Quantcast

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

1457910

Comments

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,067
    Phry said:
    If there is one thing that games like WoW, Eve Online, FFXIV:ARR have proven, is that good games thrive with a P2P subscription financial model
    On the contrary, they proved how non-viable the model is - exceptions that confirm the rule.
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,067
    edited August 2016
    Meh, not worthy...
  • holdenhamletholdenhamlet Member EpicPosts: 3,764
    edited August 2016
    DMKano said:
    DMKano said:
    "Also need I mention that Blizzard as a 5000+ employee billion+ dollar company is about 20 times the size and 100x the cash flow that pretty much none can match?"

    How did Blizzard get that big?

    I can tell you one thing- it wasn't from selling earing slots in the cash shop for WoW (cough Trion cough).

    It was through a decade+ of selling excellent single/multiplayer games before MMOs even existed.

    Blizzard made money fron Diablo, Star craft and Warcraft before 2004.

    After 2004 WoW made them huge.


    Again you are comparing a 5000 billion dollar established company to Lulz Trion who has less than 300 employees and a tiny fraction of revenue.

    Trion didn't even exist when WoW came out..... hello?

    Trion launched Rift in 2011, Blizzard at that point was already a billion dollar company.


    Do you not recognize the absurdity of your comparison? 

    Hey lets compare a local hardware store to Home Depot..... yeah!

    How did WoW make them huge?  Was it from having an insidious cash shop?

    How did Blizzard establish themselves before WoW?  Did Diablo, Starcraft or Warcraft have insidious cash shops?

    How did League of Legends go from being funded for 7 million to making over a billion a year?  Was it from an insidious p2w cash shop?

    This argument you're making is beyond absurd because you're acting like Blizzard was just born into their success.

    Your implying that a company needs to do insidious cash-grabby things to get established.  But Blizzard never did that.  And one could very reasonably argue that the entire reason they became established is because they never did that.

    The video game market in 1990s and early 2000s was vastly different than 2010+

    Cash shops didn't exist in vast majority of time Blizzard made games.

    Blizzard got established during an entirely different era.

    Any company that is trying to establish themselves today can't do it like Blizzard did, unless they have time travel tech and can go back to 1980s.

    Need I pont out that Blizzard has cash shops in most of their games? 

    Also "insidious cash shop" lol is that a new term you're trying to coin here?

    Insidious McDonald's , insidious Exxon,  insidious government? Insidious Blizzard with their own cash shops?


    Is this a thing now?
    How did Riot games get established with 7 million dollars, with a game that now makes 1.6 billion dollars a year?

    League of Legends was made in "this era".

    Bottom line, you're just wrong.  You think that common business practices of keeping customers happy, making quality products, and looking long-term no longer apply.  They apply as much as they always have.

    It's evident when you replied in a BDO thread that players should have zero say in how a Dev conducts business because they are "just consumers".

    You forget that the consumers pay the bills.  If you piss them off with shady cash-grabby tactics, you're not going to make as much money as you could have.

    And you'll still be a Lulz 300-man company like Trion, blaming the unfairness of the world or the era for its plight.

    p.s. look up the definition of "insidious" if you're having trouble with the word.
    Post edited by holdenhamlet on
  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,814
    edited August 2016
    Gdemami said:
    GeezerGamer said:
    Yep! Options are great!

    $15.00 for 30 days
    $36.00 for 90 days
    $60.00 for 180 days

    Those would be some great options, I think. No?
    There are only 2 options:

    1) You truly do not understand the flaw of your argument.
    2) You understand it but you are incapable of any constructive discussion.
    I understand all too well, your argument. I only need to look as far as the state and decline of the genre over the last 10 years to know what your side of the argument brings. Shitty games where too many players leave after 3 or 4 months due to being shit upon by overly monetized gaming that serves nobody. These same games that could have held on to a much greater number of players had they not monetized as they did.

    The system you prefer is designed to serve the wealthiest minority which would be fine if it wasn't on the backs of the rest of the player base. Even so, the whales aren't really getting any favors here. Their in-game victories are hollow and meaningless. They might like the easy route, but what odes it really get them in the game? Why do we play MMOs instead of Single Player games? There's no recognition in the games for them. So they trounced the weaker players in PVP. Nobody says, WoW, I want to be that good, or how did you learn to fight so well, when we all know the answer these days.

    I remember games where people who accomplished things were known in their realms for what they put into the game. Now, who cares who bought their way to the top? Nobody.
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,067
    edited August 2016
    GeezerGamer said:
    I understand all too well, your argument. I only need to look as far as the state and decline of the genre over the last 10 years to know what your side of the argument brings. Shitty games where too many players leave after 3 or 4 months due to being shit upon by overly monetized gaming that serves nobody. These same games that could have held on to a much greater number of players had they not monetized as they did.

    The system you prefer is designed to serve the wealthiest minority which would be fine if it wasn't on the backs of the rest of the player base. Even so, the whales aren't really getting any favors here. Their in-game victories are hollow and meaningless. They might like the easy route, but what odes it really get them in the game? Why do we play MMOs instead of Single Player games? There's no recognition in the games for them. So they trounced the weaker players in PVP. Nobody says, WoW, I want to be that good, or how did you learn to fight so well, when we all know the answer these days.

    I remember games where people who accomplished things were known in their realms for what they put into the game. Now, who cares who bought their way to the top? Nobody.
    Sorry, I can't hear you from down below the high horse you are sitting on...
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 36,016
    Gdemami said:
    GeezerGamer said:
    How people choose to use that time is on them.
    How much people choose to spend is also on them...
    Yep! Options are great!

    $15.00 for 30 days
    $36.00 for 90 days
    $60.00 for 180 days

    Those would be some great options, I think. No?
    Thats pretty much how CCP does it, increasing discounts as length of sub payment increases. 

    I think I'm paying about $11.00 a month as I pay annually.

    Now if I could just get a multi account discount on top of that.

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

    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






  • sschruppsschrupp Member UncommonPosts: 599
    Maybe it's just because I'm getting old but I find lately I really don't care anymore. I used to be a fan of subscription models but then they started adding cash shops too. For a while World of Warcraft seemed to be the most "honest" example, but now for $20 you can buy 30k-40k gold. Need more bag space? $20. Want to deck out your new characters in heirloom gear? $20. Don't have enough gold to get the flying skill?

    But like I said, lately I really don't care. What else would I spend that $20 on? Beer and fast food?

    Our online lives are becoming so entwined with our real lives that I start to wonder what's the difference of spending money on something I want in the real world compared to spending money on something I want in a virtual world? If I want something, I buy it. That's why I spent so much time and money in school so I could get a decent job and toil away for years on end. So I can buy stuff I want.
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,272
    DMKano said:
    Phry said:
    "Also need I mention that Blizzard as a 5000+ employee billion+ dollar company is about 20 times the size and 100x the cash flow that pretty much none can match?"

    How did Blizzard get that big?

    I can tell you one thing- it wasn't from selling earing slots in the cash shop for WoW (cough Trion cough).
    If there is one thing that games like WoW, Eve Online, FFXIV:ARR have proven, is that good games thrive with a P2P subscription financial model, if there is one thing that has been repeatedly proven is that games that indulge too heavily in the F2P/Cash shop method, don't tend to last, although a lot of that is probably that in the case of most F2P MMO's at least, is that they aren't designed to last, they are just there to grab as much money as they can for however long they can.

    If they thrive with P2P model why did they all add cash shops?

    Because today it's accepted. If it was shunned by the general playerbase it wouldn't exist.

    Why say no to easy money?

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,272
    DMKano said:
    laserit said:
    DMKano said:
    Phry said:
    "Also need I mention that Blizzard as a 5000+ employee billion+ dollar company is about 20 times the size and 100x the cash flow that pretty much none can match?"

    How did Blizzard get that big?

    I can tell you one thing- it wasn't from selling earing slots in the cash shop for WoW (cough Trion cough).
    If there is one thing that games like WoW, Eve Online, FFXIV:ARR have proven, is that good games thrive with a P2P subscription financial model, if there is one thing that has been repeatedly proven is that games that indulge too heavily in the F2P/Cash shop method, don't tend to last, although a lot of that is probably that in the case of most F2P MMO's at least, is that they aren't designed to last, they are just there to grab as much money as they can for however long they can.

    If they thrive with P2P model why did they all add cash shops?

    Because today it's accepted. If it was shunned by the general playerbase it wouldn't exist.

    Why say no to easy money?

    It's not the primary reason - it's because pure p2p can't sustain the vast majority of games anymore, all games NERD cash shops as additional revenue to keep them afloat.


    I can't disagree on that point, but I would also say that the vast majority are mediocre games at best. IMHO the sub model is still completely viable,  as long as the game is good enough.

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,814
    edited August 2016
    Gdemami said:
    GeezerGamer said:
    I understand all too well, your argument. I only need to look as far as the state and decline of the genre over the last 10 years to know what your side of the argument brings. Shitty games where too many players leave after 3 or 4 months due to being shit upon by overly monetized gaming that serves nobody. These same games that could have held on to a much greater number of players had they not monetized as they did.

    The system you prefer is designed to serve the wealthiest minority which would be fine if it wasn't on the backs of the rest of the player base. Even so, the whales aren't really getting any favors here. Their in-game victories are hollow and meaningless. They might like the easy route, but what odes it really get them in the game? Why do we play MMOs instead of Single Player games? There's no recognition in the games for them. So they trounced the weaker players in PVP. Nobody says, WoW, I want to be that good, or how did you learn to fight so well, when we all know the answer these days.

    I remember games where people who accomplished things were known in their realms for what they put into the game. Now, who cares who bought their way to the top? Nobody.
    Sorry, I can't hear you from down below the high horse you are sitting on...
    What are your points? Where is your argument?  All you do is throw hollow Ad-Homs and Circular Reasoning around and hide behind them as if you are clever or something.

    Why don't you produce a shining example of this business model you are so fond of. A game with a fully fledged cash shop that offers all the options players want where the player base is happy, content, healthy and growing  and where the economy is based on player contributions without RMT exerting it's massive influence over what players can purchase and where the forums are ablaze with actual game issues and not monieization methods.

    Because until you can, you have nothing to argue since what you claim to be so great, only exists in your delusions.

    EDIT:

    On second thought, Never mind, I can already see in advance where this will go. Ad Homs, and Circular reasoning.
  • Fish_TacosFish_Tacos Member UncommonPosts: 45
    edited August 2016
    Easy. Just tell people the truth about what they can expect to pay and what they will get for it. If there is a possibility for changes of any kind, be clear about that (likelihood, extent of variance from original plan, etc.). In other words, things change, but be transparent. That is ethical.

    What is unfair is any sort of misrepresentation (which is by definition, intentional).

    image
  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,814
    Kyleran said:
    Gdemami said:
    GeezerGamer said:
    How people choose to use that time is on them.
    How much people choose to spend is also on them...
    Yep! Options are great!

    $15.00 for 30 days
    $36.00 for 90 days
    $60.00 for 180 days

    Those would be some great options, I think. No?
    Thats pretty much how CCP does it, increasing discounts as length of sub payment increases. 

    I think I'm paying about $11.00 a month as I pay annually.

    Now if I could just get a multi account discount on top of that.
    That is my biggest problem with EVE and why I quit Anarchy Online.To me, when the game's meta begins to revolve around multi-boxing, then so will development. I decided years ago, I was done playing games where it was expected that I'd be tabbing between clients.
  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Member EpicPosts: 3,967
    People began scoffing at subscriptions because the companies doing it mostly ask for a premium box price, premium monthly rate and couldn't keep up a content release schedule that warranted it. They also wouldn't have a sense of urgency for in-game issues.

    F2P model was a great option in theory, but it requires a company that has integrity to manage it, not low brow slumlord publishers with dragon/gold sickness.

    Companies like Trion will turn leave the heat on during the summer and price gouge to turn the AC on. All bad.
    "As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*" 

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,814
    edited August 2016
    DMKano said:
    People began scoffing at subscriptions because the companies doing it mostly ask for a premium box price, premium monthly rate and couldn't keep up a content release schedule that warranted it. They also wouldn't have a sense of urgency for in-game issues.

    F2P model was a great option in theory, but it requires a company that has integrity to manage it, not low brow slumlord publishers with dragon/gold sickness.

    Companies like Trion will turn leave the heat on during the summer and price gouge to turn the AC on. All bad.

    Can you provide an actual example of price gauging by Trion?

    DELETED
    Post edited by GeezerGamer on
  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,814
    edited August 2016
    DMKano said:
    DMKano said:
    People began scoffing at subscriptions because the companies doing it mostly ask for a premium box price, premium monthly rate and couldn't keep up a content release schedule that warranted it. They also wouldn't have a sense of urgency for in-game issues.

    F2P model was a great option in theory, but it requires a company that has integrity to manage it, not low brow slumlord publishers with dragon/gold sickness.

    Companies like Trion will turn leave the heat on during the summer and price gouge to turn the AC on. All bad.

    Can you provide an actual example of price gauging by Trion?

    There's a "bait" post if I've ever seen one.
    Yeah, answer the question and we all know where that leads.

    Huh?

    Someone makes a claim of "price gauging" asking for proof is baiting?

    Seriously? 


    EDIT:
    This didn't come out the way I wanted to say it.

    I'll just retract my previous comment and admit it was wrong.
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,272
    DMKano said:
    laserit said:
    DMKano said:
    laserit said:
    DMKano said:
    Phry said:
    "Also need I mention that Blizzard as a 5000+ employee billion+ dollar company is about 20 times the size and 100x the cash flow that pretty much none can match?"

    How did Blizzard get that big?

    I can tell you one thing- it wasn't from selling earing slots in the cash shop for WoW (cough Trion cough).
    If there is one thing that games like WoW, Eve Online, FFXIV:ARR have proven, is that good games thrive with a P2P subscription financial model, if there is one thing that has been repeatedly proven is that games that indulge too heavily in the F2P/Cash shop method, don't tend to last, although a lot of that is probably that in the case of most F2P MMO's at least, is that they aren't designed to last, they are just there to grab as much money as they can for however long they can.

    If they thrive with P2P model why did they all add cash shops?

    Because today it's accepted. If it was shunned by the general playerbase it wouldn't exist.

    Why say no to easy money?

    It's not the primary reason - it's because pure p2p can't sustain the vast majority of games anymore, all games NERD cash shops as additional revenue to keep them afloat.


    I can't disagree on that point, but I would also say that the vast majority are mediocre games at best. IMHO the sub model is still completely viable,  as long as the game is good enough.

    The problem is with so many games being good enough means you have a good playerbase for about 3 month tops and the decline is irreversible. 

    Pure P2P cannot be sustainable longterm due to even great games losing massive amount of players after 2-6 weeks.

    Majority today simply skip from one game to another for every major steam/console  release making pure p2p model impossible in today's market. 
    Nothing is impossible Kano, Its just difficult to make a game that stands out above the rest. Your certainly don't achieve it by being the same as everyone else.

    Pretty much all of these games you can attain max level in a week to reach the mythical non-existent "End-Game"

    It's no surprise the majority of the player base is done with a game after a few weeks. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. 


    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • jbombardjbombard Member UncommonPosts: 592

    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.



    A lot of long comments, but this pretty much sums it up nicely. It comes down to what is fun. For me when I have to dish out dollars to move forward the game isn't fun. Path of Exile has an excellent system. Everything is essentially free, yet I have spent more there than in most other games. And that money was never spent on something I felt I needed. I felt like I was getting so much fun from the game that I wanted to support them.
  • R3d.GallowsR3d.Gallows Member UncommonPosts: 155
    edited August 2016
    Gdemami said:
    R3d.Gallows said:
    This is not price related.
    Of course it is price related, we are talking about what and how much would you pay for - subscription and cash shops.

    You are the one claiming people will pay "anything" for "good enough game", yet once there is something people should pay for - it is manipulation and company selling "shit".

    You just again reinforced the point.
    I am claiming what? Why dont you answer my post not a strawman you clumsily constructed yourself. Good job ignoring my whole message. 
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,067
    edited August 2016
    R3d.Gallows said:
    I am claiming what? Why dont you answer my post not a strawman you clumsily constructed yourself. Good job ignoring my whole message. 
    Short memory?
    R3d.Gallows said:
    Unless you make a game good enough for them to want to play it regardless of the sub.
    So yeah, "anything".

    I did indeed answer your post. The rest of your post is ignored because it is build upon false premise, which I have addressed.
  • holdenhamletholdenhamlet Member EpicPosts: 3,764
    edited August 2016
    DMKano said:
    laserit said:
    DMKano said:
    laserit said:
    DMKano said:
    Phry said:
    "Also need I mention that Blizzard as a 5000+ employee billion+ dollar company is about 20 times the size and 100x the cash flow that pretty much none can match?"

    How did Blizzard get that big?

    I can tell you one thing- it wasn't from selling earing slots in the cash shop for WoW (cough Trion cough).
    If there is one thing that games like WoW, Eve Online, FFXIV:ARR have proven, is that good games thrive with a P2P subscription financial model, if there is one thing that has been repeatedly proven is that games that indulge too heavily in the F2P/Cash shop method, don't tend to last, although a lot of that is probably that in the case of most F2P MMO's at least, is that they aren't designed to last, they are just there to grab as much money as they can for however long they can.

    If they thrive with P2P model why did they all add cash shops?

    Because today it's accepted. If it was shunned by the general playerbase it wouldn't exist.

    Why say no to easy money?

    It's not the primary reason - it's because pure p2p can't sustain the vast majority of games anymore, all games NERD cash shops as additional revenue to keep them afloat.


    I can't disagree on that point, but I would also say that the vast majority are mediocre games at best. IMHO the sub model is still completely viable,  as long as the game is good enough.

    The problem is with so many games being good enough means you have a good playerbase for about 3 month tops and the decline is irreversible. 

    Pure P2P cannot be sustainable longterm due to even great games losing massive amount of players after 2-6 weeks.

    Majority today simply skip from one game to another for every major steam/console  release making pure p2p model impossible in today's market. 
    You fail to see a connection between games losing massive amounts of players in 2-6 weeks and scumbaggy monetization driving away massive amounts of players.

    I know you have friends at Trion, but just because they were unable to keep rift interesting enough to maintain subscribers and abandoned the model in favor of cash-grabby scumbagginess doesn't mean the model is no longer sustainable.

    FFXIV and WoW both prove that wrong.

    People began scoffing at subscriptions because the companies doing it mostly ask for a premium box price, premium monthly rate and couldn't keep up a content release schedule that warranted it. They also wouldn't have a sense of urgency for in-game issues.

    F2P model was a great option in theory, but it requires a company that has integrity to manage it, not low brow slumlord publishers with dragon/gold sickness.

    Companies like Trion will turn leave the heat on during the summer and price gouge to turn the AC on. All bad.

    Can you provide an actual example of price gauging by Trion?

    They sold equipment slots in the cash shop for Rift.
  • R3d.GallowsR3d.Gallows Member UncommonPosts: 155
    edited August 2016
    Gdemami said:
    R3d.Gallows said:
    I am claiming what? Why dont you answer my post not a strawman you clumsily constructed yourself. Good job ignoring my whole message. 
    Short memory?
    R3d.Gallows said:
    Unless you make a game good enough for them to want to play it regardless of the sub.
    So yeah, "anything".

    I did indeed answer your post. The rest of your post is ignored because it is build upon false premise, which I have addressed.
    You didnt and it isnt. People being OK with paying a sub for a game is nowhere close to them being OK to 'pay anything'. 
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,067
    edited August 2016
    R3d.Gallows said:
    You didnt and it isnt.
    What part of my post/point isn't clear to you and be specific please.

    R3d.Gallows said:
    This is not price related.

    Gdemami said:
    Of course it is price related, we are talking about what and how much would you pay for - subscription and cash shops.
  • kjempffkjempff Member RarePosts: 1,654
    There has been a ton of horrible monetization models when it comes to shops in games. From the devious and creepy to the sort of ok'ish, and a handful of fair ones.

    A good mmorpg in my opinion puts players in "competition", encourages players to explore and immerse themselves in the world, to progress and get rewarded and in this compare/mirror themselves with other players. A shop model constantly takes you out of the game world (non immersive), breaks up the barriers of comparison with others and therefore also progression and feeling of accomplishments (the fundamental part of a mmorpg). This goes for all shop models with in-game items including "just cosmetics".

    With all these various shop solutions in mind, every time I see a fair one (my opinion) it is always never a mmorpg. 
    My conclusion so far is that shop monetization WILL directly change the game design of a mmorpg and how it is played, mostly so much that the monetization model alone will push it out of mmorpg label range. For other types of games that are not consistent worlds and has a lesser degree of "player comparison" AKA NOT MMORPGS, shop monetization can work fine.

    "But this game only has cosmetics so no one gets cheated and therefore it is not p2w" - You are missing the point.
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,934
    DMKano said:
    I think fairness is completely subjective - so IMO you find a game that is "fair for you" and you play that.

    Adapt to reality of now, don't expect the world to change for you.

    If you can't find anything to suit you - move on.


    There is fairness and there is equality.
    Someone can say "Hey! That's not fair!" to anything they want. But equality can be measured. I want to play a game where I pay to gain entry. What I pay is equal to what everyone else pays to gain entry. From there, the only thing everybody gets for the fee, is the same amount of time. 

    Traditionally, we'd all pay $15.00 in exchange for 30 days access. That's what EVERYONE pays, that's what EVERYONE gets. 30 day. How people choose to use that time is on them. 

    Subjective:
    "It's not fair! That person spends 12hrs a day in the game, and I can only spend 4!"

    Equality:
    You both paid for 30 days access, you both recieved 30 days access.

    The arrangements one makes in their own life in order to use what they were given is entirely on them and should not be foisted on the rest of the player base in the form of "Convenience Items". Otherwise known as "Fairness", which it seems can be bought.
    Wait, you're telling me people with tons of extra time and no money want a 24/7/365 online service to entertain them for as cheap as possible while providing all the advantages unlimited time provide? Say it's not so. I wonder why the people with more money and less time aren't interested in bankrolling that for them.
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,196
    Torval said:
    DMKano said:
    I think fairness is completely subjective - so IMO you find a game that is "fair for you" and you play that.

    Adapt to reality of now, don't expect the world to change for you.

    If you can't find anything to suit you - move on.


    There is fairness and there is equality.
    Someone can say "Hey! That's not fair!" to anything they want. But equality can be measured. I want to play a game where I pay to gain entry. What I pay is equal to what everyone else pays to gain entry. From there, the only thing everybody gets for the fee, is the same amount of time. 

    Traditionally, we'd all pay $15.00 in exchange for 30 days access. That's what EVERYONE pays, that's what EVERYONE gets. 30 day. How people choose to use that time is on them. 

    Subjective:
    "It's not fair! That person spends 12hrs a day in the game, and I can only spend 4!"

    Equality:
    You both paid for 30 days access, you both recieved 30 days access.

    The arrangements one makes in their own life in order to use what they were given is entirely on them and should not be foisted on the rest of the player base in the form of "Convenience Items". Otherwise known as "Fairness", which it seems can be bought.
    Wait, you're telling me people with tons of extra time and no money want a 24/7/365 online service to entertain them for as cheap as possible while providing all the advantages unlimited time provide? Say it's not so. I wonder why the people with more money and less time aren't interested in bankrolling that for them.
    Aren't the people with more money bankrolling the F2P games anyway?

    What I have a hard time believing is that paying for a sub and not using it as much as 3 teens who share an account in shifts really annoys people. Are they bothered that they watch Netflix less than others?

    I can see deciding to stop a sub to a service because you don't use it. My son, for example only subs to a cable service during hockey season because he doesn't watch much TV other than that. But when he does, he doesn't all of a sudden decide to watch reality TV to get his money's worth.

    And I can also see that the recurring sub model can be an annoyance since you have to actively cancel it.

    But I do think you guys are stretching the "unfairness" of playing less than others to try to make an anti-sub point beyond all reason.
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
Sign In or Register to comment.