You use the example of people not having a bank account because of bad credit score. Those people shouldn't be putting money into video games anyway, but should be using it to get their lives in order. So, really it's a win-win for the rest of society if those people can't pump tons of money they don't have into games.
Sometimes you have to grab happiness where you can.
There are many reasons people can have a bad credit score. I don't think keeping them from some relatively cheap entertainment is required.
Heck, when I was younger and just out of school I didn't make a lot of money and had to sadly plan to have late payments as it was all too much.
Years pass, I make more money, pay off school loans and now my credit is in the exceptional area.
People can turn it around.
Was not exactly what I meant.
My point was, if you don't have a bank account because of money problems, you shouldn't be pouring money you don't have into video games. My comment largely relates to Americans who have become accustom to piling up mounds of debt with little to no regard for the societal problems it causes for all of us. I suppose that isn't just an American problem though.
Just following the lead of our government
- 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
FTP for PC games started off wrong for the idea of having a certain percentage of the playerbase pay the bill for the rest and that wrong still to this day has not been corrected. Just look at all the PC game companies in the west that went ftp then crumbled. IMO it was not the whole welfare gaming system philosophy but rather the lack of developer acknowledgment of the importance of the paying players and that's why to this day even in this thread that POE player still believe ftp players are just as valuable with some out of this world theory as to why and no fault to him cause most of the time devs spew that nonsense themselves. I've seen old Trion do it many times. There's one trove stream where they were asked about the whales and how important to the game they are and the devs said some peace and love response like "all our players are important", Gazillion said similar things and where are those companies now. Imagine being a whale who dropped 10k on trove or Marvel heroes then the devs fail to even acknowledge your contribution. Lack of paying player appreciation is the real "ftp dilemma" for PC games.
I like the sound of LotRO's model that has been brought up in this thread, something like that could work. Try the base game, buy the content beyond it. Don't want to buy all of it? Buy parts of it at a time.
Yep, that's why I still quote it as my favourite model, it has flexibility.
Though it seems for the "current gamers" this approach of buy parts of it as you go is not acceptable, just look at the recent thread with "for a new player the entry [LOL] fee is too high, because expansions"
I wonder if that's because those people think they need to get the expansions for competitiveness' sake.
I mean, if I think about it, the only real benefit (Besides additional races/classes) is you can do more content WHEN you get there. Until then you don't need (Unsure if that's necessarily true in LotRO's case) the extra content unlocked. Let's say it takes... a month to finish a paid-for-chunk of content. By then payday has, or will, roll around again and you can buy the next slab to keep you entertained for as long as it lasts. Hardcore players remain unaffected as they can just buy it as they race through whereas casual players don't have to waste money on a monthly subscription they could only use 15 days of the month due to other restrictions.
It just seems like those people don't like change, as opposed to any real reason or downside this model would offer.
I wonder if that's because those people think they need to get the expansions for competitiveness' sake.
I doubt that, as I see on youngsters (not just in relation of games), it's pretty much a mindset change at them.
In LotRO's case it's only this much visible since a) you really don't need the expansions before you reach them, and b) reaching them takes a huge amount of time, especially the last two.
A new player complaint about the prices of Mordor and Morgul is like a new player complaint about the $120-$150 price tag on a year-long sub in other games, as "high entry fee".
Except in that case nobody would be dumb enough to start a new game with putting down a year-long sub right at the entry, without even trying it out. (*)
Still, when it's about expansions they won't see in a year even if they stay in the game for that long, they complain about the price. I can't get the logic behind it...
(*) pre-launch hype trains and lifetime subscriptions excluded and it ain't the case anyway, these complainers aren't fans, just want to try something new out of boredom.
Which makes we wonder, if Anet simply put aSub into GW2, for say, a reasonable modern cost to run an MMO of $20 a month.
Over the course of the last 8 years, they would have collected $1,920 dollars from every player that had been with the game since the start in Subs alone, not including Box Costs and both their Expansions, which would have been upwards to $50 for the Box and $100 for each expansion.
So, to date, each starting player would have had an expected ROI of $2,170
I have been playing for almost 6 years, which means my projected ROI should have been at around $1,440 + Box and Expansions. I wish I kept track of my spending so I could have known how close to that mark I hit. I wager it started off strong and then tapered off, and finally ended when they pissed me off with their new game direction, but it would have been novel to see the actual numbers.
But, I wonder how close they hit to that for their long term players, did they do much better, or much worse, but I imagine due to their layoffs and other issues with finances, I think it ended up being worse.
... just thoughts.
20$ is a bit steep. I think I read somewhere GW2 make roughly 4 million per month. (Or at least used to make 4 million dollar per month)
4,000,000/15$ = 266,666
GW2 is making roughly the same as 266,666 players paying 15$ per month.
Problem is, $20 a month compared to $15 a month hasn't kept up with inflation rates of other entertainment costs.
Movie tickets used to average around $5 in 1999 (when EQ *launched* with a $10 sub). Go to a movie these days, but expect to be paying closer to $13. That's not including all the various monetization mechanics in the modern theater -- upgrade to armchair (+$2 to +$5), popcorn ($7, $8, $9) and soda ($7, $8, $9). So that base cost of $5 has gone up my about 150% per person and may be as much as 700+%. (All numbers rounded for example, check with your local theater for specific prices).
A more realistic sub price should be around $50 per month, considering inflation. And cash shop pricing should require an amortization schedule, or is that crowdfunding?
*Edit to correct the $15 sub price in 1999. The initial sub price for EQ was $10. Still, the $15 has become standard. It's early.
Post edited by Mendel on
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Which makes we wonder, if Anet simply put aSub into GW2, for say, a reasonable modern cost to run an MMO of $20 a month.
Over the course of the last 8 years, they would have collected $1,920 dollars from every player that had been with the game since the start in Subs alone, not including Box Costs and both their Expansions, which would have been upwards to $50 for the Box and $100 for each expansion.
So, to date, each starting player would have had an expected ROI of $2,170
I have been playing for almost 6 years, which means my projected ROI should have been at around $1,440 + Box and Expansions. I wish I kept track of my spending so I could have known how close to that mark I hit. I wager it started off strong and then tapered off, and finally ended when they pissed me off with their new game direction, but it would have been novel to see the actual numbers.
But, I wonder how close they hit to that for their long term players, did they do much better, or much worse, but I imagine due to their layoffs and other issues with finances, I think it ended up being worse.
... just thoughts.
20$ is a bit steep. I think I read somewhere GW2 make roughly 4 million per month. (Or at least used to make 4 million dollar per month)
4,000,000/15$ = 266,666
GW2 is making roughly the same as 266,666 players paying 15$ per month.
Statistically, $20 is still kinda low, given that Subs Started out at $10 for EQ in 1999, and by 2006, were at 15 for EQ.
It would stand to reason that over the course of the last 14 years they should have at some time gone up at least another 5 dollars. Since they don't seem to have that clout to make that upward push, that Kinda shows you the state of their holding power.
But truth is, a very reasonable Sub fee in today's times should be at least $20 a month, to keep things competitive. Which might be one of the various reasons why Sub has not been maintaining being competitive.
Since I do talk about Anet's earnings a lot on these forums, There might be a chance you read my breakdown of Anet's fiscal numbers.
Nice twist to say that it would make the same as 266K players paying a sub, that sounds nice and all
But when put against the fact that that GW2 has 1.5 Million players, which means on average, each player is paying less than around $3.70 a month.
Their income is $3.70 per player, per month.
That means those 266,666 players that you said could be paying a Sub fee, just supported 1.23 MILLION dead weight other players.
Now, imagine if everyone paid a $15 a month sub, they would be making 22.5 Million a month.
Just something to keep in mind when people talk about the success of a sub system or how much the cash shop takes advantage of people, GW2 could be making near a 300% profit if they changed a pitiful $10 a month sub, so why would they deal with a million deadweight players just to have a Cash Shop?
.. just thoughts to ponder.
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.
If we use $15 for monthly sub as standard , then $9 for 100h ? or 60h ? or $4 for weekly sub ?
Before talking about it , the main problem with subbed MMORPG is : not everyone who play MMORPG have bank account .
"The main problem is"
If you live in a cave perhaps you don't have a way to pay for something online. My relatives who live in a stone cave, don't have a credit card and have no links to a bank, paypal, applepay, google pay, cash app, venmo, Jaxx, Zella, etc, etc.. definitely have problems with sub games.
But just about every other human that has access to the internet does, unless your penniless leaching off someones internet on a stolen laptop. Or you're 15 and under who's parents wont pay for your gaming. Is that the group of people your worried about?
If we use $15 for monthly sub as standard , then $9 for 100h ? or 60h ? or $4 for weekly sub ?
Before talking about it , the main problem with subbed MMORPG is : not everyone who play MMORPG have bank account .
"The main problem is"
If you live in a cave perhaps you don't have a way to pay for something online. My relatives who live in a stone cave, don't have a credit card and have no links to a bank, paypal, applepay, google pay, cash app, venmo, Jaxx, Zella, etc, etc.. definitely have problems with sub games.
But just about every other human that has access to the internet does, unless your penniless leaching off someones internet on a stolen laptop. Or you're 15 and under who's parents wont pay for your gaming. Is that the group of people your worried about?
You might want to read back a bit, and get a clue before you shoot off your mouth.
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 never buy in a free to play game because I consider them not worth it and usually they don't last long to commit and pay for them vs sub games for example FF11 been paying/playing it since 2003 and FF14 since 2010. So as I always say f2p is trash and not lasting why even invest in them. I play f2p mostly to try them never long term.
your wording is not 100% clear. are you implying that f2p games don't tend to last long, or are you just saying that your interest in a f2p game doesn't last long before it wanes so you don't see a point in paying...
the reason i ask is because there are several f2p options out there that have been going for quite some time... with, of course, the ones who pretty much kicked off the trend... LotRO and DDO... both still plugging along after going f2p 10 years ago.. so if the game is strong enough, they have no problem with longevity.
i do SORT OF agree with your closing point, tho... trying a f2p game is much easier than needing to sink whatever the box fee is into whatever game, only to find out i hate it. with f2p, i can download the game.. play for a little while, and if i like it, i can pay into the cash shop, or sign up for whatever sub/vip model they usually have... support a game i like, ya know? if i ever get tired of it... i can walk away and not feel like i've lost anything. i blow $45-60 on the box fee for some game and decide within 2 days it sucks, i feel like i got robbed, ya know?
The
goal of this system was that instead of committing to a subscription,
you just bought the content piecemeal according to your own budget. It
would cost you more in the long run to buy the content this way, instead
of subscribing, but you got the convienience of being in control of
your spending and you didn't have to spend any money up front, so if you
hated the game, no worries as you're not out of pocket.
Just a small correction, it costs you less on the long run. More on the short run (can only get 2 zones tops, from the $15 which would give you a month of sub), but less on the long run since you get those zones forever. Same goes with all other unlocks. That's how I've barely spent anything on LotRO in the recent years, while I have the "full game", and don't plan to, either. (Besides maybe 1 month subs when I want to check back on the legendary servers)
I agree that is how it ended up, but that wasn't the intent when first launched.
The original intent was to make the subscription cheaper over time than buying the content packs separately. Turbine wanted everyone to subscribe so they could have a predictable monthly income, plus once you're subscribed its easy to let that sub continue, rather than cancel. So, by buying the content packs separately, you were going to be paying a small premium in exchange for the convenience.
That didn't work out, so as you say, it is now cheaper to buy the content separately instead of subscribe long term. Part of this is because they couldn't maintain the content output necessary to keep charging people for it. Part of this is because they began making lots more money from other items in the shop, like the boosters, stat tomes, horse skins etc, so Turbine figured it was better business to lower the price of the content so that players would stay with the game and then keep spending on other things in the shop.
I am curious about the amount of time required to hit the level cap these days in LotRO. Its been quite some time since I played now, so the last time I leveled a fresh character to cap was during Isenguard, think it took me 5 or 6 days /played to level a burglar.
I believe it was clear right from the start, and the long run really meant a "long" run, namely years. But since you got the zones and unlocks for good, it was obvious that after several years, you will "unlock" the game.
Don't get me wrong I ain't saying any player jumped onto it with such a long-term plan, I didn't either. That's why I like its flexibility this much, it fitted perfectly for my game time without any real planning.
I've played before the switch (though not on a lifetime sub) and I was on and off the sub after the f2p switch too. Besides that I've bought the expansions, sometimes TPs, got zones when they were on sale, and it just happened that somewhere around 2014, after HD, I just noticed I don't really need the sub anymore to play the game undisturbed...
Might I add I clearly wasn't the only one in those shoes, since about that time was the shift in Turbine's focus, when they stated explicitly they will stop with expansions for a while and just add zones into the game with the Updates, to put more value behind the sub
(since those were free for subscribers, but $7-8 apiece for non-VIPs)
I am curious about the amount of time required to hit the level cap these days in LotRO. Its been quite some time since I played now, so the last time I leveled a fresh character to cap was during Isenguard, think it took me 5 or 6 days /played to level a burglar.
I don't know, I like to take it slow and enjoy the ride... my last accurate time is from about 3 years ago, when the cap was 105, kinda like an experiment a power leveling fanatic acquaintace of mine did such a rush, and it took a bit more than a month. No idea about the /played, but even your 5 days could mean 4 hours each day for a month, which is crazy
(probably was more though, since first, he was crazy, and second, Isengard's cap was 75, that's 30 additional levels needed beyond your time)
Now with the cap is 130 and based on what a slog Mordor is, I'd say for an average player the 1 year I used to throw around in the posts above could be a good estimate...
I never buy in a free to play game because I consider them not worth it and usually they don't last long to commit and pay for them vs sub games for example FF11 been paying/playing it since 2003 and FF14 since 2010. So as I always say f2p is trash and not lasting why even invest in them. I play f2p mostly to try them never long term.
your wording is not 100% clear. are you implying that f2p games don't tend to last long, or are you just saying that your interest in a f2p game doesn't last long before it wanes so you don't see a point in paying...
the reason i ask is because there are several f2p options out there that have been going for quite some time... with, of course, the ones who pretty much kicked off the trend... LotRO and DDO... both still plugging along after going f2p 10 years ago.. so if the game is strong enough, they have no problem with longevity.
i do SORT OF agree with your closing point, tho... trying a f2p game is much easier than needing to sink whatever the box fee is into whatever game, only to find out i hate it. with f2p, i can download the game.. play for a little while, and if i like it, i can pay into the cash shop, or sign up for whatever sub/vip model they usually have... support a game i like, ya know? if i ever get tired of it... i can walk away and not feel like i've lost anything. i blow $45-60 on the box fee for some game and decide within 2 days it sucks, i feel like i got robbed, ya know?
This is why I think the Turbine Model will be the future, where they give you basic access to the core game for free, but then continually put out content packs (DLC), that are zones, quest lines, story missions, classes, races, etc, and sell them piecemeal or allow people to to pay a sub and get access to all the DLC's, for as long as they pay the Sub.
They even set tiers for the account, with a Free Account, Premium Account (Anyone that spent money on the game) and a Sub Account.
This way players can access the base game to try it out, see if they like it, there is no Box Cost, and Sub is totally optional.
The really keynote of this idea is that players are buying more of the game with their money, not just frivolous junk like a weapon skin, they are getting more maps, more dungeons, more missions, etc, but they still need to earn the rewards in that new content as opposed to just buying cosmetics from the store, that way all the cool glam items are still a mark of a players effort not dollars.
It also inspires people to buy the content for the rewards.
The Cosmetics in the Store, are not skins, but "Mirrors of Glamoring" that allow you to apply one skin over another (weapon/armor/etc), but all the cool skins are still earned.
Also, and this might be good or bad, depending on where you stand, but it keeps the players that want to be "Free" from the players that have paid, and builds a sense of equality among everyone that is doing content, like for example, in DDO, everyone that joins for a Tower of Despair Raid knows that everyone else there, had to at the very least, buy the "Devils of Shavarath" pack. So they are all paying players, there are no "freeloaders" here.
Equally so, everyone that shows up for a Tempest Spine Raid, which is F2P, can be a mix of F2P to Premium, to Sub, and are free to mingle as they like.
To be honest, I am amazed more games have not adopted this approach, as it solves the problems that everyone complains about.
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.
That didn't work out, so as you say, it is now cheaper to buy the content separately instead of subscribe long term. Part of this is because they couldn't maintain the content output necessary to keep charging people for it. Part of this is because they began making lots more money from other items in the shop, like the boosters, stat tomes, horse skins etc, so Turbine figured it was better business to lower the price of the content so that players would stay with the game and then keep spending on other things in the shop.
I have no idea about LotRO, but I can say as far as DDO went, it was purely an issue of the content coming out being buggy junk. I wager the problem was it was already an old game, they were working with a bunch of peoples work that no longer were there, they were facing extinction already, with their F2P ploy being the last ditch efforts to keep the lights on, and thus were too small to really ramp up the production to make this happen on the scale they needed... whereas a company like Anet with their lunch of GW2, having a huge staff and ramping up their Living Story production, could have pulled Turbines model off with shooting stars.
I am sure other new games could have as well, in fact I think ESO already does something similar to this, but I am not sure.
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.
Which makes we wonder, if Anet simply put aSub into GW2, for say, a reasonable modern cost to run an MMO of $20 a month.
Over the course of the last 8 years, they would have collected $1,920 dollars from every player that had been with the game since the start in Subs alone, not including Box Costs and both their Expansions, which would have been upwards to $50 for the Box and $100 for each expansion.
So, to date, each starting player would have had an expected ROI of $2,170
I have been playing for almost 6 years, which means my projected ROI should have been at around $1,440 + Box and Expansions. I wish I kept track of my spending so I could have known how close to that mark I hit. I wager it started off strong and then tapered off, and finally ended when they pissed me off with their new game direction, but it would have been novel to see the actual numbers.
But, I wonder how close they hit to that for their long term players, did they do much better, or much worse, but I imagine due to their layoffs and other issues with finances, I think it ended up being worse.
... just thoughts.
20$ is a bit steep. I think I read somewhere GW2 make roughly 4 million per month. (Or at least used to make 4 million dollar per month)
4,000,000/15$ = 266,666
GW2 is making roughly the same as 266,666 players paying 15$ per month.
Statistically, $20 is still kinda low, given that Subs Started out at $10 for EQ in 1999, and by 2006, were at 15 for EQ.
It would stand to reason that over the course of the last 14 years they should have at some time gone up at least another 5 dollars. Since they don't seem to have that clout to make that upward push, that Kinda shows you the state of their holding power.
But truth is, a very reasonable Sub fee in today's times should be at least $20 a month, to keep things competitive. Which might be one of the various reasons why Sub has not been maintaining being competitive.
Since I do talk about Anet's earnings a lot on these forums, There might be a chance you read my breakdown of Anet's fiscal numbers.
Nice twist to say that it would make the same as 266K players paying a sub, that sounds nice and all
But when put against the fact that that GW2 has 1.5 Million players, which means on average, each player is paying less than around $3.70 a month.
Their income is $3.70 per player, per month.
That means those 266,666 players that you said could be paying a Sub fee, just supported 1.23 MILLION dead weight other players.
Now, imagine if everyone paid a $15 a month sub, they would be making 22.5 Million a month.
Just something to keep in mind when people talk about the success of a sub system or how much the cash shop takes advantage of people, GW2 could be making near a 300% profit if they changed a pitiful $10 a month sub, so why would they deal with a million deadweight players just to have a Cash Shop?
.. just thoughts to ponder.
The reason I said 20$ is steep is because I can't really think of any mmorpg with over 15$ subscription or premium fee.
I presume the 1.5 million player of GW2 is pure speculation. I personally don't believe it is anywhere close to it. People were making assuption like average GW2 player playing 10 hour a month when coming up with that number. And if people play only 10 hour a month, I honestly doubt they want to pay a subscription.
If GW2 have 1.5 million players, that'll put them similar to Wow category in terms of NAEU players. Because GW2 really isn't popular in asia. I highly doubt that is the case.
When guild wars 2 was released. I check the achievement points against my alt which is inactive. And 90% of the account's achievement points stop moving. That is when the game was newly released.
And I think the best claim GW2 have no close to 1.5 million player is check GW'2 financial report when there is an expansion. Don't look like the number add up.
I am curious about the amount of time required to hit the level cap these days in LotRO. Its been quite some time since I played now, so the last time I leveled a fresh character to cap was during Isenguard, think it took me 5 or 6 days /played to level a burglar.
I don't know, I like to take it slow and enjoy the ride... my last accurate time is from about 3 years ago, when the cap was 105, kinda like an experiment a power leveling fanatic acquaintace of mine did such a rush, and it took a bit more than a month. No idea about the /played, but even your 5 days could mean 4 hours each day for a month, which is crazy
(probably was more though, since first, he was crazy, and second, Isengard's cap was 75, that's 30 additional levels needed beyond your time)
Now with the cap is 130 and based on what a slog Mordor is, I'd say for an average player the 1 year I used to throw around in the posts above could be a good estimate...
Thanks for the info :-)
I remember when I finally left LotRO, I added up the /played of every character I had ever played and averaged it out over the 6 years I'd been playing the game, and it came to just shy of 4 hours a day, every day for 6 years. Given that I didn't play every day, it meant I had some very long play sessions!
That's when I started thinking I had a problem :P
Luckily (unluckily?) SWTOR was so shit that it broke that addiction pretty quickly.
Which makes we wonder, if Anet simply put aSub into GW2, for say, a reasonable modern cost to run an MMO of $20 a month.
Over the course of the last 8 years, they would have collected $1,920 dollars from every player that had been with the game since the start in Subs alone, not including Box Costs and both their Expansions, which would have been upwards to $50 for the Box and $100 for each expansion.
So, to date, each starting player would have had an expected ROI of $2,170
I have been playing for almost 6 years, which means my projected ROI should have been at around $1,440 + Box and Expansions. I wish I kept track of my spending so I could have known how close to that mark I hit. I wager it started off strong and then tapered off, and finally ended when they pissed me off with their new game direction, but it would have been novel to see the actual numbers.
But, I wonder how close they hit to that for their long term players, did they do much better, or much worse, but I imagine due to their layoffs and other issues with finances, I think it ended up being worse.
... just thoughts.
20$ is a bit steep. I think I read somewhere GW2 make roughly 4 million per month. (Or at least used to make 4 million dollar per month)
4,000,000/15$ = 266,666
GW2 is making roughly the same as 266,666 players paying 15$ per month.
Now, imagine if everyone paid a $15 a month sub, they would be making 22.5 Million a month.
Just something to keep in mind when people talk about the success of a sub system or how much the cash shop takes advantage of people, GW2 could be making near a 300% profit if they changed a pitiful $10 a month sub, so why would they deal with a million deadweight players just to have a Cash Shop?
.. just thoughts to ponder.
It is pure speculation. You presume everyone would keep playing if they need to pay a sub. There are also alts which people would stop paying if they need to pay multiple sub.
You could be right, GW2 would be making more money with sub. But that is pure speculation. No one really knows.
Which makes we wonder, if Anet simply put aSub into GW2, for say, a reasonable modern cost to run an MMO of $20 a month.
Over the course of the last 8 years, they would have collected $1,920 dollars from every player that had been with the game since the start in Subs alone, not including Box Costs and both their Expansions, which would have been upwards to $50 for the Box and $100 for each expansion.
So, to date, each starting player would have had an expected ROI of $2,170
I have been playing for almost 6 years, which means my projected ROI should have been at around $1,440 + Box and Expansions. I wish I kept track of my spending so I could have known how close to that mark I hit. I wager it started off strong and then tapered off, and finally ended when they pissed me off with their new game direction, but it would have been novel to see the actual numbers.
But, I wonder how close they hit to that for their long term players, did they do much better, or much worse, but I imagine due to their layoffs and other issues with finances, I think it ended up being worse.
... just thoughts.
20$ is a bit steep. I think I read somewhere GW2 make roughly 4 million per month. (Or at least used to make 4 million dollar per month)
4,000,000/15$ = 266,666
GW2 is making roughly the same as 266,666 players paying 15$ per month.
Statistically, $20 is still kinda low, given that Subs Started out at $10 for EQ in 1999, and by 2006, were at 15 for EQ.
It would stand to reason that over the course of the last 14 years they should have at some time gone up at least another 5 dollars. Since they don't seem to have that clout to make that upward push, that Kinda shows you the state of their holding power.
But truth is, a very reasonable Sub fee in today's times should be at least $20 a month, to keep things competitive. Which might be one of the various reasons why Sub has not been maintaining being competitive.
Since I do talk about Anet's earnings a lot on these forums, There might be a chance you read my breakdown of Anet's fiscal numbers.
Nice twist to say that it would make the same as 266K players paying a sub, that sounds nice and all
But when put against the fact that that GW2 has 1.5 Million players, which means on average, each player is paying less than around $3.70 a month.
Their income is $3.70 per player, per month.
That means those 266,666 players that you said could be paying a Sub fee, just supported 1.23 MILLION dead weight other players.
Now, imagine if everyone paid a $15 a month sub, they would be making 22.5 Million a month.
Just something to keep in mind when people talk about the success of a sub system or how much the cash shop takes advantage of people, GW2 could be making near a 300% profit if they changed a pitiful $10 a month sub, so why would they deal with a million deadweight players just to have a Cash Shop?
.. just thoughts to ponder.
The reason I said 20$ is steep is because I can't really think of any mmorpg with over 15$ subscription or premium fee.
I presume the 1.5 million player of GW2 is pure speculation. I personally don't believe it is anywhere close to it. People were making assuption like average GW2 player playing 10 hour a month when coming up with that number. And if people play only 10 hour a month, I honestly doubt they want to pay a subscription.
If GW2 have 1.5 million players, that'll put them similar to Wow category in terms of NAEU players. Because GW2 really isn't popular in asia. I highly doubt that is the case.
When guild wars 2 was released. I check the achievement points against my alt which is inactive. And 90% of the account's achievement points stop moving. That is when the game was newly released.
And I think the best claim GW2 have no close to 1.5 million player is check GW'2 financial report when there is an expansion. Don't look like the number add up.
I try not to just make up numbers, and by the metrics I found GW2 is one of the top 5 most populated MMO's.
WoW - is rocking Top with 7± Million Eso - 2nd Place with 3± Million BDO - 3rd place with 2± Million GW2 - 4th Place with 1.5± Million
PoF - Made around 47 Million Dollars, with the basic pack being 35 dollars, that shows that it's very viable that not only do they have a million+ active accounts buying the expansions.
So yah, that 1.5 million is totally believable, and that does not even take into account the people playing for Free, since they made the core game Free.
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 am not sure that Kylerans idea would work as people seem to have an aversion to time cards, I am not sure why. But it faces a bigger obstacle than my doubts, the industry is not looking for a new revenue model only to milk the current awful cash shop system.
My best fit (not best as in what is best for a fair playing field) would be starting as a subscription, then going B2P with paid for expansions and only cosmetics in the cash shop. Could it work, well ESO nearly did it but I understand the cash shop is not just cosmetics.
I am not sure that Kylerans idea would work as people seem to have an aversion to time cards, I am not sure why. But it faces a bigger obstacle than my doubts, the industry is not looking for a new revenue model only to milk the current awful cash shop system.
My best fit (not best as in what is best for a fair playing field) would be starting as a subscription, then going B2P with paid for expansions and only cosmetics in the cash shop. Could it work, well ESO nearly did it but I understand the cash shop is not just cosmetics.
I wager the time cards still remind people of paying by the minuit to play old AOL games, and that set a very bad stage for that kind of payment scheme.
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 am not sure that Kylerans idea would work as people seem to have an aversion to time cards, I am not sure why. But it faces a bigger obstacle than my doubts, the industry is not looking for a new revenue model only to milk the current awful cash shop system.
<snip>
The problem with time cards is that vendors absolutely hate them. They get stolen. They cause an extra step or three at the checkout line. Game companies offer little or no incentive to brick-and-mortar stores (income) to handle game cards. A store sells a game card for $20, the game company wants a very high percentage of that $20 sent to them. That's why time cards are disappearing from major retailers like Walmart, Best Buy, Game Stop and similar stores. There's just no profit there.
On the game company's end, someone has to print and distribute them. That costs money, reducing any revenue gained from time card sales. Validating cards are also prone to fraud and attempts to duplicate them.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I am not sure that Kylerans idea would work as people seem to have an aversion to time cards, I am not sure why. But it faces a bigger obstacle than my doubts, the industry is not looking for a new revenue model only to milk the current awful cash shop system.
<snip>
The problem with time cards is that vendors absolutely hate them. They get stolen. They cause an extra step or three at the checkout line. Game companies offer little or no incentive to brick-and-mortar stores (income) to handle game cards. A store sells a game card for $20, the game company wants a very high percentage of that $20 sent to them. That's why time cards are disappearing from major retailers like Walmart, Best Buy, Game Stop and similar stores. There's just no profit there.
On the game company's end, someone has to print and distribute them. That costs money, reducing any revenue gained from time card sales. Validating cards are also prone to fraud and attempts to duplicate them.
Well except my idea wasn't about time cards, that was a sidebar conversation with @Iselin.
I proposed selling blocks of time (digitally) which didnt have to be used on a monthly basis, rather could be consumed by a smaller unit, be it by the minute, hour, day or week.
The idea is to alleviate the angst felt by those who won't pay for a sub because it pressures them to play to get their monies worth, or makes them feel like they are wasting money if the don't play.
Basically it works just a pay as you go cell phone service does, buy a block of minutes up front, spending them only as you use the phone. (Or play the game)
Of course Pay as you go cell phone minutes are usually more expensive than monthly sub service, same in my example, but still it would be much cheaper in the long run for a more casual gamer who might only play a few hours here or there in a month.
Personally I would like to return to EVE but am unwilling to accept the F2P restrictions nor willing to spend about $75 a month to spin up my 6 accounts to see if I can rekindle my interest.
But I would purchase $100 in credits which I could spend on an hour by hour basis across any of my accounts to see if I could forge a new path, which as I play another game right now, could take me 2 or 3 months to really get going as I would start quite casually.
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
PoF - Made around 47 Million Dollars, with the basic pack being 35 dollars, that shows that it's very viable that not only do they have a million+ active accounts buying the expansions.
So yah, that 1.5 million is totally believable, and that does not even take into account the people playing for Free, since they made the core game Free.
Everything is pure speculation. Even the people you link is purely speculation.
Do you have source for path of fire sales? I understand ArenaNet made roughly 47 million dollar over those period. But I don't think all those money are from Path of fire.
This is the financial report. Path of fire is released 09/22/2017.
Q2 2018 19,860,000,000won
Q1 2018 23,647,000,000won
4Q 2017 34,903,000,000won
3Q 2017 20,145,000,000won
2Q 2017 13,557,000,000won
The peak is at 4Q. And now the question is how much you believe those money are from Path of fire and not other cash shop item. I would say 20 billion won is from Path of fire which is around 17 million dollar.
Also even if GW2 does have 1.5 million player don't mean everyone would still play if it is changed to subscription. I personally bought ESO only because it is buy 2 play. If it have forced subscription I wouldn't buy it.
PoF - Made around 47 Million Dollars, with the basic pack being 35 dollars, that shows that it's very viable that not only do they have a million+ active accounts buying the expansions.
So yah, that 1.5 million is totally believable, and that does not even take into account the people playing for Free, since they made the core game Free.
Everything is pure speculation. Even the people you link is purely speculation.
Do you have source for path of fire sales? I understand ArenaNet made roughly 47 million dollar over those period. But I don't think all those money are from Path of fire.
This is the financial report. Path of fire is released 09/22/2017.
Q2 2018 19,860,000,000won
Q1 2018 23,647,000,000won
4Q 2017 34,903,000,000won
3Q 2017 20,145,000,000won
2Q 2017 13,557,000,000won
The peak is at 4Q. And now the question is how much you believe those money are from Path of fire and not other cash shop item. I would say 20 billion won is from Path of fire which is around 17 million dollar.
Also even if GW2 does have 1.5 million player don't mean everyone would still play if it is changed to subscription. I personally bought ESO only because it is buy 2 play. If it have forced subscription I wouldn't buy it.
Unless you have something to support another amount, I'm going to use what I am given. If that upsets you, then, sorry but too bad.
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.
PoF - Made around 47 Million Dollars, with the basic pack being 35 dollars, that shows that it's very viable that not only do they have a million+ active accounts buying the expansions.
So yah, that 1.5 million is totally believable, and that does not even take into account the people playing for Free, since they made the core game Free.
Everything is pure speculation. Even the people you link is purely speculation.
Do you have source for path of fire sales? I understand ArenaNet made roughly 47 million dollar over those period. But I don't think all those money are from Path of fire.
This is the financial report. Path of fire is released 09/22/2017.
Q2 2018 19,860,000,000won
Q1 2018 23,647,000,000won
4Q 2017 34,903,000,000won
3Q 2017 20,145,000,000won
2Q 2017 13,557,000,000won
The peak is at 4Q. And now the question is how much you believe those money are from Path of fire and not other cash shop item. I would say 20 billion won is from Path of fire which is around 17 million dollar.
Also even if GW2 does have 1.5 million player don't mean everyone would still play if it is changed to subscription. I personally bought ESO only because it is buy 2 play. If it have forced subscription I wouldn't buy it.
Unless you have something to support another amount, I'm going to use what I am given. If that upsets you, then, sorry but too bad.
You are given number by a random person on the internet.
Which is as unreliable as my number.
I already told you why that number seem very unlikely. Judging by the financial report. PoF likely only sold around 600k over that period.
Type 2 requires $10 spent per month to play on but caps spending at $100 per month.
Whales can destroy the FTP players and anyone else who wants to play on type 1 servers. Type 2 servers would protect the core spenders from the whales and encourages people to spend up to dolphin levels.
Comments
- 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 mean, if I think about it, the only real benefit (Besides additional races/classes) is you can do more content WHEN you get there. Until then you don't need (Unsure if that's necessarily true in LotRO's case) the extra content unlocked. Let's say it takes... a month to finish a paid-for-chunk of content. By then payday has, or will, roll around again and you can buy the next slab to keep you entertained for as long as it lasts. Hardcore players remain unaffected as they can just buy it as they race through whereas casual players don't have to waste money on a monthly subscription they could only use 15 days of the month due to other restrictions.
It just seems like those people don't like change, as opposed to any real reason or downside this model would offer.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
It would stand to reason that over the course of the last 14 years they should have at some time gone up at least another 5 dollars. Since they don't seem to have that clout to make that upward push, that Kinda shows you the state of their holding power.
But truth is, a very reasonable Sub fee in today's times should be at least $20 a month, to keep things competitive. Which might be one of the various reasons why Sub has not been maintaining being competitive.
Since I do talk about Anet's earnings a lot on these forums, There might be a chance you read my breakdown of Anet's fiscal numbers.
Nice twist to say that it would make the same as 266K players paying a sub, that sounds nice and all
But when put against the fact that that GW2 has 1.5 Million players, which means on average, each player is paying less than around $3.70 a month.
Their income is $3.70 per player, per month.
That means those 266,666 players that you said could be paying a Sub fee, just supported 1.23 MILLION dead weight other players.
Now, imagine if everyone paid a $15 a month sub, they would be making 22.5 Million a month.
Just something to keep in mind when people talk about the success of a sub system or how much the cash shop takes advantage of people, GW2 could be making near a 300% profit if they changed a pitiful $10 a month sub, so why would they deal with a million deadweight players just to have a Cash Shop?
.. just thoughts to ponder.
If you live in a cave perhaps you don't have a way to pay for something online. My relatives who live in a stone cave, don't have a credit card and have no links to a bank, paypal, applepay, google pay, cash app, venmo, Jaxx, Zella, etc, etc.. definitely have problems with sub games.
But just about every other human that has access to the internet does, unless your penniless leaching off someones internet on a stolen laptop. Or you're 15 and under who's parents wont pay for your gaming. Is that the group of people your worried about?
the reason i ask is because there are several f2p options out there that have been going for quite some time... with, of course, the ones who pretty much kicked off the trend... LotRO and DDO... both still plugging along after going f2p 10 years ago.. so if the game is strong enough, they have no problem with longevity.
i do SORT OF agree with your closing point, tho... trying a f2p game is much easier than needing to sink whatever the box fee is into whatever game, only to find out i hate it. with f2p, i can download the game.. play for a little while, and if i like it, i can pay into the cash shop, or sign up for whatever sub/vip model they usually have... support a game i like, ya know? if i ever get tired of it... i can walk away and not feel like i've lost anything. i blow $45-60 on the box fee for some game and decide within 2 days it sucks, i feel like i got robbed, ya know?
They even set tiers for the account, with a Free Account, Premium Account (Anyone that spent money on the game) and a Sub Account.
This way players can access the base game to try it out, see if they like it, there is no Box Cost, and Sub is totally optional.
The really keynote of this idea is that players are buying more of the game with their money, not just frivolous junk like a weapon skin, they are getting more maps, more dungeons, more missions, etc, but they still need to earn the rewards in that new content as opposed to just buying cosmetics from the store, that way all the cool glam items are still a mark of a players effort not dollars.
It also inspires people to buy the content for the rewards.
The Cosmetics in the Store, are not skins, but "Mirrors of Glamoring" that allow you to apply one skin over another (weapon/armor/etc), but all the cool skins are still earned.
Also, and this might be good or bad, depending on where you stand, but it keeps the players that want to be "Free" from the players that have paid, and builds a sense of equality among everyone that is doing content, like for example, in DDO, everyone that joins for a Tower of Despair Raid knows that everyone else there, had to at the very least, buy the "Devils of Shavarath" pack. So they are all paying players, there are no "freeloaders" here.
Equally so, everyone that shows up for a Tempest Spine Raid, which is F2P, can be a mix of F2P to Premium, to Sub, and are free to mingle as they like.
To be honest, I am amazed more games have not adopted this approach, as it solves the problems that everyone complains about.
I am sure other new games could have as well, in fact I think ESO already does something similar to this, but I am not sure.
I presume the 1.5 million player of GW2 is pure speculation. I personally don't believe it is anywhere close to it. People were making assuption like average GW2 player playing 10 hour a month when coming up with that number. And if people play only 10 hour a month, I honestly doubt they want to pay a subscription.
If GW2 have 1.5 million players, that'll put them similar to Wow category in terms of NAEU players. Because GW2 really isn't popular in asia. I highly doubt that is the case.
When guild wars 2 was released. I check the achievement points against my alt which is inactive. And 90% of the account's achievement points stop moving. That is when the game was newly released.
And I think the best claim GW2 have no close to 1.5 million player is check GW'2 financial report when there is an expansion. Don't look like the number add up.
You could be right, GW2 would be making more money with sub. But that is pure speculation. No one really knows.
WoW - is rocking Top with 7± Million
Eso - 2nd Place with 3± Million
BDO - 3rd place with 2± Million
GW2 - 4th Place with 1.5± Million
Source
As for their Fiscal Expansion Numbers:
PoF - Made around 47 Million Dollars, with the basic pack being 35 dollars, that shows that it's very viable that not only do they have a million+ active accounts buying the expansions.
So yah, that 1.5 million is totally believable, and that does not even take into account the people playing for Free, since they made the core game Free.
My best fit (not best as in what is best for a fair playing field) would be starting as a subscription, then going B2P with paid for expansions and only cosmetics in the cash shop. Could it work, well ESO nearly did it but I understand the cash shop is not just cosmetics.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I proposed selling blocks of time (digitally) which didnt have to be used on a monthly basis, rather could be consumed by a smaller unit, be it by the minute, hour, day or week.
The idea is to alleviate the angst felt by those who won't pay for a sub because it pressures them to play to get their monies worth, or makes them feel like they are wasting money if the don't play.
Basically it works just a pay as you go cell phone service does, buy a block of minutes up front, spending them only as you use the phone. (Or play the game)
Of course Pay as you go cell phone minutes are usually more expensive than monthly sub service, same in my example, but still it would be much cheaper in the long run for a more casual gamer who might only play a few hours here or there in a month.
Personally I would like to return to EVE but am unwilling to accept the F2P restrictions nor willing to spend about $75 a month to spin up my 6 accounts to see if I can rekindle my interest.
But I would purchase $100 in credits which I could spend on an hour by hour basis across any of my accounts to see if I could forge a new path, which as I play another game right now, could take me 2 or 3 months to really get going as I would start quite casually.
"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
Do you have source for path of fire sales? I understand ArenaNet made roughly 47 million dollar over those period. But I don't think all those money are from Path of fire.
This is the financial report. Path of fire is released 09/22/2017.
The peak is at 4Q. And now the question is how much you believe those money are from Path of fire and not other cash shop item. I would say 20 billion won is from Path of fire which is around 17 million dollar.
Also even if GW2 does have 1.5 million player don't mean everyone would still play if it is changed to subscription. I personally bought ESO only because it is buy 2 play. If it have forced subscription I wouldn't buy it.
Which is as unreliable as my number.
I already told you why that number seem very unlikely. Judging by the financial report. PoF likely only sold around 600k over that period.
Type 1 can be played on by anyone.
Type 2 requires $10 spent per month to play on but caps spending at $100 per month.
Whales can destroy the FTP players and anyone else who wants to play on type 1 servers. Type 2 servers would protect the core spenders from the whales and encourages people to spend up to dolphin levels.