Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
What is the best payment option for players?
KarmaCry7
Member Posts: 144
There has been a few very interesting topics I've seen about greedy companies down to what business model is ethical and what isn't. I've had my opinions in the past and quite honestly, I'm not sure how to support the mmos I like anymore. There are a few mmos with very good payment options that fits my budget very nicely. I want to play as many games as I see fit but I also understand that mmo companies have to be paid in order to continue to supply us great games and content. I would dare us to remove P2P and F2P as definitions and create a new business model or terminology that mmos can use that you believe could usher in a new standard.
If you are a player that believes that an mmorpg should be financially supported by the players but at the same time, you want a better payment plan that would allow you to play other games without feeling too limited based upon the current payment options, please give your input on what companies should do to improve this. You can supply a good price range, monthly fees or just paying once for a game. Please do not use the words P2P or F2P as I'm starting to see that these terms have not only confused us but it is confusing the industry. B2P (buy to play) is an optional term or SB (Subscription based) is also more specific but it would be nice for you to add your own twists and creative ways of supporting your game without breaking your wallet.
I have the right to like what I want!
Comments
Very good idea. I agree that the business models can be more complex than just use the P2P or F2P term. Here are a few that have been implemented:
1) All You Can Eat - one flat fee per month, you get everything .. essenailly P2P sub
2) Pay for Content - Like Guildwars, or part of DDO. You pay to get access to content. Either an adventure pack (or you can call it an expansion), or character. To some extent MOST MMO are using a combo of (1) + (2) .. sub + expansion paks where you have to pay for.
3) Pay for Vanity Items - You pay for in-game items have have no effect on game mechanics.
4) Pay for Gameplay Items - xp potions, NPC to quest with you, things like that.
5) Pay for services - from name changing to better customer service.
Anything else i am missing?
Pay for content seems like one the best options you listed in my opinion. You pay once for the main game and then pay for new areas added such as expansions. I think players will have a little problem with receiving limited access to a game they paid for (I would) unless the limited access is extra bonus stuff I could do without. Guild Wars had a great thing going and could make for a great business model for most games. If I paid for only the client and then optional expansion packs for mmos, I would buy every new one that came out and it would give me enough time to buy their expansions later on.
There are a few mmos I just haven't purchased yet because just buying the client is a lot of money and then I dread the subscription fees. It's not that I don't want to play them as I can't wait to try those games, it's just I can't afford to play all of them.
I have the right to like what I want!
Best payment option in my opinion would be one where the focus of the developers/company would be to make a good game that people would want to play (ie: traditional P2P subs where everyone that plays has to pay the same so more players=more money).
A bad payment method would be where the focus of the company is to get money out of people playing the game and game content/upgrades is a distant second (ie: traditoinal F2P cash shop games where items that remove grind/levelling/quest objectives=more money). Another bad payment option would be a competitive or PvP focused game where players were forced to compete with their wallets (again standard F2P cash shop games where I win button items=more money)
Obviously I like the P2P model that we have today unless i'm playing very casually and don't feel the need to PvP. However, if something came out that fixed the problems with the F2P model as it stands I'd be o.k. with that too.
Interesting. Paying subs isn't even that bad but if there was a way to reduce subs, I would play at least 3 different mmos a month. I'm not cheap but I'm also not rich. I'm not sure I fully understood, but are you open to the "Buy to play" Guild Wars option as well or just against item shop?
I have the right to like what I want!
Personally I dislike the idea that if the game has a subscription then you guy the game. This has put me off numerous games.
I am all in support of subscription fees, but if I have to pay money to buy the original game then I am greatly put off by that initial investment. I am also surprised companies have not realised that this is a common put off as subscription is a cost that appears less visible, however paying for the box/download is really a highly visible payment.
Interesting. Paying subs isn't even that bad but if there was a way to reduce subs, I would play at least 3 different mmos a month. I'm not cheap but I'm also not rich. I'm not sure I fully understood, but are you open to the "Buy to play" Guild Wars option as well or just against item shop?
Honestly I haven't played GW yet. If the level cap is say 50 and each new expansion simply adds new content and new areas to explore that'd be o.k. if you don't like a new area don't buy it. If each expansion adds say 10 levels to the level cap then a person with 3 expansion packs will have a serious advantage over someone that didn't (30 level difference). If the game is PvP focused I could see this being a problem. Iff the 2 players are expected to PvP together... if they don't and PvP is based on who has what expansion again it doesn't matter....
This way someone that likes to PvP isn't forced to spend money and the company is focused on making people WANT to get the expansion rather than the company forced on making players to NEED the expansion
The only thing I'm really interested in is a straight sub. Let me pay my $15 a month and get access to every shred of content there is. If you've got an item mall or some other nonsense, you'll almost always have me leave the game. I'm paying for the game already, I don't want to have to pay more to get things I ought to already have access to.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Interesting. Paying subs isn't even that bad but if there was a way to reduce subs, I would play at least 3 different mmos a month. I'm not cheap but I'm also not rich. I'm not sure I fully understood, but are you open to the "Buy to play" Guild Wars option as well or just against item shop?
Honestly I haven't played GW yet. If the level cap is say 50 and each new expansion simply adds new content and new areas to explore that'd be o.k. if you don't like a new area don't buy it. If each expansion adds say 10 levels to the level cap then a person with 3 expansion packs will have a serious advantage over someone that didn't (30 level difference). If the game is PvP focused I could see this being a problem. Iff the 2 players are expected to PvP together... if they don't and PvP is based on who has what expansion again it doesn't matter....
This way someone that likes to PvP isn't forced to spend money and the company is focused on making people WANT to get the expansion rather than the company forced on making players to NEED the expansion
I agree on a lot of what you are getting at. Depending on the type of game it is, if it's some gimmick to make me have to get some feature or expansion, I don't want it at ALL. If you the expansion is a nice add on that simply expands the game and doesn't give too much of an unfair advantage for those who don't have it, then that is a good idea. The problem is if companies will get this right and not abuse the opportunity to force players to spend more but give them a health option to if they like the game.
I have the right to like what I want!
I'm pretty happy with CCP's model for EvE; subscription for those who just want to play, PLEX sales for those who dont have the time to make much ISK, PLEX purchases for those with more time to play the game than RL cash to spare. So you can chose between P2P or F2P according to your circumstances and preferences. No difference in gameplay whatsoever regardless of how your account is maintained.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
Subcription and pay for special content are the only way. I would expect regular small content updates like Lotro does though. Paying for all new content when already subbing is not on. Paying for a server change is fine, that stops server hopping. You should not be able to change your name, so I regard that as a no-no.