences the product. 
    Most of the better games are run by Publishers that are publicly owned , the privatley owned games are the more agrievous cashshop games
    with less success long term....
    That has been the case but moving forward I do not think that will be the case.
    I think private Indie companies are the future for the genre in the West.

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,826
    Torval said:
    Ugh, I have to get back to writing code and processing data so no long winded stuff.

    @blueturtle13
    Netflix may not be the best example, but I still think it's applicable from an end user point of view. I don't care that they aren't profitable on paper. Amazon went through this for years and certain parts still aren't profitable. What matters, as a consumer, is what I get for what I pay. That is what mmos and games in general are competing against. It's not really a fair system in that regard, but it's the reality.

    My main point of the need for lowered costs and revenue expectations seem to make its way through though. I agree that it needs to happen and I think with some indies it is happening. I imagine there is a lot of inertia in the industry working against that though.

    @syriinx
    I think there are drawbacks to paying annually and it doesn't save that much. The four subs I have right now are all at 3 months blocks of time except WoW (that's a month to month sub). I don't like committing to 12 months at a time. It's risky. It's also a large chunk of change to drop all at once.

    I disagree that all content has gotten worse/less frequent for games that have transitioned from sub to hybrid. WoW is a sub game and has an abysmal track record for updates. FF14 was great for the first year but then has dropped off on the content updates since then. ESO has picked up on the pace and quality of updates. I think SWTOR is a better game now than ever before and it still gets consistent updates.

    Well so much for not writing a novel lol......
    Fair enough and good points

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,663
    waynejr2 said:
    Torval said:
    I think the author wrote the article through some serious rose tinted glasses.

    "There was a time when MMO’s felt ‘fair’. You’d hand over $15 a month, have access to everything and be safe in the knowledge that the game made no effort to manipulate your playtime."

    "For me and perhaps it’s because I’m of a generation that is used to the subscription model, it is still, unquestionably, the fairest of them all. The development team is guaranteed income, all players are equal on arrival and game systems don’t have to be manipulated in order to nudge players into buying from any in-game store."

    That is just a nostalgic fantasy. They've always tried to manipulate our time. They've tried to keep us playing one game. They've strung out game play to keep us subbed. They have effectively ignored the 800lb gorrilla of third party RMT.

    It's never been a level playing field or fair because people who buy gold have a big advantage. People who have tons of time to spend on the game have a big advantage. No one has ever been equal in an mmo and game systems were designed to keep players grinding and chasing that RNG carrot for months and years on end.

    For a small subset of the playing demographic it seemed like a very fair system because the setup benefitted them. For a larger majority it wasn't and it didn't benefit them, thus why sub revenue plummeted. MMOs didn't suddenly get bad one month and everyone stopped paying and playing. People just got tired of being nickled and dimed for a rental bill every month regardless of how much they played or how poorly the RNG was to them.

    The fair fee is the one you're willing to pay in order to participate in what you enjoy. Anything else is just moralization and projection of personal preferences onto others.
    Fairness shouldn't be the goal. 
    How so? What do you mean by that? Not sure I agree or disagree, but am interested in hearing what you think the goals should be.
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

    It only took 3 people 8 words to rock Blizzard to its core.
  • ScorchienScorchien Member LegendaryPosts: 6,871
    Scorchien said:
    Scorchien said:
    H0urg1ass said:
    Separating the MMO business from shareholders is a good start.
    This is really the first step.  The second you have shareholders, then you have a group of people who:

    1. Have zero interest in any part of the game mechanics, game play or anything else associated with the finer details of what makes a game "fun".
    2. Are only interested in whether the game is profitable, how profitable and how to make it more profitable.

    By removing these blind, greedy suits from the process and funding the game by any other means necessary, then you retain control over point one and can make a game that people will enjoy playing.

    These RNG loot boxes that are becoming the rage in games recently, for instance, are all in response to point two.  They are a despicable means of drawing cash out of gamers by preying on the randomness of gambling.

    Personally, I prefer my MMO style games to have a flat subscription and no cash shop whatsoever.  I want to pay my monthly fee and have everything that's in the game be earned through in-game means.  I don't like shortcuts or exclusives in any way at all.
    This isnt true , I have been a major shareholder with ATVI , EA , FCMKF, Sqnx, etc.. for many many years .. Got involved because i love games ...

       I will tell you this , None of them have ever , ever in anyway asked for input on Game direction , development or monetization...
    I invest in many as well but what I think Hourglass is saying is the publisher answers to the shareholders looking for a positive ROI on their investments which in turn puts the publishers in a situation where they feel the need to pressure the developers. When ever you add layers of accountability to a process it becomes overly complicated and influences the product. 
    Most of the better games are run by Publishers that are publicly owned , the privatley owned games are the more agrievous cashshop games
    with less success long term....
    That has been the case but moving forward I do not think that will be the case.
    I think private Indie companies are the future for the genre in the West.
    i hope some of these games deliver and have great success , Project Gorgon , Pantheon .. etc .. You may be right , but it will be a long hard road for them to overtake the publicly backed big guys
  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Member LegendaryPosts: 8,839
    waynejr2 said:
    Torval said:
    I think the author wrote the article through some serious rose tinted glasses.

    "There was a time when MMO’s felt ‘fair’. You’d hand over $15 a month, have access to everything and be safe in the knowledge that the game made no effort to manipulate your playtime."

    "For me and perhaps it’s because I’m of a generation that is used to the subscription model, it is still, unquestionably, the fairest of them all. The development team is guaranteed income, all players are equal on arrival and game systems don’t have to be manipulated in order to nudge players into buying from any in-game store."

    That is just a nostalgic fantasy. They've always tried to manipulate our time. They've tried to keep us playing one game. They've strung out game play to keep us subbed. They have effectively ignored the 800lb gorrilla of third party RMT.

    It's never been a level playing field or fair because people who buy gold have a big advantage. People who have tons of time to spend on the game have a big advantage. No one has ever been equal in an mmo and game systems were designed to keep players grinding and chasing that RNG carrot for months and years on end.

    For a small subset of the playing demographic it seemed like a very fair system because the setup benefitted them. For a larger majority it wasn't and it didn't benefit them, thus why sub revenue plummeted. MMOs didn't suddenly get bad one month and everyone stopped paying and playing. People just got tired of being nickled and dimed for a rental bill every month regardless of how much they played or how poorly the RNG was to them.

    The fair fee is the one you're willing to pay in order to participate in what you enjoy. Anything else is just moralization and projection of personal preferences onto others.

    Fairness shouldn't be the goal. 
    I think you mean fairness isn't the goal.

    "We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa      "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."  SR Covey

  • MardukkMardukk Member RarePosts: 2,211
    edited August 2016

    Amathe said:

    My preferred system is:



    1. Pay for the game;

    2, No monthly subscription;

    3. Shop that has cosmetic items only (e.g., armor skins, not armor); and

    4. Expansions cost extra.



    This would be 90% of everyone's preferred option. However, it does not appear that this model is bringing in enough cash for the devs. As almost all of them with this model have started in game cash for RL cash conversions.

    I've thought about the classic $15/month sub and I've determined that I really do not like paying a box price and then have no access to my purchased game without that $15 a month. If it was like $5-7 a month I would have less of a problem, $15 just seems a bit much to access a game with a box price and likely a cash shop. Unless you are the top of the top I doubt you are pumping out content to justify $15 a month.
  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,767
    edited August 2016
    Separate monetization from game play. After that, charge a fair price for the service.
    It's not hard.....really, it's not.

    What seems to be hard is creating a game where players want to keep returning to.
Sign In or Register to comment.