Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

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

General: Massey: Subsciption Fee Creativity

124»

Comments

  • maccajnrmaccajnr Member UncommonPosts: 84

    What I see as game revenue (I'm not talking about sponsoring):

    Monthly subscription or Micro-transactions (Item mall) or Pay-For-Play

    I played a lot of MMO so far. Most in the start were with monthly subscription. Then more games became "free" mmo with micro-transactions.

    But after several of these "free" games, I realize that I end up spending more in micro-transactions then a monthly fee. I know, micro-transaction are not mandatory to buy to play the game, but when the items sold give you 300% attack bonus, 500% heal bonus, 200% defense bonus, well... not much of a choice. And when I hear developpers saying that these items are also available in-game, it makes me laugh. Rare loot (days of hunting), or sold by npc for zillions coins. Sad. So I'm staying away now from any Micro-transactions games.

    And I'm hearing Cryptic and STO is going to go for both Monthly subscription and Micro-transactions. Even more sad.

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 14,195

    What you are saying ‘someforumguy’ reflects what I think has happened to the whole games industry. It’s interesting to see how IT innovation has lead to poor quality assurance and an excuse to squeeze even more money out of the customer.

    You have covered what’s happened in MMO’s, but look at what’s happened in solo games. Before the internet, gaming companies had to get the release right at launch. A game having serious problems at launch was almost unheard of because it was impossible to correct. When games started to get their own web sites it was hailed as a way any niggling game issues could be cleaned up with a patch. But within a few years every release needed a patch, several years after that and some are now never patched to a decent QA standard. Those who reviewed PC games just started to accept that game launches would not be 100% QA and gaming companies knew they could get away with it.

    MMORPG’s started as this process was going on and reflect the same development. MMO’s are now like solo games always released too early. CoX and LotR were a couple of notable exceptions to my mind, but they are very much exceptions to the rule.

    The IT to link fiscal transactions to MMO’s has developed over time. Of course rather than giving us different ways to pay it has been about making us pay more.

    This is an abject lesson in how technological progress does not always give us a better product or a cheaper one, quite the opposite in fact.

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • IrishoakIrishoak Member Posts: 633

    Why is it the F2P games do not match the quality of games we're willing to pay for? Not to say that some P2P games do not suck, just pointing out most of the F2P games are not aimed at the same player base as the subscription based models and you can tell this by the amount of detail, depth and scope they contain. And the industry wanting to push for it as a standard does not in itself justify why we should accept it. They are out for one thing and one thing only, to make as much money from us as possible.

    If NA isn't ready for MT I say leave it be, don't pimp the idea for the industry, they're all fixated on DLC for XBox Live...just because they can fleece those people doesn't mean we should roll over so easy.

  • RydesonRydeson Member UncommonPosts: 3,852
    Originally posted by johnspartan


    Counterproductive.
    Say you don't raid and only pay 11.99 a month to play instead of 14.99. Someone invites you to a raid, you get excited, you think "hey maybe I'll try it just this once" nope too bad you only play 11.99. I disagree with you.. Gave Devs can and do track raid information and can allow a "certain" low number or raids without being a raider..  WoW for example has a HUGE problem with raiding and instancing.. If I only do 1 instance a day.. Why should have to pay the same price that power gamers do with them doing 10 a day.. WHICH is the cause for much of WoW's instance server problems.
    It discourages people from trying new things.  (Not if you allow a entry level number of instances)
    It's nickle and diming for content. Bad. In your opinion.. I for one don't like or want to pay $35,000 for a fully loaded Honda Accord.. let me nickle and dime my own car.. It's called customization and is exist everywhere.. 
    Raiding isn't any more elite or special then anything else, it's just part of the game why should I have to pay more? (WRONG).. Raiding which is done thru instancing has their own server.. Currently WoW is having issues with this because 80% of the end game is instance dependant.. This being the case, when low level toons wish to do 1 dungeon for questing they may end up waiting in line to instance (since they are full).. RAIDERS = higher cost on servers = they should pay more



    Bad idea. Period. 


    That being said, I agree not everyone should charge the premium 14.99. Lotro should make 9.99 their permanent price, same with games like AoC/WAR etc. and other smaller titles.
    One idea that is kind of interesting is buying blocks of time.



    14.99 or whatever for unlimited, but you could buy maybe 30-40 hours play time for $6.99... 41-80 hours $9.99 etc. just making up numbers.

     

  • DerrialDerrial Member Posts: 250

    I suspect a lot of people would disagree with this statement:



    I hate to break it to anyone running a competitor, or developing “the next big thing,” but your game is likely not in the same field as WoW.

    I'm not a WoW hater, I like WoW, but I think it's pushing it to suggest that it's in its own league. It has more content than newer games because it's been around a while now, and is more polished than any other MMO, but it lacks some things that newer games have like high end graphics, customizable UI, some character customization options like body morphing and clothing dyes, etc. Games like Warhammer, Age of Conan, LOTRO, etc are all comparable and worthy of the same pricing. Maybe the author is referring to "indy" MMO games out there that are truly not in the same league, but most of those are F2P or they do have lower subscription rates.

    I like the idea of a tiered subscription model, if it's done well. Maybe something like $7.99 for the basic game sub, and then an additional $4.99 for PvP arenas, and additional $4.99 for raids. Hardcore MMO players have proven that they're willing to pay more for their game by having two or more active subscriptions and buying game currency online, so I doubt it would chase them away. Downside is that the developer really has to deliver in each area of the game since they are charging specifically for it.

  • DanaDana Member Posts: 2,415
    Originally posted by CayneJobb


    I suspect a lot of people would disagree with this statement:



    I hate to break it to anyone running a competitor, or developing “the next big thing,” but your game is likely not in the same field as WoW.


     

    I'm not a WoW hater, I like WoW, but I think it's pushing it to suggest that it's in its own league. It has more content than newer games because it's been around a while now, and is more polished than any other MMO, but it lacks some things that newer games have like high end graphics, customizable UI, some character customization options like body morphing and clothing dyes, etc. Games like Warhammer, Age of Conan, LOTRO, etc are all comparable and worthy of the same pricing. Maybe the author is referring to "indy" MMO games out there that are truly not in the same league, but most of those are F2P or they do have lower subscription rates.

    I like the idea of a tiered subscription model, if it's done well. Maybe something like $7.99 for the basic game sub, and then an additional $4.99 for PvP arenas, and additional $4.99 for raids. Hardcore MMO players have proven that they're willing to pay more for their game by having two or more active subscriptions and buying game currency online, so I doubt it would chase them away. Downside is that the developer really has to deliver in each area of the game since they are charging specifically for it.

    One note, I wasn't talking about WoW as a game, I was talking about it as a business. IE: Number of subscribers.

    Dana Massey
    Formerly of MMORPG.com
    Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios

  • IrishoakIrishoak Member Posts: 633

    Do you think WoW would have been as sucessful if it was a F2P game? Business-wise it's the 800lb gorilla for sure. I think there is a stigma attatched to F2P games because of quality, be it perceived or otherwise. I have yet to play a free game with a MT store that held itself to the same quality standard as a P2P.

  • green13green13 Member UncommonPosts: 1,341
    Originally posted by wootin

    Originally posted by green13


    Wootin is right, and Puzzle Pirates is a good example that successfully used both models.
    You, however, are wrong to say that the game has to be designed differently to accommodate each model.
    Taking Champions Online as an example, the basic architecture to offer separate free-to-play + MTs and subscription versions is already there.
    This is all they'd need to do to achieve it.
    1) 'Hide' the shopping mall button in the subscription version. The mall code doesn't need to be removed. If players can't see and activate the button then they also can't buy anything in it and the shopping mall is effectively not there.
    2) Add a single field to the player stat database which indicates which kind of payment model they're using. CO uses mirrored instancing instead of separate servers so they'd just then need to split players into different instances based on payment model.
    3) Develop two versions of the list of available costume pieces and powers. Subscription players would get a full list and the freebie+MT version would have a lot removed.
    4) Throw xp potions, buffs etc. into the shopping mall.
    So that's a few minor database changes (incredibly easy) and a few basic IF THEN functions. That's much easier to accomplish than trying to shove something down players' throats that they clearly don't want.

     Thanks for the explanation. It actually just seems easier to not have the item shop available on the sub servers. How hard can it be to simply not let people buy items from the item mart for characters on Servers AB&C, but let them do it for characters  on Servers DE&F?

    At least with CO, since Cryptic claims that everything you can get from the item mart is in game to be earned, no more changes would seem to be necessary for that one.

    There's two issues:

    • they plan to have all players on a single server
    • ongoing maintenance / updates / expansions

    The ideal with any kind of software is a single version of it - even if the interface / functionality needs to be different for different people. Otherwise it adds a whole bunch of complications. But what you suggested (separate payment model versions) is easily achievable with a few minor changes (points 1 & 2).

    I suggested 3 & 4 because they would need to take a different approach to the MTs if they were using them in the standard free-to-play + MTs game design. If you could play the game without paying a subscription and still had access to everything, a lot of players who might have subscribed would just go play the free version. And again, that could be achieved relatively easily.

     

  • green13green13 Member UncommonPosts: 1,341
    Originally posted by Irishoak


    Do you think WoW would have been as sucessful if it was a F2P game? Business-wise it's the 800lb gorilla for sure. I think there is a stigma attatched to F2P games because of quality, be it perceived or otherwise. I have yet to play a free game with a MT store that held itself to the same quality standard as a P2P.

    Interesting historical note - they had originally planned to be a free-to-play game.

    http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=19164

    Speaking as part of an in-depth conversation with GDC executive director Jamil Moledina, Pardo commented: “When were first going to make World of Warcraft, we wanted to make it free and advertising supported.”

    However, the Blizzard exec noted: “We didn’t want to charge a subscription, but as we researched market conditions, we realized that wouldn’t support us.”

    Guess they made the right choice....

     

  • compwitchcompwitch Member UncommonPosts: 19

    I absolutely agree with your cable analogy. I'm a casual player: don't raid, don't do battlegrounds, don't want to spend time and money on acquiring "cool" gear, and I do resent having to pay the same in a subscription game as hard-core gamers. Which is why I've left WoW and other subscription games behind and now only play ftp games. I'd be *much* more inclined to return to paying games if there were a content tier structure which suited my requirements, at a price level that didn't make me wince. After all, especially in the current economic climate, most of us have to penny-pinch simply to survive, and can't justify wasting money that could be better spent elsewhere.

  • RyanB2112RyanB2112 Member Posts: 4

    Okay, I'm smelling a ton of fertilizer here amongst the replies. I'm not going to call people out, but let me break the situation down here as I see it:

     

    1)   The idea of a 'premium', extra-high-quality MMO being worth paying more than $14.99 to play has, in this thread, been near universally established as an acceptable, even excellent, idea.

     

    2)   CO and ToRO are both attempting to include a far higher standard of content than previous MMOs, on par with an A-List single player game, rather than the typical dreck that even the golden child of MMOs, WoW, tries to pass off as gameplay.

     

    3)   CO and ToRO are both attempting to further monetize their product by including RMT in the form of an Item Mall. Additionally, CO has explicitly stated that its Item Mall will contain no game altering items and few-to-no non-grindable items.

     

    4)   CO and ToRO are both being condemned for 'nickle-and-diming' players by charging additional Micro-Transaction fees on top of their subscription services.

     

    5)   See point #1

     

     

     

  • qombiqombi Member UncommonPosts: 1,170

     Great Article Dana! I too would be probalby opt to play a game with different creative models other than a game with an item shop tacted on. Once real life transactions are taking place inside of a game for virtual items of any kind I am turned off.

    I think another payment model that may work better is paying for shorter chunks of time instead of the traditional month. Instead of a content lock out, what if you could buy a week or maybe even a day's worth of play? 

    Last idea I have is for these MMOs start to really utilize advertisement on MMO login pages and loading pages through out the game. This could increase their revenue therefore allowing them to charge less for the subscription fee. The more people that play their game the more revenue they should get from the ads.

    You are right though, all MMOs should not try to copy WoW's price because WoW is the big guy on the block. If they want some of that pie they need to adjust their price to that of a non name brand MMO. Look at SOE with old broken patched up Everquest and their newer Everquest 2 where they revamped the whole game in less than a few months to try to compete with WoW. Instead of doing what they should have done and lowered their sub fee. They kept the fee the same as the big guy on the block, WoW but not only that tried to milk more money from their dwindling playerbase with item shops and adventure packs tacted on to already failing games.

  • SnarlingWolfSnarlingWolf Member Posts: 2,697

    I was reading along nicely and then I hit the flexibility picture and was like "Wow that is hot", so then I forgot to keep reading. Find her number for me would ya? thanks.

  • DerrialDerrial Member Posts: 250



    Originally posted by RyanB2112
    Okay, I'm smelling a ton of fertilizer here amongst the replies. I'm not going to call people out, but let me break the situation down here as I see it:
     
    1)   The idea of a 'premium', extra-high-quality MMO being worth paying more than $14.99 to play has, in this thread, been near universally established as an acceptable, even excellent, idea.

    I agree...


     
    2)   CO and ToRO are both attempting to include a far higher standard of content than previous MMOs, on par with an A-List single player game, rather than the typical dreck that even the golden child of MMOs, WoW, tries to pass off as gameplay.

    I'm assuming ToRO is The Old Republic and CO is Champions Online?

    Every developer will say that they're attempting to include a far higher standard of content. Then the game is released, and it's pretty much the same thing as every other MMO with better graphics and a few new features. Point being it's too soon to claim that either of these games will truly have a quality standard that is any different from every other MMO.



    3)   CO and ToRO are both attempting to further monetize their product by including RMT in the form of an Item Mall. Additionally, CO has explicitly stated that its Item Mall will contain no game altering items and few-to-no non-grindable items.

    4)   CO and ToRO are both being condemned for 'nickle-and-diming' players by charging additional Micro-Transaction fees on top of their subscription services.

    5) See point #1


    You are missing several points.

    First, the best part of the "premium" MMO subscription idea is that people who do not want the "premium" content like endgame raids or PVP arenas or whatever can end up paying less than the usual $14.99/mo. Chances are CO and TOR are going to charge $14.99 on top of the microtransactions which means everyone down to the most casual of players will pay at least $14.99, and probably more.

    Second, the idea revolved around charging for end-game content like raids or PVP arenas which some people do not care to get involved with. Item-malls do not contain raids. They contain items like potions and gear and visual customizations for your character. In other words, things that are usually included as part of a game's subscription fee and that everyone wants to enjoy in an MMO game including casual gamers, which means players will have to spend more money to fully enjoy the game.

    Third, although CO developers claim their item mall will not contain anything that affects gameplay now, if their coffers do not fill up as quickly as they'd like after the game is released, there is nothing stopping them from adding a Cloak of Easy Win Button on their mall at any time. Item malls are a way for developers to have direct control over how much players end up spending on their game while cloaking it in a cloud of "you can play for free", and it's even worse when the lie is "you can play for $14.99."

  • RyanB2112RyanB2112 Member Posts: 4
    Originally posted by CayneJobb

     





    I'm assuming ToRO is The Old Republic and CO is Champions Online?

    Every developer will say that they're attempting to include a far higher standard of content. Then the game is released, and it's pretty much the same thing as every other MMO with better graphics and a few new features. Point being it's too soon to claim that either of these games will truly have a quality standard that is any different from every other MMO.



     

    Your assumption on the game titles is correct.

    However, I would like to point out that both Cryptic and Bioware are not the same animal as the 'typical' MMO company that we've been suffering through lately. They, in fact, aren't 'MMO' companies at all. Each company has extensive, and highly acclaimed, experience in the realm of single-player(w/multi) games previous to these ventures... and that's not even counting the City-of-X franchise Cryptic sold to NCSoft to work on Champions.

    Given that the only other SPG company (at least I'm pretty sure Sony doesn't actually make in-house single-player games) to launch an MMO that I can recall is Blizzard, I'm willing to bet that these games are at least going to truly warrant that oft-bandied "AAA" rating.

     



     

    You are missing several points.

    First, the best part of the "premium" MMO subscription idea is that people who do not want the "premium" content like endgame raids or PVP arenas or whatever can end up paying less than the usual $14.99/mo. Chances are CO and TOR are going to charge $14.99 on top of the microtransactions which means everyone down to the most casual of players will pay at least $14.99, and probably more.





     

    First, the definitions I use for premium, taken from an online dictionary:

    Premium, noun: The amount at which something is valued above its par or nominal value.

    Premium, adj.: Of superior quality.



    Okay, now that that's cleared up, let me say that I was not, in any way, talking about the "Reduced Rate" idea you seem to be referring to. You are talking about making a price cut, reducing the product's price to below its 'par value' (aka $14.99) for those who do not plan on utilizing all of the available content.



    I, on the other hand, was referring to the many people in this thread who have stated they would pay an increased rate (a premium) over the standard of $14.99, for a game that offered an exceptionally high-quality (again, premium) game experience compared to the typical faire available in their chosen genre.

     


    Third, although CO developers claim their item mall will not contain anything that affects gameplay now, if their coffers do not fill up as quickly as they'd like after the game is released, there is nothing stopping them from adding a Cloak of Easy Win Button on their mall at any time. Item malls are a way for developers to have direct control over how much players end up spending on their game while cloaking it in a cloud of "you can play for free", and it's even worse when the lie is "you can play for $14.99."



     

    In the terms of formal argument, this is what is known as a "Slippery Slope" fallacy: If A is true, then B will inevitably follow, causing C to occur, which triggers D, etc, etc, etc. with no actual concrete evidence to support such a theory.



    There is no actual compelling reason, other than a paranoid belief that letting ANY level of authorized RMT into a subscription game will INEVITABLY lead to "The Cloak of IWIN+50, now only $9.99", to assume that the "unlock fluff early" services that Cryptic (I haven't seen anything on Bioware's options) is offering at this moment will become said "Cloak of IWIN" scenario. To me, insisting that the games should be boycotted simply because such a potential exists is, frankly, an unthinking, kneejerk reaction in fear of anything new and different.



    Besides, even if the games do go to hell in a hand-basket 6 months from launch, they are starting neither in a hand-basket nor in hell. There's no reason not to buy the games, play them, enjoy them, and do what a smart player does with any MMO; keep track of expenses and walk away when it's no longer interesting enough to be worth the upkeep costs.



     

     

  • DerrialDerrial Member Posts: 250

    I guess we're talking about different things regarding the 'premium' thing, and that's my fault for not having read the whole thread. If a game truly offers something above and beyond the normal level of quality, then I could see paying more than $14.99 a month for it, but IMO there hasn't been an MMO released including WoW that fits that description. In other words, I'll believe it when I see it.


    Originally posted by RyanB2112
    Your assumption on the game titles is correct.
    However, I would like to point out that both Cryptic and Bioware are not the same animal as the 'typical' MMO company that we've been suffering through lately. They, in fact, aren't 'MMO' companies at all. Each company has extensive, and highly acclaimed, experience in the realm of single-player(w/multi) games previous to these ventures...

    You're absolutely right about Bioware. SW:TOR is full of potential, and it certainly COULD end up being that "premium" title you're talking about. If Bioware delivers on all of the built up potential for SW:TOR, I'd probably be willing to shell out $30/mo for that game. But, it's not here yet, we don't really know what the result will be.

    On the other hand, unless I'm missing something, Cryptic has never done any single player games. In fact, they've only ever released one game: City of Heroes/Villains (I guess you could call it two games, if you want). I've played CoH/V off and on for years, and I think it's a decent MMO but nothing all that spectacular. I expect Champions Online to be pretty mediocre, to be honest. But again, we don't know -- it could rock our socks.


    There is no actual compelling reason, other than a paranoid belief that letting ANY level of authorized RMT into a subscription game will INEVITABLY lead to "The Cloak of IWIN+50, now only $9.99", to assume that the "unlock fluff early" services that Cryptic (I haven't seen anything on Bioware's options) is offering at this moment will become said "Cloak of IWIN" scenario. To me, insisting that the games should be boycotted simply because such a potential exists is, frankly, an unthinking, kneejerk reaction in fear of anything new and different.

    Whether they add a I Win cloak or not, it still bothers me that the possibility exists. They certainly will put things on the mall that are highly desirable, and while those items may be "grindable," the amount of time it will take to grind those items will need to be pretty severe in order to make purchasing the item for cash an attractive enough option. An item mall on top of a subscription fee is obviously just a way to get more money out of players. That's all it's for, I can't see how it does any good for players, so it's always going to look greedy and unappealing to me.

  • RyanB2112RyanB2112 Member Posts: 4


     



    On the other hand, unless I'm missing something, Cryptic has never done any single player games. In fact, they've only ever released one game: City of Heroes/Villains (I guess you could call it two games, if you want). I've played CoH/V off and on for years, and I think it's a decent MMO but nothing all that spectacular. I expect Champions Online to be pretty mediocre, to be honest. But again, we don't know -- it could rock our socks.



     

    Point to you there. I went to check and apparently I had gotten Cryptic mixed up with Epic Games.



    Assuming they don't screw the pooch, though, they're going to be fixing a lot of the things people complained about in the CoX series. And you're right, we don't know yet. I'd say it's at least worth checking out the beta, though.

     

     



    Whether they add a I Win cloak or not, it still bothers me that the possibility exists. They certainly will put things on the mall that are highly desirable, and while those items may be "grindable," the amount of time it will take to grind those items will need to be pretty severe in order to make purchasing the item for cash an attractive enough option. An item mall on top of a subscription fee is obviously just a way to get more money out of players. That's all it's for, I can't see how it does any good for players, so it's always going to look greedy and unappealing to me.



     

    With the way Cryptic has said they're doing their end-game, point-based vendors for everything, the item-mall is a "gimme" tax for those that can't or won't go and earn the stuff the regular way, nothing more.

    Time = Money is a classic equation. You spend more money to spend less time, and vice versa. If you want to go out and farm the points to buy the items in-game, you can. If you'd rather drop a buck on that perfect pair of boots, or those awesome mechanized-angel-wing-booster-jets so you can have them NOW, you can do that too.

    It gives the costume junkies a chance to make exactly what they want from the start, as long as they're willing to spend the extra dough, and gives the causal gamers a way to get to things they'd probably never unlock normally. Above all, though, the two methods combined completely get rid of those thrice-cursed and godforsaken Random Drop Tables.

    So, basically, as long as it's strictly cosmetic/fluff items that are being sold, and the items are permanent, account-wide purchases (I've seen some F2P games where you have to re-buy the stuff every 30 days! *shudder*), I find RMTs to be perfectly acceptable, especially when combined with a RDTless end-game reward system.

     

     

  • GolarumGolarum Member Posts: 151

    I completely disagree with your article and I will tell you why...

    First off, how do you define a quality MMO? You're saying that other subscription based mmos are not on par with WoW and that they should not charge the same monthly fee, well to me WoW is not a quality mmo (I'm not hating here). It's not a quality mmo because it does not offer a good gameplay to a real gamer like me, it does not offer originality, it does not offer uniqueness. I would much rather pay 15$ a month for a game like LOTRO, EQ2, AoC, CoH/CoV that offer me interesting gameplay than pay for WoW that is far from being of the quality of these games in term of gameplay. Yes it is more polished, but I do not care about that, to me, it's all about the gameplay.

    You gave the nike vs no brand example, well let me give you another example. I am a fashion designer, I work alone in my studio, make garments that vary in prices between 700$ to 4000$ and people buy them. So how come me who barely have any costs (salaries, big rents to pay, huge equipement) will charge much much more than for example a store like GAP who is huge, who have thousands of employees? Well it's simple, while GAP is taking the time to make clothing for everyone to afford by making them in cheap materials, cheap labor, I am offering a better quality product which is more specialized. And that is how I see the subscription based pricing for mmos. WoW offers a product that is made of cheap material (bad graphics), no style (no originality) and crappy gameplay and for example the indie company or the smaller company is offering me the better game for the same price.

    I am a fan of P2P models, because I have tried playing F2P games, and even though these games have nothing to offer generaly other than grind, grind and grind, I still got sucked into paying for this and that to be able to be on par with other players when PvPing, or to upgrade my gear. And I ended up spending more money on a 2 week content than I would spend on a whole year of sub based game. From a company point of view, that is great, you pay 15$ to get a new costume, which barely cost them anything to make, well that 15$ would give me a whole month of gameplay in a sub based game, and as a customer that is not good for me.

    One game right now that I would like to see if it succeeds with it's new model is DDO. Which is offering the sub based option vs the item mall content purchasing.

    So in conclusion, I do agree with all games having the 15$ flat fee so they can continue to offer us the real gameplay we are looking for.  And I do not see any other way that I would personally pay for a game. It is the only model that for now, I would be following.

    Peace

  • RuynRuyn Member Posts: 1,052
    Originally posted by Golarum


    I completely disagree with your article and I will tell you why...
    First off, how do you define a quality MMO? You're saying that other subscription based mmos are not on par with WoW and that they should not charge the same monthly fee, well to me WoW is not a quality mmo (I'm not hating here). It's not a quality mmo because it does not offer a good gameplay to a real gamer like me, it does not offer originality, it does not offer uniqueness. I would much rather pay 15$ a month for a game like LOTRO, EQ2, AoC, CoH/CoV that offer me interesting gameplay than pay for WoW that is far from being of the quality of these games in term of gameplay. Yes it is more polished, but I do not care about that, to me, it's all about the gameplay.
    You gave the nike vs no brand example, well let me give you another example. I am a fashion designer, I work alone in my studio, make garments that vary in prices between 700$ to 4000$ and people buy them. So how come me who barely have any costs (salaries, big rents to pay, huge equipement) will charge much much more than for example a store like GAP who is huge, who have thousands of employees? Well it's simple, while GAP is taking the time to make clothing for everyone to afford by making them in cheap materials, cheap labor, I am offering a better quality product which is more specialized. And that is how I see the subscription based pricing for mmos. WoW offers a product that is made of cheap material (bad graphics), no style (no originality) and crappy gameplay and for example the indie company or the smaller company is offering me the better game for the same price.
    I am a fan of P2P models, because I have tried playing F2P games, and even though these games have nothing to offer generaly other than grind, grind and grind, I still got sucked into paying for this and that to be able to be on par with other players when PvPing, or to upgrade my gear. And I ended up spending more money on a 2 week content than I would spend on a whole year of sub based game. From a company point of view, that is great, you pay 15$ to get a new costume, which barely cost them anything to make, well that 15$ would give me a whole month of gameplay in a sub based game, and as a customer that is not good for me.
    One game right now that I would like to see if it succeeds with it's new model is DDO. Which is offering the sub based option vs the item mall content purchasing.
    So in conclusion, I do agree with all games having the 15$ flat fee so they can continue to offer us the real gameplay we are looking for.  And I do not see any other way that I would personally pay for a game. It is the only model that for now, I would be following.
    Peace

     

    I completely agree with this sentiment.  I also don't equate WoW as a quality model.  I view WoW as the Wal-Mart of MMO's.  Your one stop shop MMO that has everything.  WoW tries to cater to everybody.  In doing so WoW alienates themselves from gamers who want a specific gameplay design.  This is where other developers need to focus.  These areas have long been neglected because they copy the WoW model and the MMO audience is thirsting for something different and willing to pay top dollar for something that meets their needs.

  • flynnkdflynnkd Member UncommonPosts: 25

    I bought a lifetime subscription to LOTRO and now consider that to be a wise decision. It was a limited risk at the time as you can never be sure if a game is going to fail, but you can at least make an informed guess on which games will not. LOTR is a premium franchise and Turbine was a major player so I felt safe with the option.

    I might not feel the same way about other games but it would simply be an extra option that I dont see many other games offering. LOTRO is still making extra money out of me for major expansions and some other extra content, which I consider fair enough.

    The big attraction of this type of subscription is the fact that I can leave the game when it grows tiring, and then return to it later. I dont have to worry about cancelling subscriptions and then re-activating them etc. Plus in a way it allows me to support a game at a time when it might need the money (its launch) in return for free play down the line (monthly subs vs lifetime cost). It also instills a form of loyalty to the game on my part, I know I can always go back to it and that makes it attractive.

    I would also like to see some sort of loyalty program from games, ie when you have reached certain time lines in your subscription you get a reduced fee as reward for your loyalty. Some games (eg COH) offer loyalty rewards in items and titles, so why not extend this to fees... it doesnt need to be much, people just love being rewarded. After all, when you subscribe for a year they offer you a discount, so after you have subscribed for a year why not do the same?

    Finally, cross over subscriptions when one company has more than one game. SONY lead the way here basically because they have a pile of games they can throw at you. But several companies have 2 or 3 games now and I dont understand why they are not offering you crossover access at least to sample their other products (I imagine licenses are part of the problem).

Sign In or Register to comment.