I bet they count each month separately too. Add in those who have multi accounts... still big numbers but it would put it in perspective if we went by players subbed versus "subscriptions".
Do you think there is a correlation with the sub model dying and the decline of MMORPGs? I dont think its the only reason but part of the problem. But again there are many issues. Personally i love cool cosmetics items, mounts, etc. It makes it fun if i can actually acquire them by playing the game instead of buying them off a store which i never buy stuff off a cash shop. Wish we would go back to the sub model.
This has always been something that baffled me.
I hear players talk about how they would spend upwards to, I think the highest I have heard to date was like 30 a month fee to play a game, where they get nothing but access to the game, which they will lose the second they cease to pay their subscription fee.
But If access to the game is given to them for free, even if they are playing and enjoying the game, they won't spend that self same $30 a month for some extra perks to keep the game going.
Never Understood this to be honest, and I don't think I ever will, and I am not sure if I even want to try.
I think people will pay to keep the integrity of the game intact. These games are also services which are not uncommon. I don't pay my car insurance, cable, Netflix, electricity or whatever service and I don't have access.
While F2P you get access til server dies often times the means in which it is monetized is exploitive or amounts to paying to cheat/skip the game/etc.
Do you think there is a correlation with the sub model dying and the decline of MMORPGs? I dont think its the only reason but part of the problem. But again there are many issues. Personally i love cool cosmetics items, mounts, etc. It makes it fun if i can actually acquire them by playing the game instead of buying them off a store which i never buy stuff off a cash shop. Wish we would go back to the sub model.
This has always been something that baffled me.
I hear players talk about how they would spend upwards to, I think the highest I have heard to date was like 30 a month fee to play a game, where they get nothing but access to the game, which they will lose the second they cease to pay their subscription fee.
But If access to the game is given to them for free, even if they are playing and enjoying the game, they won't spend that self same $30 a month for some extra perks to keep the game going.
Never Understood this to be honest, and I don't think I ever will, and I am not sure if I even want to try.
I think people will pay to keep the integrity of the game intact. These games are also services which are not uncommon. I don't pay my car insurance, cable, Netflix, electricity or whatever service and I don't have access.
While F2P you get access til server dies often times the means in which it is monetized is exploitive or amounts to paying to cheat/skip the game/etc.
So the basic idea here is that unless the company forces players to pay money, they won't spend it.
At the same time, it does seem very reasonable that the people that are paying to keep the game going should in fact get an advantage over those that are just freeloading.
But, see this very problem goes back to the Turbine Model, and why it works.
The Company offers a very small, limited, part of the game as a free sample, and then sells everything else piecemeal and through expansions.
While DDO is the poster-child of this system, not many have played it, so, Using a very well known brand like, GW2 as an example: F2P is the Human Race, Divinity Reach, Lions Arch, and the Kryta maps, and the Caudecus's Manor Dungeon (which would get downgraded to be level 35, and AC would be moved up to be harder), and your Home Borderland Map in WvW only.
This does not include access to Fractals.
Then Sell a Norn Package, Charr Package, Sylvari Package, Asura Package, etc.. which would include the Race, Maps, Etc. Say, 1200 Gems ($15 dollars) each, or sell the whole package as a "Box Set" for $50 (That's a $20 dollar savings)
Then just keep making & selling more stuff as you go along.
The Players that are enjoying the game and want to play more of it, and they will gladly keep buying it, and even ask for more.
Sure, this might mean that the paid content areas are always the same 100K people, but, that is not a bad thing, the paying players won't mind, and the players that feel they should not spend any money can still enjoy their free content areas.
Equally so, they would remove all the skins and a lot of the junk from the Store, and distribute that into the game world, so it all becomes quest/reward items as opposed to store items.
This way, while they have to buy access to the content, all the shiny gear is still the byproduct of being earned in game.
Still wondering why other game companies have not used this model, it seems like the perfect fix.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Do you think there is a correlation with the sub model dying and the decline of MMORPGs? I dont think its the only reason but part of the problem. But again there are many issues. Personally i love cool cosmetics items, mounts, etc. It makes it fun if i can actually acquire them by playing the game instead of buying them off a store which i never buy stuff off a cash shop. Wish we would go back to the sub model.
This has always been something that baffled me.
I hear players talk about how they would spend upwards to, I think the highest I have heard to date was like 30 a month fee to play a game, where they get nothing but access to the game, which they will lose the second they cease to pay their subscription fee.
But If access to the game is given to them for free, even if they are playing and enjoying the game, they won't spend that self same $30 a month for some extra perks to keep the game going.
Never Understood this to be honest, and I don't think I ever will, and I am not sure if I even want to try.
I think people will pay to keep the integrity of the game intact. These games are also services which are not uncommon. I don't pay my car insurance, cable, Netflix, electricity or whatever service and I don't have access.
While F2P you get access til server dies often times the means in which it is monetized is exploitive or amounts to paying to cheat/skip the game/etc.
So the basic idea here is that unless the company forces players to pay money, they won't spend it.
At the same time, it does seem very reasonable that the people that are paying to keep the game going should in fact get an advantage over those that are just freeloading.
But, see this very problem goes back to the Turbine Model, and why it works.
The Company offers a very small, limited, part of the game as a free sample, and then sells everything else piecemeal and through expansions.
While DDO is the poster-child of this system, not many have played it, so, Using a very well known brand like, GW2 as an example: F2P is the Human Race, Divinity Reach, Lions Arch, and the Kryta maps, and the Caudecus's Manor Dungeon (which would get downgraded to be level 35, and AC would be moved up to be harder), and your Home Borderland Map in WvW only.
This does not include access to Fractals.
Then Sell a Norn Package, Charr Package, Sylvari Package, Asura Package, etc.. which would include the Race, Maps, Etc. Say, 1200 Gems ($15 dollars) each, or sell the whole package as a "Box Set" for $50 (That's a $20 dollar savings)
Then just keep making & selling more stuff as you go along.
The Players that are enjoying the game and want to play more of it, and they will gladly keep buying it, and even ask for more.
Sure, this might mean that the paid content areas are always the same 100K people, but, that is not a bad thing, the paying players won't mind, and the players that feel they should not spend any money can still enjoy their free content areas.
Equally so, they would remove all the skins and a lot of the junk from the Store, and distribute that into the game world, so it all becomes quest/reward items as opposed to store items.
This way, while they have to buy access to the content, all the shiny gear is still the byproduct of being earned in game.
Still wondering why other game companies have not used this model, it seems like the perfect fix.
Apologies in advance as my response is a gross simplification of your final question but it was a very insightful post.
I'm thinking the reason more companies aren't using the Turbine model is they feel their current monetization is bringing in at least as much, if not more revenue than switching over to something else might.
Key word being "might", they well know what their current model generates, and is likely to in the future.
Switching is more of a risk, could be big winner or..a terrible loser if fans don't receive the change well.
Major model changes probably only occur when forecasts look very grim, hence justifying the risk.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Here's the problem I have with the sub model: It isn't the $15 a month so much, it's that it adds up after several months.....You look back a couple years later and realize you have spent several hundred dollars just to access a video game. In the end it feels like a total waste of money.
As opposed to what other form of entertainment, exactly? MMOs are stupid cheap in terms of hours spent:dollars spent. You literally cannot find a cheaper way to play games unless you just infinitely loop something like The Witcher 3.
I wanted to give you an eyeball emoji but I don't know how to give it.
Do you think there is a correlation with the sub model dying and the decline of MMORPGs? I dont think its the only reason but part of the problem. But again there are many issues. Personally i love cool cosmetics items, mounts, etc. It makes it fun if i can actually acquire them by playing the game instead of buying them off a store which i never buy stuff off a cash shop. Wish we would go back to the sub model.
This has always been something that baffled me.
I hear players talk about how they would spend upwards to, I think the highest I have heard to date was like 30 a month fee to play a game, where they get nothing but access to the game, which they will lose the second they cease to pay their subscription fee.
But If access to the game is given to them for free, even if they are playing and enjoying the game, they won't spend that self same $30 a month for some extra perks to keep the game going.
Never Understood this to be honest, and I don't think I ever will, and I am not sure if I even want to try.
I think people will pay to keep the integrity of the game intact. These games are also services which are not uncommon. I don't pay my car insurance, cable, Netflix, electricity or whatever service and I don't have access.
While F2P you get access til server dies often times the means in which it is monetized is exploitive or amounts to paying to cheat/skip the game/etc.
So the basic idea here is that unless the company forces players to pay money, they won't spend it.
At the same time, it does seem very reasonable that the people that are paying to keep the game going should in fact get an advantage over those that are just freeloading.
But, see this very problem goes back to the Turbine Model, and why it works.
The Company offers a very small, limited, part of the game as a free sample, and then sells everything else piecemeal and through expansions.
While DDO is the poster-child of this system, not many have played it, so, Using a very well known brand like, GW2 as an example: F2P is the Human Race, Divinity Reach, Lions Arch, and the Kryta maps, and the Caudecus's Manor Dungeon (which would get downgraded to be level 35, and AC would be moved up to be harder), and your Home Borderland Map in WvW only.
This does not include access to Fractals.
Then Sell a Norn Package, Charr Package, Sylvari Package, Asura Package, etc.. which would include the Race, Maps, Etc. Say, 1200 Gems ($15 dollars) each, or sell the whole package as a "Box Set" for $50 (That's a $20 dollar savings)
Then just keep making & selling more stuff as you go along.
The Players that are enjoying the game and want to play more of it, and they will gladly keep buying it, and even ask for more.
Sure, this might mean that the paid content areas are always the same 100K people, but, that is not a bad thing, the paying players won't mind, and the players that feel they should not spend any money can still enjoy their free content areas.
Equally so, they would remove all the skins and a lot of the junk from the Store, and distribute that into the game world, so it all becomes quest/reward items as opposed to store items.
This way, while they have to buy access to the content, all the shiny gear is still the byproduct of being earned in game.
Still wondering why other game companies have not used this model, it seems like the perfect fix.
Yeah the problem comes into play where the people who pay more and more get more advantages. It's exploitive. Why would a freeloader spend money if they can't possibly keep up with someone spending thousands?
This also violates the integrity of fair play in a game. Should I be able to be invincible in a FPS and nuke the whole map because I spend more money. Is that even fun? Should things be included at a price that help avoid playing a game?
I hear players talk about how they would spend upwards to, I think the highest I have heard to date was like 30 a month fee to play a game, where they get nothing but access to the game, which they will lose the second they cease to pay their subscription fee.
But If access to the game is given to them for free, even if they are playing and enjoying the game, they won't spend that self same $30 a month for some extra perks to keep the game going.
Never Understood this to be honest, and I don't think I ever will, and I am not sure if I even want to try.
I think people will pay to keep the integrity of the game intact. These games are also services which are not uncommon. I don't pay my car insurance, cable, Netflix, electricity or whatever service and I don't have access.
While F2P you get access til server dies often times the means in which it is monetized is exploitive or amounts to paying to cheat/skip the game/etc.
So the basic idea here is that unless the company forces players to pay money, they won't spend it.
At the same time, it does seem very reasonable that the people that are paying to keep the game going should in fact get an advantage over those that are just freeloading.
But, see this very problem goes back to the Turbine Model, and why it works.
The Company offers a very small, limited, part of the game as a free sample, and then sells everything else piecemeal and through expansions.
While DDO is the poster-child of this system, not many have played it, so, Using a very well known brand like, GW2 as an example: F2P is the Human Race, Divinity Reach, Lions Arch, and the Kryta maps, and the Caudecus's Manor Dungeon (which would get downgraded to be level 35, and AC would be moved up to be harder), and your Home Borderland Map in WvW only.
This does not include access to Fractals.
Then Sell a Norn Package, Charr Package, Sylvari Package, Asura Package, etc.. which would include the Race, Maps, Etc. Say, 1200 Gems ($15 dollars) each, or sell the whole package as a "Box Set" for $50 (That's a $20 dollar savings)
Then just keep making & selling more stuff as you go along.
The Players that are enjoying the game and want to play more of it, and they will gladly keep buying it, and even ask for more.
Sure, this might mean that the paid content areas are always the same 100K people, but, that is not a bad thing, the paying players won't mind, and the players that feel they should not spend any money can still enjoy their free content areas.
Equally so, they would remove all the skins and a lot of the junk from the Store, and distribute that into the game world, so it all becomes quest/reward items as opposed to store items.
This way, while they have to buy access to the content, all the shiny gear is still the byproduct of being earned in game.
Still wondering why other game companies have not used this model, it seems like the perfect fix.
Apologies in advance as my response is a gross simplification of your final question but it was a very insightful post.
I'm thinking the reason more companies aren't using the Turbine model is they feel their current monetization is bringing in at least as much, if not more revenue than switching over to something else might.
Key word being "might", they well know what their current model generates, and is likely to in the future.
Switching is more of a risk, could be big winner or..a terrible loser if fans don't receive the change well.
Major model changes probably only occur when forecasts look very grim, hence justifying the risk.
That depends.
I mean, to be honest if what they have is working, then I fully agree there is no reason to change horses mid stream.
However, in games like GW2, where Anet had to lay off half their staff and their senior executives were replaced because they were not making the cut... that would be a really good time to visit different payment plans and styles. But that is just my thinking. Obviously they felt getting laid off/replaced was the better plan. But that's just like, the embodiment of how Anets been with GW2 from the start I guess.
But my point was not to say that games should switch over, but why don't new games coming out use this system with an MMO that is built from the ground up, where they can make this shine. Games like New World, Crowfall, Camelot Unchained, Star Citizen, Ashes of Creation, and all these upcoming MMO's you know they are all going to be F2P w/Item Malls, and sell crap in the store as opposed to selling content.
The question is.. Why?
Turbines model took a dead game, seriously DDO was dead-floating, and they spun it around with their model, so why don't companies use that?
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I think people will pay to keep the integrity of the game intact. These games are also services which are not uncommon. I don't pay my car insurance, cable, Netflix, electricity or whatever service and I don't have access.
While F2P you get access til server dies often times the means in which it is monetized is exploitive or amounts to paying to cheat/skip the game/etc.
So the basic idea here is that unless the company forces players to pay money, they won't spend it.
At the same time, it does seem very reasonable that the people that are paying to keep the game going should in fact get an advantage over those that are just freeloading.
But, see this very problem goes back to the Turbine Model, and why it works.
The Company offers a very small, limited, part of the game as a free sample, and then sells everything else piecemeal and through expansions.
While DDO is the poster-child of this system, not many have played it, so, Using a very well known brand like, GW2 as an example: F2P is the Human Race, Divinity Reach, Lions Arch, and the Kryta maps, and the Caudecus's Manor Dungeon (which would get downgraded to be level 35, and AC would be moved up to be harder), and your Home Borderland Map in WvW only.
This does not include access to Fractals.
Then Sell a Norn Package, Charr Package, Sylvari Package, Asura Package, etc.. which would include the Race, Maps, Etc. Say, 1200 Gems ($15 dollars) each, or sell the whole package as a "Box Set" for $50 (That's a $20 dollar savings)
Then just keep making & selling more stuff as you go along.
The Players that are enjoying the game and want to play more of it, and they will gladly keep buying it, and even ask for more.
Sure, this might mean that the paid content areas are always the same 100K people, but, that is not a bad thing, the paying players won't mind, and the players that feel they should not spend any money can still enjoy their free content areas.
Equally so, they would remove all the skins and a lot of the junk from the Store, and distribute that into the game world, so it all becomes quest/reward items as opposed to store items.
This way, while they have to buy access to the content, all the shiny gear is still the byproduct of being earned in game.
Still wondering why other game companies have not used this model, it seems like the perfect fix.
Yeah the problem comes into play where the people who pay more and more get more advantages. It's exploitive. Why would a freeloader spend money if they can't possibly keep up with someone spending thousands?
This also violates the integrity of fair play in a game. Should I be able to be invincible in a FPS and nuke the whole map because I spend more money. Is that even fun? Should things be included at a price that help avoid playing a game?
This is my feeling on the "Integrity" issue.
Since the dawn of the MMO, the only fairness has been among those that buy the content.
Let me explain that, Starting back 20 years ago, in EQ. Everyone that paid a sub was not equal, EQ put out roughly a new expansion every year, and suddenly the sub players were divided between those that bought it, and those that didn't.
Those that bought the new content were given access to more maps, new monsters, higher levels, better gear, etc, etc, etc. They had a direct advantage over those that didn't buy it, but where on equal footing with everyone else that did.
Those that's didn't, were not given that access, even if they paid the same sub as everyone else. But they remained on equal footing with everyone else that didn't buy the expansion.
Turbine, simply took that "Expansion" idea, that concept of buying content, broke it into small chunks, and removed the necessity of the sub.
Thus, everyone that bought the content packs were on an equal footing as everyone else that bought the content packs, and what they did in game is what moved then along ahead or behind each other.
Same as Expansions in the Past and Present.
Those that didn't buy the content packs were also on the same footing as each other, and what they did in game moved them along ahead or behind each other.
Again.. Same as Expansions past and present.
This keeping what you would call the integrity of the game intact.
The real question is, why don't more games start off with this idea?
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I'm thinking the reason more companies aren't using the Turbine model is they feel their current monetization is bringing in at least as much, if not more revenue than switching over to something else might.
The chronology is backwards, since Turbine was the first, and other companies and their "current" models are followed, so the switch already has happened in the past.
The other part is correct though, when other games went to f2p, they moved away/switched over from the DDO / LotRO model for that exact reason, bringing in more cash, more easily.
It was clear from the start, with every unlock being account-wide and convenience can't stretch beyond a limit either (like you can buy 2 more LI slots in the store, yay... if they put in 2 more, players would just yawn ), so the only way to sustain the income flow in that model -besides the remaining subscribers- is to keep adding new zones and new content to purchase as the players go.
Obviously wasn't a tempting model for games with the easy cash-grab intentions... You could even say Turbine's was too honest, or fair. That's why I didn't like those "boo hoo, entry fee is so high" people...
Mind you, even SSG is steering away from their own Turbine heritage, with the recent shift of leaning more heavily on lootboxes, etc. simply because the "old" model can't compete with the numbers you can see on games like Neverwinter with its lootbox infested borderline p2w model, and SSG likes money just as much as PWE/Cryptic.
Many people have a mindset that if they pay more for something then it must be better......It's like if McDonalds charged $15 for a big mac...There are people then that would think it's better than the $5 big Mac because it costs more....Charging more for a MMO does not make it better.
I'm thinking the reason more companies aren't using the Turbine model is they feel their current monetization is bringing in at least as much, if not more revenue than switching over to something else might.
The chronology is backwards, since Turbine was the first, and other companies and their "current" models are followed, so the switch already has happened in the past.
The other part is correct though, when other games went to f2p, they moved away/switched over from the DDO / LotRO model for that exact reason, bringing in more cash, more easily.
It was clear from the start, with every unlock being account-wide and convenience can't stretch beyond a limit either (like you can buy 2 more LI slots in the store, yay... if they put in 2 more, players would just yawn ), so the only way to sustain the income flow in that model -besides the remaining subscribers- is to keep adding new zones and new content to purchase as the players go.
Obviously wasn't a tempting model for games with the easy cash-grab intentions... You could even say Turbine's was too honest, or fair. That's why I didn't like those "boo hoo, entry fee is so high" people...
Mind you, even SSG is steering away from their own Turbine heritage, with the recent shift of leaning more heavily on lootboxes, etc. simply because the "old" model can't compete with the numbers you can see on games like Neverwinter with its lootbox infested borderline p2w model, and SSG likes money just as much as PWE/Cryptic.
To be fair, SSG/Turbine never had the staff or the talent to really pull the idea off well enough to be sustainable for them, it was a brilliant idea and their signature Hail-Mary pass that paid off for them big time, but, they never really had what it took to go big time anyway, even if their idea payment idea was downright brilliant.
Anet on the other hand, did have the staff and the talent, and could have built a sustainable system off the Turbine Model, given that they are continually pumping out new content and giving it away for free.
As mentioned above by @Vermillion_Raventhal, if the players don't need to spend money, they won't, so the idea of selling content piecemeal puts that sense of 'need' on them, so that the vast majority of players end up spending money.
Also, just because a company sells content in an honest manner, doesn't mean they can't also sell cosmetics, account options, pets, mini's, mounts, etc in the store, to bolster funds.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I've played F2P & sub, and prefer sub. Hate paywalls, mtx's, etc...but F2P has led me to sub.
Taking into account that F2P is the new 'demo' model, I guess it's fine. On mobile, all those ads eat up a lot of data, so is it really free in the long run by taking up data (I don't have unlimited), and especially time?
To be a kid gamer now must be the best though, with regards to F2P. The volume of games coming out is crazy high, compared to the handful that came out per year when I was a kid.
The only roadblock is data, internet connection, device memory management, paying out the ass to bypass actual gameplay in most cases, and teaching kids horrible gaming habits by making them all ADHD, and not be able to enjoy anything for longer than 10 minutes....but that's about it.
Many people have a mindset that if they pay more for something then it must be better......It's like if McDonalds charged $15 for a big mac...There are people then that would think it's better than the $5 big Mac because it costs more....Charging more for a MMO does not make it better.
Tell that to Lexus buyers who pay significantly more for what basically is a Toyota.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Many people have a mindset that if they pay more for something then it must be better......It's like if McDonalds charged $15 for a big mac...There are people then that would think it's better than the $5 big Mac because it costs more....Charging more for a MMO does not make it better.
Tell that to Lexus buyers who pay significantly more for what basically is a Toyota.
I was in Australia and saw an Acura TL with a Honda Avalon badge... because "only Americans are stupid enough to pay more for the same car with a different badge".
I hear players talk about how they would spend upwards to, I think the highest I have heard to date was like 30 a month fee to play a game, where they get nothing but access to the game, which they will lose the second they cease to pay their subscription fee.
But If access to the game is given to them for free, even if they are playing and enjoying the game, they won't spend that self same $30 a month for some extra perks to keep the game going.
Never Understood this to be honest, and I don't think I ever will, and I am not sure if I even want to try.
I think people will pay to keep the integrity of the game intact. These games are also services which are not uncommon. I don't pay my car insurance, cable, Netflix, electricity or whatever service and I don't have access.
While F2P you get access til server dies often times the means in which it is monetized is exploitive or amounts to paying to cheat/skip the game/etc.
So the basic idea here is that unless the company forces players to pay money, they won't spend it.
At the same time, it does seem very reasonable that the people that are paying to keep the game going should in fact get an advantage over those that are just freeloading.
But, see this very problem goes back to the Turbine Model, and why it works.
The Company offers a very small, limited, part of the game as a free sample, and then sells everything else piecemeal and through expansions.
While DDO is the poster-child of this system, not many have played it, so, Using a very well known brand like, GW2 as an example: F2P is the Human Race, Divinity Reach, Lions Arch, and the Kryta maps, and the Caudecus's Manor Dungeon (which would get downgraded to be level 35, and AC would be moved up to be harder), and your Home Borderland Map in WvW only.
This does not include access to Fractals.
Then Sell a Norn Package, Charr Package, Sylvari Package, Asura Package, etc.. which would include the Race, Maps, Etc. Say, 1200 Gems ($15 dollars) each, or sell the whole package as a "Box Set" for $50 (That's a $20 dollar savings)
Then just keep making & selling more stuff as you go along.
The Players that are enjoying the game and want to play more of it, and they will gladly keep buying it, and even ask for more.
Sure, this might mean that the paid content areas are always the same 100K people, but, that is not a bad thing, the paying players won't mind, and the players that feel they should not spend any money can still enjoy their free content areas.
Equally so, they would remove all the skins and a lot of the junk from the Store, and distribute that into the game world, so it all becomes quest/reward items as opposed to store items.
This way, while they have to buy access to the content, all the shiny gear is still the byproduct of being earned in game.
Still wondering why other game companies have not used this model, it seems like the perfect fix.
Apologies in advance as my response is a gross simplification of your final question but it was a very insightful post.
I'm thinking the reason more companies aren't using the Turbine model is they feel their current monetization is bringing in at least as much, if not more revenue than switching over to something else might.
Key word being "might", they well know what their current model generates, and is likely to in the future.
Switching is more of a risk, could be big winner or..a terrible loser if fans don't receive the change well.
Major model changes probably only occur when forecasts look very grim, hence justifying the risk.
That depends.
I mean, to be honest if what they have is working, then I fully agree there is no reason to change horses mid stream.
However, in games like GW2, where Anet had to lay off half their staff and their senior executives were replaced because they were not making the cut... that would be a really good time to visit different payment plans and styles. But that is just my thinking. Obviously they felt getting laid off/replaced was the better plan. But that's just like, the embodiment of how Anets been with GW2 from the start I guess.
But my point was not to say that games should switch over, but why don't new games coming out use this system with an MMO that is built from the ground up, where they can make this shine. Games like New World, Crowfall, Camelot Unchained, Star Citizen, Ashes of Creation, and all these upcoming MMO's you know they are all going to be F2P w/Item Malls, and sell crap in the store as opposed to selling content.
The question is.. Why?
Turbines model took a dead game, seriously DDO was dead-floating, and they spun it around with their model, so why don't companies use that?
I'll try to answer the, "Why?" Unlimited spending. Does your model have this? Maybe I'm missing something, but F2P with the huge cash shop means players who can spend will do so with no limit to what they may purchase.
I haven't played DDO since it released, so I have no idea what all they have to spend money on.
For me, I want to play the same game that everyone else does, and your method butchers the game up into little pieces. I don't want to have to worry about "Did I buy that zone?" or "Can I group up with these races I haven't purchased?" Have I bought that dungeon yet?"
Am I missing something here that has you thinking this DDO system is "the bee's knees?"
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
I'll try to answer the, "Why?" Unlimited spending. Does your model have this?
Nope. That's why I said above how the games switched to f2p after Turbine, all went with a different model. On first glance it might've looked like competition with the previous games ("we give more for free than those already f2p!" "we'll go f2p, and will give even more for free!"), while all they did was moving the actual paying part farther down the line, and put it behind different (and often shady) mechanics.
With DDO/LotRO the "unlimited" spending ain't there, or at least wasn't at start, but even now it's only technically there, while in reality it's a hard thing to do and clearly not the default setting like in other games.
You buy the content, sub for a month, and pretty much you "unlocked" the whole game for your existing characters.
All the convenience purchases above that have caps (can buy only once, or only few times per account, and unlocked forever).
Beyond that there were only the cosmetics for the "unlimited" spending, and the lootboxes which were the least invasive among the genre - until Mordor, that is.
I hear players talk about how they would spend upwards to, I think the highest I have heard to date was like 30 a month fee to play a game, where they get nothing but access to the game, which they will lose the second they cease to pay their subscription fee.
But If access to the game is given to them for free, even if they are playing and enjoying the game, they won't spend that self same $30 a month for some extra perks to keep the game going.
Never Understood this to be honest, and I don't think I ever will, and I am not sure if I even want to try.
I think people will pay to keep the integrity of the game intact. These games are also services which are not uncommon. I don't pay my car insurance, cable, Netflix, electricity or whatever service and I don't have access.
While F2P you get access til server dies often times the means in which it is monetized is exploitive or amounts to paying to cheat/skip the game/etc.
So the basic idea here is that unless the company forces players to pay money, they won't spend it.
At the same time, it does seem very reasonable that the people that are paying to keep the game going should in fact get an advantage over those that are just freeloading.
But, see this very problem goes back to the Turbine Model, and why it works.
The Company offers a very small, limited, part of the game as a free sample, and then sells everything else piecemeal and through expansions.
While DDO is the poster-child of this system, not many have played it, so, Using a very well known brand like, GW2 as an example: F2P is the Human Race, Divinity Reach, Lions Arch, and the Kryta maps, and the Caudecus's Manor Dungeon (which would get downgraded to be level 35, and AC would be moved up to be harder), and your Home Borderland Map in WvW only.
This does not include access to Fractals.
Then Sell a Norn Package, Charr Package, Sylvari Package, Asura Package, etc.. which would include the Race, Maps, Etc. Say, 1200 Gems ($15 dollars) each, or sell the whole package as a "Box Set" for $50 (That's a $20 dollar savings)
Then just keep making & selling more stuff as you go along.
The Players that are enjoying the game and want to play more of it, and they will gladly keep buying it, and even ask for more.
Sure, this might mean that the paid content areas are always the same 100K people, but, that is not a bad thing, the paying players won't mind, and the players that feel they should not spend any money can still enjoy their free content areas.
Equally so, they would remove all the skins and a lot of the junk from the Store, and distribute that into the game world, so it all becomes quest/reward items as opposed to store items.
This way, while they have to buy access to the content, all the shiny gear is still the byproduct of being earned in game.
Still wondering why other game companies have not used this model, it seems like the perfect fix.
Apologies in advance as my response is a gross simplification of your final question but it was a very insightful post.
I'm thinking the reason more companies aren't using the Turbine model is they feel their current monetization is bringing in at least as much, if not more revenue than switching over to something else might.
Key word being "might", they well know what their current model generates, and is likely to in the future.
Switching is more of a risk, could be big winner or..a terrible loser if fans don't receive the change well.
Major model changes probably only occur when forecasts look very grim, hence justifying the risk.
That depends.
I mean, to be honest if what they have is working, then I fully agree there is no reason to change horses mid stream.
However, in games like GW2, where Anet had to lay off half their staff and their senior executives were replaced because they were not making the cut... that would be a really good time to visit different payment plans and styles. But that is just my thinking. Obviously they felt getting laid off/replaced was the better plan. But that's just like, the embodiment of how Anets been with GW2 from the start I guess.
But my point was not to say that games should switch over, but why don't new games coming out use this system with an MMO that is built from the ground up, where they can make this shine. Games like New World, Crowfall, Camelot Unchained, Star Citizen, Ashes of Creation, and all these upcoming MMO's you know they are all going to be F2P w/Item Malls, and sell crap in the store as opposed to selling content.
The question is.. Why?
Turbines model took a dead game, seriously DDO was dead-floating, and they spun it around with their model, so why don't companies use that?
Many games are released subscription based but switched to cash shop, for example ESO/LOTRO/SWTOR.
My guess is developer would keep the game subscription based if the population is good. It is really they can't keep their players, so they switched.
I think I read somewhere camelot unchained is going to be subscription based. Crowfall I think is buy to play with optional subscription for more character slot. I'm not exactly sure on the detail, you need to read on it on your own.
I think in summary the subscription only model is dead, even when offered they are almost always supplemented with additional ways for customers to spend above and beyond.
I'd say most devs these days try to utilize a combination of monetization tools to ensure customer spending can be almost unlimited should they so desire, which some of course do.
I think the trick is to find the best way to entice whales to spend big while at the same time not making those not able or interested in doing so not feel like 2nd class citizens or there's a big risk they'll walk away.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Subscription is so dead that nearly every F2P game jumped on the band wagon years ago and offered some sort of subscription. Subscription is so dead that ESO launched with a subscription when we were told that made no business sense and thrived on it, sure they went B2P but launching as a subscription can work.
Kyleran's example of Runescape is just further proof that subscription is viable, you could even combine it with that time slot thing he talked about, sort of a sub by the hour.
So how did we get to the point where people think Subscription is not viable? Well firstly players like something for free and those who did not care what effect the new F2P revenue model had on gameplay were the majority. Secondly cash shops made a lot of money, the profit when you looked at how much less F2P cost to make than the big sub MMOs before it was obvious.
So the die was cast, subscription was on its way out. It took years for many players to realise that the lack of quality from most free to play was not down to poor developers but the revenue model. You build cheap you get cheap. You build in gambling game play, you are making a casino game, not a MMO. There is kick back against this now, but don't expect major change while the money keeps rolling in.
Subscription is so dead that nearly every F2P game jumped on the band wagon years ago and offered some sort of subscription. Subscription is so dead that ESO launched with a subscription when we were told that made no business sense and thrived on it, sure they went B2P but launching as a subscription can work.
Kyleran's example of Runescape is just further proof that subscription is viable, you could even combine it with that time slot thing he talked about, sort of a sub by the hour.
So how did we get to the point where people think Subscription is not viable? Well firstly players like something for free and those who did not care what effect the new F2P revenue model had on gameplay were the majority. Secondly cash shops made a lot of money, the profit when you looked at how much less F2P cost to make than the big sub MMOs before it was obvious.
So the die was cast, subscription was on its way out. It took years for many players to realise that the lack of quality from most free to play was not down to poor developers but the revenue model. You build cheap you get cheap. You build in gambling game play, you are making a casino game, not a MMO. There is kick back against this now, but don't expect major change while the money keeps rolling in.
Keep in mind, the first F2P MMO's were former subscription model MMO's, so that kinda debunks the whole "Made Cheap" stand that some people like say.
Games like TERA for example, it was a Box+Sub game at lunch, and held on to it's sub for roughly a year, before going F2P. It would be dishonest to say that was a cheap quality game suddenly because it transferred to a F2P payment model when it was built as a sub based game.
Just saying.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Comments
I had a lot of fun playing Eve Online, but that is many years ago now, I played that a lot for over three years.
While F2P you get access til server dies often times the means in which it is monetized is exploitive or amounts to paying to cheat/skip the game/etc.
At the same time, it does seem very reasonable that the people that are paying to keep the game going should in fact get an advantage over those that are just freeloading.
But, see this very problem goes back to the Turbine Model, and why it works.
The Company offers a very small, limited, part of the game as a free sample, and then sells everything else piecemeal and through expansions.
While DDO is the poster-child of this system, not many have played it, so, Using a very well known brand like, GW2 as an example: F2P is the Human Race, Divinity Reach, Lions Arch, and the Kryta maps, and the Caudecus's Manor Dungeon (which would get downgraded to be level 35, and AC would be moved up to be harder), and your Home Borderland Map in WvW only.
This does not include access to Fractals.
Then Sell a Norn Package, Charr Package, Sylvari Package, Asura Package, etc.. which would include the Race, Maps, Etc. Say, 1200 Gems ($15 dollars) each, or sell the whole package as a "Box Set" for $50 (That's a $20 dollar savings)
Then just keep making & selling more stuff as you go along.
The Players that are enjoying the game and want to play more of it, and they will gladly keep buying it, and even ask for more.
Sure, this might mean that the paid content areas are always the same 100K people, but, that is not a bad thing, the paying players won't mind, and the players that feel they should not spend any money can still enjoy their free content areas.
Equally so, they would remove all the skins and a lot of the junk from the Store, and distribute that into the game world, so it all becomes quest/reward items as opposed to store items.
This way, while they have to buy access to the content, all the shiny gear is still the byproduct of being earned in game.
Still wondering why other game companies have not used this model, it seems like the perfect fix.
Let's party like it is 1863!
I'm thinking the reason more companies aren't using the Turbine model is they feel their current monetization is bringing in at least as much, if not more revenue than switching over to something else might.
Key word being "might", they well know what their current model generates, and is likely to in the future.
Switching is more of a risk, could be big winner or..a terrible loser if fans don't receive the change well.
Major model changes probably only occur when forecasts look very grim, hence justifying the risk.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I wanted to give you an eyeball emoji but I don't know how to give it.
This also violates the integrity of fair play in a game. Should I be able to be invincible in a FPS and nuke the whole map because I spend more money. Is that even fun? Should things be included at a price that help avoid playing a game?
I mean, to be honest if what they have is working, then I fully agree there is no reason to change horses mid stream.
However, in games like GW2, where Anet had to lay off half their staff and their senior executives were replaced because they were not making the cut... that would be a really good time to visit different payment plans and styles. But that is just my thinking. Obviously they felt getting laid off/replaced was the better plan. But that's just like, the embodiment of how Anets been with GW2 from the start I guess.
But my point was not to say that games should switch over, but why don't new games coming out use this system with an MMO that is built from the ground up, where they can make this shine. Games like New World, Crowfall, Camelot Unchained, Star Citizen, Ashes of Creation, and all these upcoming MMO's you know they are all going to be F2P w/Item Malls, and sell crap in the store as opposed to selling content.
The question is.. Why?
Turbines model took a dead game, seriously DDO was dead-floating, and they spun it around with their model, so why don't companies use that?
Since the dawn of the MMO, the only fairness has been among those that buy the content.
Let me explain that, Starting back 20 years ago, in EQ. Everyone that paid a sub was not equal, EQ put out roughly a new expansion every year, and suddenly the sub players were divided between those that bought it, and those that didn't.
Those that bought the new content were given access to more maps, new monsters, higher levels, better gear, etc, etc, etc. They had a direct advantage over those that didn't buy it, but where on equal footing with everyone else that did.
Those that's didn't, were not given that access, even if they paid the same sub as everyone else. But they remained on equal footing with everyone else that didn't buy the expansion.
Turbine, simply took that "Expansion" idea, that concept of buying content, broke it into small chunks, and removed the necessity of the sub.
Thus, everyone that bought the content packs were on an equal footing as everyone else that bought the content packs, and what they did in game is what moved then along ahead or behind each other.
Same as Expansions in the Past and Present.
Those that didn't buy the content packs were also on the same footing as each other, and what they did in game moved them along ahead or behind each other.
Again.. Same as Expansions past and present.
This keeping what you would call the integrity of the game intact.
The real question is, why don't more games start off with this idea?
Anet on the other hand, did have the staff and the talent, and could have built a sustainable system off the Turbine Model, given that they are continually pumping out new content and giving it away for free.
As mentioned above by @Vermillion_Raventhal, if the players don't need to spend money, they won't, so the idea of selling content piecemeal puts that sense of 'need' on them, so that the vast majority of players end up spending money.
Also, just because a company sells content in an honest manner, doesn't mean they can't also sell cosmetics, account options, pets, mini's, mounts, etc in the store, to bolster funds.
Taking into account that F2P is the new 'demo' model, I guess it's fine. On mobile, all those ads eat up a lot of data, so is it really free in the long run by taking up data (I don't have unlimited), and especially time?
To be a kid gamer now must be the best though, with regards to F2P. The volume of games coming out is crazy high, compared to the handful that came out per year when I was a kid.
The only roadblock is data, internet connection, device memory management, paying out the ass to bypass actual gameplay in most cases, and teaching kids horrible gaming habits by making them all ADHD, and not be able to enjoy anything for longer than 10 minutes....but that's about it.
Gut Out!
What, me worry?
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I was in Australia and saw an Acura TL with a Honda Avalon badge... because "only Americans are stupid enough to pay more for the same car with a different badge".
I haven't played DDO since it released, so I have no idea what all they have to spend money on.
For me, I want to play the same game that everyone else does, and your method butchers the game up into little pieces. I don't want to have to worry about "Did I buy that zone?" or "Can I group up with these races I haven't purchased?" Have I bought that dungeon yet?"
Am I missing something here that has you thinking this DDO system is "the bee's knees?"
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
My guess is developer would keep the game subscription based if the population is good. It is really they can't keep their players, so they switched.
I think I read somewhere camelot unchained is going to be subscription based. Crowfall I think is buy to play with optional subscription for more character slot. I'm not exactly sure on the detail, you need to read on it on your own.
I'd say most devs these days try to utilize a combination of monetization tools to ensure customer spending can be almost unlimited should they so desire, which some of course do.
I think the trick is to find the best way to entice whales to spend big while at the same time not making those not able or interested in doing so not feel like 2nd class citizens or there's a big risk they'll walk away.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Subscription is so dead that nearly every F2P game jumped on the band wagon years ago and offered some sort of subscription. Subscription is so dead that ESO launched with a subscription when we were told that made no business sense and thrived on it, sure they went B2P but launching as a subscription can work.
Kyleran's example of Runescape is just further proof that subscription is viable, you could even combine it with that time slot thing he talked about, sort of a sub by the hour.
So how did we get to the point where people think Subscription is not viable? Well firstly players like something for free and those who did not care what effect the new F2P revenue model had on gameplay were the majority. Secondly cash shops made a lot of money, the profit when you looked at how much less F2P cost to make than the big sub MMOs before it was obvious.
So the die was cast, subscription was on its way out. It took years for many players to realise that the lack of quality from most free to play was not down to poor developers but the revenue model. You build cheap you get cheap. You build in gambling game play, you are making a casino game, not a MMO. There is kick back against this now, but don't expect major change while the money keeps rolling in.
Games like TERA for example, it was a Box+Sub game at lunch, and held on to it's sub for roughly a year, before going F2P. It would be dishonest to say that was a cheap quality game suddenly because it transferred to a F2P payment model when it was built as a sub based game.
Just saying.