Howdy, Stranger!

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

Don't tax you. Don't tax me. Tax that fellow behind a tree!

QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 23,038
While the thread title is an old quote from a politician, this really isn't a thread about politics.  Rather, it's about MMORPG monetization.

As you know, different MMORPGs have very different business models.  They range from a one-time purchase to a subscription to buying chunks of content to buying cosmetics to buying in-game boosts.  Or more commonly these days, more than one of the above, though usually not all of them.  And a lot of games put their own spin on a business model, too.

Different business models lead different people to need to pay more or less in order to play a game.  And which business model to players prefer?  The answer is basically in the thread title:  someone else should pay more.  My play style shouldn't have to pay so much.  I get that the developers need revenue, but they should get it from someone else.

The problem is that that is now nearly everyone's stance.  Relying on a heavily pay to win endgame is fine for people who play a lot of alts and never reach that endgame.  People who have one character rush to endgame and find that they're expected to pay hundreds of dollars to gear up for it will scream pay to win.  Charging instead for character slots naturally elicits the opposite reaction from both categories of players.

Or what about subscriptions?  Isn't charging everyone the same fair?  People who will play 100 hours per month often think so.  People who will play 5 hours per month tend not to.  To play the same amount of time in total, they'd have to pay for 20 times as long of a subscription, and hence pay 20 times as much.  It's not just a discrepancy between people who have a lot of free time for computer games and people who have much less.  It's also a discrepancy between people who focus on only one game at a time versus those who split time between several games--and hence have less time for each.

In some circles, you'll find widespread agreement that charging for cosmetics is fair.  It certainly isn't pay to win.  You know who thinks charging heavily for cosmetics is a horrible model?  People who like cosmetics.  They see no reason why they should have to shell out hundreds of dollars to get the outfits that they like while most other people playing the same game pay nothing or nearly so.  Shouldn't your outfits be earned in-game?

How about charging for pieces of content?  That works fine for people who only have a little time to play the game, as they're not going to reach the next batch of content and have to pay for it very quickly.  People who are low level often don't gain any benefit from buying expansions, after all.  But people who are going to zip through the game in a couple of weeks don't like being expected to buy every single expansion and DLC and what not and pay a whole lot of money in those first couple of weeks.

And then there is paying for early access to a game, whether nominally an alpha, beta, or whatever.  People who want polished games and don't play until well after launch typically don't mind if someone else has to pay for early access.  The people who play lots of betas and quit most games before launch tend to think that the betas should be completely free.  It's so unfair to charge for a game that is still a mess when you're just asking for players to test it!  People who use betas to test games and help developers with useful feedback may have a point there, but hardly anyone in betas will do that, and most just play the game as they would any launched game.  "Here are my game preferences and I think all games should cater to them" is not useful feedback, though developers receive quite a lot of it.  "Here is how to reproduce a bug" is far more useful, and developers get a lot less of that.

About the only group of people happy to pay a lot of money for games are the whales who expect to be given large in-game advantages over everyone else in exchange for their money.  And that's exactly the group that everyone else doesn't want to see games rely heavily on, as people don't want for games to give big advantages to someone else.  After all, that's pay to win!
UngoodcameltosisJean-Luc_PicardBruceYeeGdemamiAlBQuirkyKidRisk
«13

Comments

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 23,038
    But why can't developers just pick one thing and stick with it?  Why do they have to nickel and dime players in charging for several things?  Because if they only charge for one thing, then a lot of players will shop for their favorite business model.  If game A heavily monetizes the endgame but leaves the lower level content free, while game B heavily monetizes playing alts while really only charging on a per character basis, then what will players play?  Game B will be filled with people who have a single character rush to the endgame, while game A will be preferred by people who make a lot of alts and never reach the endgame.  And then neither developer gets very much money.

    That's why so many developers have moved toward hybrid models that charge for several things.  You want to get some money from people who have one character rush to the endgame, and you also want to get some money from the people who will stay lower level forever.  You want to get some money from people who play betas or other early access and typically quit before launch, and also from the people who pick up games a year or two after launch.  You want to get some money from the people who focus heavily on cosmetics, and also from those who ignore cosmetics and just want to know about the game mechanics.  You want to make money off of the content locusts who will rush through the game as quickly as possible and then quit, and also from the people who will take their time playing an hour here and there.  And you don't want to charge any particular group so much as to scare them all away, as then you get nothing from them.

    Charging for just one thing won't do that.  It will result in overcharging one group so that they all leave, while letting the players with other play styles play your game very cheaply, so that you don't get very much revenue.  Charging a little for this and a little for that allows you to get a healthy amount of revenue from most of your players.  Most developers are content to accept that they'll get nothing from people who play briefly, don't like the game, and quit almost immediately.  But if you're not getting any revenue from people who put tens of hours into your game, then you're probably doing something wrong, unless you're using the whale model where the whales pay a lot and everyone else just needs to be there so that the whales can have someone to beat.

    Done right, a game will charge for several things, but charge less for each of them than they would if that one thing were the only way that a game made any money.  If you're asking your active players to pay for several things, but they only total $10 or $20 or so per month, then the only people who are going to run away screaming "pay to win" are the ones who wouldn't pay for any other model, either.  If you're asking players to pay $50 up front to buy a box and $15/month for a subscription and $30 each for every expansion ever made and also a lot of money for cosmetics and boosts and character slots, then you're doing it wrong.  The goal is to get a moderate amount of money from all of your active players, not to gouge everyone and try to convince them all to quit because your game is too expensive.

    And that's why developers charge for whatever portion of a game you think ought to be free.  They want money from you, too, not just from the other players who play games differently from you.  Different types of charges get money from different play styles, and they need money from you, too.  So don't whine that it's unfair that they're charging for this or that unless the aggregate amount that you have to pay to play becomes unduly large.
    UngoodGdemamiAlBQuirkyKidRisk
  • UngoodUngood Member LegendaryPosts: 5,563
    As I see it. 

    The Term Free to Play, is where everything went wrong, and this brought in a huge influx of players that were looking for a free ride, after all the Game is FREE TO PLAY, so it should be fully free.

    Some players make playing a game for free a personal challenge, and I think that really should not even be an option on the table as possible, and that the illusion that the game will be completely free should be dashed to pieces from the very start.

    Personally, I think that developers need to get rid of the idea that their game is Free to Play, right from the start, and make it very clear that they are getting a Trial of the Game for free, not the whole kit and caboodle. 

    Some games have done this well, with being B2P. This just ends any discussion on if the game is F2P or not, it's not, end of discussion.

    Other games have allowed for a very limited free account, where you walk in with a huge amount of restrictions on you, right from the start, everything from only getting half exp, to not being able to talk in world chat, some game companies have gone so far as to let players know that free accounts will be deleted within 30 days of inactivity regardless of how long you have played the game for, and they do that, to make sure that you know this is a free trial account, and until you fix that, it will remain a throwaway trash account to them as well.

    Anyway. The monetization should fit the game. Some systems work better in some games than others, and it seems a lot of companies tend to try and build catch all systems, which may or may not work for their game that they have built.

    a Prime example of this, is Loot Boxes/Gacha, in a game like Gensin Impact, the whole game is built around this system, so it works effortlessly.

    Try putting that kind of thing in a game like Mortal Online, and it would infuriate the player base to no end.

    So a lot of systems need to be built for the game it is around.
    GdemamiAlBQuirkyKidRisk
    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.
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 13,205
    I still say that a my preferred model is:

    1. A subscription that is all inclusive (set the price accordingly)
    2. An option for those that play less to buy ala-carte, want a 5 hour block? 20 hour? Sure!
    3. A limited starter experience so folks can try it for free.
    4.  Box fee I have no issue with, but that's a judgment call by the developers on whether that barrier to entry is worth the cash it raises.


    SovrathKyleranIselinWargfootVermillion_RaventhalAlBQuirkyKidRisk

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

  • AbimorAbimor Member UncommonPosts: 663
    I do not mind paying for a game and a sub plus the yearly expansion in fact I do it with ESO. The problem I am having with ESO is there dam cash shop is so in your face all the time and their constantly coming up with new things to buy none of it I would consider pay to win and honestly I only buy xp scrolls for my alts which is why I have about 40k points. The thing that irks me the most about it is it takes like 3 minutes to log in from the character select screen so from the time I choose to play the guy I want to is a long wait till I'm in game. Once in game traveling from zone to zone and all that is super fast so not a problem. With all the money they are making they should be able to fix the loading time at character select I just do not think they are investing in the game like they should. 
    Oh Free to play ruined lotro went all down hill from the time they made the switch. 
    IselinTorvalGdemamiAlBQuirkyKidRisk
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 15,437
    Abimor said:
    I do not mind paying for a game and a sub plus the yearly expansion in fact I do it with ESO. The problem I am having with ESO is there dam cash shop is so in your face all the time and their constantly coming up with new things to buy none of it I would consider pay to win and honestly I only buy xp scrolls for my alts which is why I have about 40k points. The thing that irks me the most about it is it takes like 3 minutes to log in from the character select screen so from the time I choose to play the guy I want to is a long wait till I'm in game. Once in game traveling from zone to zone and all that is super fast so not a problem. With all the money they are making they should be able to fix the loading time at character select I just do not think they are investing in the game like they should. 
    Oh Free to play ruined lotro went all down hill from the time they made the switch. 
    I played WOW for a couple of months last year after having played ESO since release. The difference in loading, first into the game and then into character select and then loading a character is like night and day between those two MMOs.

    WOW has those routine tasks down pat and ESO seems like amateur hour by comparison. And then there's the WOW feature for installing the game in the first place where you can start playing while the game continues to DL and install in the background.

    I also hated it when ESO introduced their daily cash shop ad splash screen a couple of years back. They did it under the guise of "daily rewards" but that part of it takes maybe 1/20th of the screen they splash featuring their cash shop specials and new loot crates prominently.
    TorvalAbimorBruceYeeAlBQuirkyKidRisk
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • Po_ggPo_gg Member EpicPosts: 5,569
    edited March 28
    Ungood said:
    The Term Free to Play, is where everything went wrong, and this brought in a huge influx of players that were looking for a free ride, after all the Game is FREE TO PLAY, so it should be fully free.
    If we agree on Turbine has started it with DDO/LotRO, then it's the marketing where everything went wrong :)

    In their early model the free ride definitely was there, just it wasn't the main focus of the model.
    The f2p switch was all about possibilities, with emphasis on different ways of pay for your fun.
    -If you like the sub, no worries, keep paying the subscription.
    -If you prefer to just pay for what you like, be it content, cosmetics or convenience, pay accordingly.
    (and it was set in a way that an average player with the most common playstyle would end up around $10-15 a month, so basically payed near the same, just without the "commitment" of a sub)
    -and if you're a time millionaire / nolifer, yep, then you can play for free. (like many players actually did and still do)

    What you mean ("went wrong") is happened later, when other games followed the f2p route (either by f2p switch, or with newly released games an f2p launch).
    Only then the f2p started to mean a trial, a limited experience.

    Of course I ain't talking about f2p limitations, before people start to rally with torches and pitchforks...
    I'm talking about the full games. In Turbine's model one actually could play the entire game without spending a dime. Through a horrid grind, sure, but it was possible.

    In most f2p games, it is not. And it's never displayed at the gates, either. They just show F2P, and that's it, while the models could be vastly different from game to game.
    UngoodGdemamiAlBQuirky
  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 18,802
    It is pretty simple,they all have a different opinion on what model will generate the most profits.I assume most already have the idea in place when they start making the game and the game will suffer because of it.

    These studios put out feeler articles to see what interest is there because you can bet they want to release their games as fast as possible.Some will have an idea of expected income and will STOP development to make sure they are not spending as much as they expect to profit.
    Most all of the success stories are not based on the business model at all but  instead on cheap gimmicks like diving in to the gamers competitive instinct.So game passes work on those type of gamers and players like to look cool in a popular busy game so mounts and costumes also work on those mindsets.
    SELDOM ever is the focus on the quality of the game,everything is just targeting a market ,a type of gamer.My point is that a game doesn't need to be any good at all if it targets the right mindset.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • ScorchienScorchien Member LegendaryPosts: 7,726
    edited March 28
    Welcome to Capitalism , where every business is trying to maximize there profits ...While having happy returning cumstomers...


      If you know someone in business who is not, they are doing it wrong ....
    KyleranQuizzicaldragonlee66AlBQuirky
  • iixviiiixiixviiiix Member RarePosts: 2,222
    Life was never fair
    AlBQuirky
  • BruceYeeBruceYee Member EpicPosts: 2,238
    edited March 29
    Iselin said:
    Abimor said:
    I do not mind paying for a game and a sub plus the yearly expansion in fact I do it with ESO. The problem I am having with ESO is there dam cash shop is so in your face all the time and their constantly coming up with new things to buy none of it I would consider pay to win and honestly I only buy xp scrolls for my alts which is why I have about 40k points. The thing that irks me the most about it is it takes like 3 minutes to log in from the character select screen so from the time I choose to play the guy I want to is a long wait till I'm in game. Once in game traveling from zone to zone and all that is super fast so not a problem. With all the money they are making they should be able to fix the loading time at character select I just do not think they are investing in the game like they should. 
    Oh Free to play ruined lotro went all down hill from the time they made the switch. 
    I played WOW for a couple of months last year after having played ESO since release. The difference in loading, first into the game and then into character select and then loading a character is like night and day between those two MMOs.

    WOW has those routine tasks down pat and ESO seems like amateur hour by comparison. And then there's the WOW feature for installing the game in the first place where you can start playing while the game continues to DL and install in the background.

    I also hated it when ESO introduced their daily cash shop ad splash screen a couple of years back. They did it under the guise of "daily rewards" but that part of it takes maybe 1/20th of the screen they splash featuring their cash shop specials and new loot crates prominently.

    Most MMO PC monetization is amateur compared to mobile. If they adopted some of those flash deal tactics that mobile games have it would be better for everyone IMO. The FACT is that mobile games don't always create those really cheap deals to make lots of money but rather to keep people constantly logging in + constantly checking the store. PC game companies are far too greedy how they always want to get the most as fast as possible but completely ignore that the more financially successful part of the genre(mobile) have already shown people through example how it could/should be. Many PC game companies are still stuck in dinosaur era of monetization and it's embarrassing that they don't or refuse to recognize it.

    I want stuff like weekly or 2 week subs for PC MMO's. I think small things like that would move monetization in the right direction and make people think about those games again.
    UngoodGdemamiAlBQuirky
  • BruceYeeBruceYee Member EpicPosts: 2,238
    In mobile games stuff is time gated even for the biggest whales which means you must be OCD, work out the tiny details and plan far in advance. In PC MMO games content you buy in many games have an expiration date because either new content comes out(expansion) shifting a lot of the playerbase over to the new one or in the case of WoW making stuff from previous expansions useless. PC MMO games dictate when it's the optimal time that you must experience the content you pay for vs mobile that lets you do things at your own pace without too much pressure. Two completely different worlds.
    KyleranGdemamiAlBQuirky
  • UngoodUngood Member LegendaryPosts: 5,563
    BruceYee said:
    Most MMO PC monetization is amateur compared to mobile. 
    I have to agree with you here, but at the same time most MMO Costumer Service suck's compared to mobile as well.

    On my mobile games, they make me feel like they value my business. Case in point, just to use an example, I bought something that the transaction did not clear on, something interrupted the service before the delivery, I contacted the in-game CS, I got an e-mail back, saying they are giving me an extra of what I bought, as well as some additional game rewards for my troubles and inconvenience.

    Now, sure, it's just digital junk, totally free for them to toss at me to make me happy, so it was a good plan to do that, but when was the last time you ever saw an MMO do the same?
    BruceYeeGdemamiAlBQuirky
    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.
  • Mars_OMGMars_OMG Member EpicPosts: 3,318
    edited March 29
    I've personally never saw anything in the mmos I've played that is pay to win. I've seen whales, I've seen subscriptions, buy to play ect, but I've never seen any one item that someone could buy too "win" . 

    Can anyone give an example of something that is strictly pay to win and can't be obtained through playing a game ? Even if it is a boost to thisVariable, can thisVariable be obtained in the game, if thisVariable can be obtained in the game I don't find thisVariable p2w. 

    When populations around the world had steady income, jobs and ect everyone was happy to pay a subscription. I 've had countless subscription and even lifetime sub to LotrO, paying was simple when life had certainty. 

    Life right now, living in this era, is uncertain. no one knows what tomorrow will bring, or the next day or the next day.  Pretending the economy and life situations aren't playing a role in game monetization is benign. 

    Videogame importance changed in the hierarchy of simply surviving this new world that has begun. IS this the first pandemic we will see, I hope it is, but will it be the only one ? I like the conversation but some of the points are simply out of proportion to what life means right now, does it really matter to the bum on the street, the kid on the border or a man being carjacked in broad daylight ?  

    At the end of the day, players have nothing to do with greed at the top floor board table. At the same time, life's uncertainty is a bigger concern then a monetization method , imho

    If I had to pick a monetization method, it would be seasons. They are inexpensive accessable 4 times a year allowing people to skip a season or two witrhout feeling liek they have skipped major content of the core games.
    GdemamiAlBQuirky
    - abandoning social media could possibly save the world.  
    #RestoreTheSnyderVerse 
  • Po_ggPo_gg Member EpicPosts: 5,569
    edited March 29
    Ungood said:
    The Term Free to Play, is where everything went wrong,
    Just a bit back to that, actually where it went wrong is... english :)
    The ambiguity of the word "free", which is pretty unique to english - at least on my surficial knowledge (not a language expert, beyond my native I barely can babble on three, english included). Others use different words for the two different concepts of free.
    There's first the
    - free as in freedom, free from restrictions to do something
    and then there's
    - free as in freebie, without paying a dime, free lunch.

    With german as an example (since it's the closest to english within the germanic family), the first free is frei, the second is kostenlos (which is roughly "costless" or "cost-free" - see, close languages :) ).

    So, Turbine (and I assume most other games later too) meant it in the first way, free to play as in sub ain't required / mandatory anymore, players are free to play it and then can pay later. Or not at all, they're free to make that decision as well if they don't mind the grind.

    While the consumer end saw it in the second meaning, and expected the (cost-)free lunch.



    Mind you, it ain't something new, FSF and GNU had the same struggle in the early '90s about free software... ("why some companies charge for it, when it's free?")
    GdemamiMars_OMGAlBQuirky
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 15,437
    Po_gg said:
    Ungood said:
    The Term Free to Play, is where everything went wrong,
    Just a bit back to that, actually where it went wrong is... english :)
    The ambiguity of the word "free", which is pretty unique to english - at least on my surficial knowledge (not a language expert, beyond my native I barely can babble on three, english included). Others use different words for the two different concepts of free.
    There's first the
    - free as in freedom, free from restrictions to do something
    and then there's
    - free as in freebie, without paying a dime, free lunch.

    With german as an example (since it's the closest to english within the germanic family), the first free is frei, the second is kostenlos (which is roughly "costless" or "cost-free" - see, close languages :) ).

    So, Turbine (and I assume most other games later too) meant it in the first way, free to play as in sub ain't required / mandatory anymore, players are free to play it and then can pay later. Or not at all, they're free to make that decision as well if they don't mind the grind.

    While the consumer end saw it in the second meaning, and expected the (cost-)free lunch.



    Mind you, it ain't something new, FSF and GNU had the same struggle in the early '90s about free software... ("why some companies charge for it, when it's free?")
    IDK man. I think you're overcomplicating it. It is used in both senses by both the sellers and the consumers.

    F2P is characterized by no initial purchase as well as no mandatory sub and is heavily marketed featuring both of those things. I certainly won't lay any confusion about it on the consumers.

    This is not a case of the sellers meaning one version of "free" and consumers thinking it's the other meaning. They are being sold both meanings of it.
    KyleranAlBQuirky
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • UngoodUngood Member LegendaryPosts: 5,563
    Po_gg said:
    Ungood said:
    The Term Free to Play, is where everything went wrong,
    Just a bit back to that, actually where it went wrong is... english :)
    The ambiguity of the word "free", which is pretty unique to english - at least on my surficial knowledge (not a language expert, beyond my native I barely can babble on three, english included). Others use different words for the two different concepts of free.
    There's first the
    - free as in freedom, free from restrictions to do something
    and then there's
    - free as in freebie, without paying a dime, free lunch.

    With german as an example (since it's the closest to english within the germanic family), the first free is frei, the second is kostenlos (which is roughly "costless" or "cost-free" - see, close languages :) ).

    So, Turbine (and I assume most other games later too) meant it in the first way, free to play as in sub ain't required / mandatory anymore, players are free to play it and then can pay later. Or not at all, they're free to make that decision as well if they don't mind the grind.

    While the consumer end saw it in the second meaning, and expected the (cost-)free lunch.



    Mind you, it ain't something new, FSF and GNU had the same struggle in the early '90s about free software... ("why some companies charge for it, when it's free?")
    No, they used the Word Free to Play, in the Free Lunch context, that you did not need to pay money to play the game.

    To try and use it in the other context, Ergo: You do not have the Freedom to Play our game, makes no sense.

    So.. it was clearly marketed in the "Free Lunch" category of the word, because the Alternative was "Pay 2 Play", not "Oppressed to Play"
    KyleranAlBQuirky
    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.
  • KnightFalzKnightFalz Member EpicPosts: 1,677
    Absolute fairness is absolute fantasy.

    It has never and will never be. Each model has it's strengths and weaknesses in that regard and most will be drawn to whatever they feel is the fairest of that on offer, or most otherwise suited to their preferences.

    Also, the claimed ambiguity over the use of the word free in relation to f2p games does not exist. An individual can indeed play such a game with no personal financial cost, making it free at that level. That this can't be so overall isn't the individual player's concern, but that of the provider.
    KyleranAlBQuirkyiixviiiixMars_OMG
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,422
    Scorchien said:
    Welcome to Capitalism , where every business is trying to maximize there profits ...While having happy returning cumstomers...


      If you know someone in business who is not, they are doing it wrong ....
    Let’s separate the word business. Now publicly traded companies might always be about maximizing profits. Makes perfect sense because they are always trying to sell shares.

    Take a small business man like me. I have 4 companies. Only one has any employees, the other three are about moving money and paying less tax. Let me assure everyone that I still end up paying a heck of a lot of tax. My main business manufactures and fabricates, it grosses around 4K an hour. The business costs around 270k a month to operate. One of my other companies owns the plant and charges my main company rent. Another company lends the main company money and charges it interest. The government likes tax revenue and as long as these companies are all making money and paying tax, the government is happy.

     Now being an owner of a company I don’t have to worry about keeping a bunch of greedy quick return stock holders happy. I just have to keep me happy. Stability keeps me happy. 10-15% after tax profit keeps me happy. Going into work one or two days a week makes me happy. I have plenty to risk and easily could make more and more.

    All that’s going to do is give me stress and a headache. I already have everything I need. 

    Time is what’s mostly precious. Time is what flashes before my eyes. Time is something you can never get back if you waste it.

    Im much more concerned with maximizing my time over maximizing my profits.


    GdemamiUngoodIselinMars_OMGKyleran

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • UtinniUtinni Member EpicPosts: 2,001
    I haven't played a single MMORPG that required an unreasonable amount of money to play the game. Monetization for these games is always such a hot topic but it remains one of the cheapest hobbies. Anyone here paint? Read? Have a project car? Fish? Hunt? Play tabletop games? Card games? Cook? Exercise? Woodwork? Glassblow?

    I'm realizing most people are so bored with MMOs that they'd rather squabble about $10-$60 and the financial standings of corporations than play the games. Just move on if you're this bored.
    UngoodIselinAlBQuirky
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 15,437
    Utinni said:
    I haven't played a single MMORPG that required an unreasonable amount of money to play the game. Monetization for these games is always such a hot topic but it remains one of the cheapest hobbies. Anyone here paint? Read? Have a project car? Fish? Hunt? Play tabletop games? Card games? Cook? Exercise? Woodwork? Glassblow?

    I'm realizing most people are so bored with MMOs that they'd rather squabble about $10-$60 and the financial standings of corporations than play the games. Just move on if you're this bored.
    Nice straw man saying that the complaints are about the total cost of the hobby.

    If you actually look at the complaints most of them are about HOW not how much they monetize.

    If you'd rather play a fantasy game inside a shopping mall with all the "attention shoppers, there's a blue light special in aisle 9" announcements good for you. The "cpmplainers" would rather play a fantasy game without the billboards.
    GdemamiAlBQuirky
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • TheocritusTheocritus Member EpicPosts: 8,190
    edited March 30
    I have tried ALOT of games as I am sure many of us have.....Most probably do not last much longer than a week.....That is why I want the point of entry to be cheap...I don't want to pay $60 every time I want to try a game....It would cost a fortune....I also look at a game like Everquest that I played for about 5 years......Between subs and expansions I probably paid well over a thousand dollars for it.....A thousand dollars to play a video game.....When I think about that now, it's just ridiculous but the money was not a problem at the time, and we had no other option back then.

    Most companies simply cannot afford to charge gamers $50-60 to play their game....There are too many options out there with little or no cost to play, and to me the more expensive games aren't much better anyway.....I know alot of yo ufeel the more you pay the better the game, but I have never found that to be the case.
    Mars_OMGAlBQuirky
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 23,038
    Utinni said:
    I haven't played a single MMORPG that required an unreasonable amount of money to play the game. Monetization for these games is always such a hot topic but it remains one of the cheapest hobbies. Anyone here paint? Read? Have a project car? Fish? Hunt? Play tabletop games? Card games? Cook? Exercise? Woodwork? Glassblow?

    I'm realizing most people are so bored with MMOs that they'd rather squabble about $10-$60 and the financial standings of corporations than play the games. Just move on if you're this bored.
    I'm not really sure what your argument there is.  Are you arguing that:

    1)  It's completely reasonable for games to ask you to pay hundreds of dollars buying loot boxes to eventually get the one item you want.  And then ask you to do it again for another item next month.
    2)  You don't care about whale bait items and in every game you've played, you've been able to play just fine without them.
    3)  You've never played games with unreasonable monetization because you can spot them and avoid them without playing them to learn the hard way.
    4)  You have no idea what I'm talking about on points (1)-(3) because in the particular games you've played, developers have never done anything remotely like that.

    Those would be four very different arguments to make, but all of them are consistent with what you said.  I'd like to know which argument you're making.
    GdemamiAlBQuirky
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 23,038
    I also look at a game like Everquest that I played for about 5 years......Between subs and expansions I probably paid well over a thousand dollars for it.....A thousand dollars to play a video game.....When I think about that now, it's just ridiculous but the money was not a problem at the time, and we had no other option back then. 
    If a game is fun to play actively for several years, then I think that paying a thousand dollars to play it for all that time is perfectly fine.  To me, the question is, how much money per amount of time you have fun playing the game.
    AlBQuirky
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 21,166
    Quizzical said:
    I also look at a game like Everquest that I played for about 5 years......Between subs and expansions I probably paid well over a thousand dollars for it.....A thousand dollars to play a video game.....When I think about that now, it's just ridiculous but the money was not a problem at the time, and we had no other option back then. 
    If a game is fun to play actively for several years, then I think that paying a thousand dollars to play it for all that time is perfectly fine.  To me, the question is, how much money per amount of time you have fun playing the game.

    I don't have a problem with total cost necessarily, but I do have a problem with how access is cut off if you stop recurring payments to their billing system no matter how much you've paid. This isn't a utility but it is often treated and billed as such.
    GdemamiTheocritusAlBQuirky
    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • olepiolepi Member RarePosts: 1,555
    I've been able to play most games without paying very much. 

    I'm pretty much immune to loot boxes and gambling and don't care enough about cosmetics to ever buy any. Not competitive enough to pay any real money for items to win with.

    People who pay a lot to show off are showing off more than they probably think.

    My preferred payment plan is to buy the game and pay a monthly sub. The only exception to this was when I bought a lifetime LoTRO sub after being in the beta. That was a great deal.

    I'm reminded of the same thing in airline travel. In the old days, you paid for a ticket, and it included checked bags and a meal. Nowadays, you pay extra for those. This was supposed to give the customer more "choices", but I know the companies only do what makes them more money.
    TheocritusAlBQuirky

    ------------
    2020: 43 years on the Net.


Sign In or Register to comment.