This was a huge stink the moment MMORPGs started doing it way back at the beginning. It's only become marginally more acceptable over time, but I still think the general populace isn't too fond of it. They're much more willing to embrace games with zero entry fee and zero ongoing fees but which have optional purchases (especially if they're lateral purchases which don't break the core gameplay, as exist in the better non-MMORPG f2p titles.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'm just happy that those kind of people won't be playing SWTOR when it comes out so I won't have to deal with them
That's a very narrow-minded thing of you to say, echolynfan. I think I have learned enough from your posts to judge you -- it's all quite black and white.
This +1
Oh good - that means I won't be seeing either one of you in any of the MMO's I'm playing
I wonder when BW will offer the first DLC for TOR? It took what, two weeks after launch before it became available for DA? Thats when I guess you will quit the game? Or is a cash shop game ok as long as they allow you to pay a sub at the same time?
Really? This game sucks and Im not having fun? Im going to unsub right now. Thanks for the tip.
I don't know about other people, but for me it's not the price, it's the principle of the matter.
Any developer who wants me to pay for the privelage of playing their game and then is going to lock me out after a certain amount of time unless i pay them more are con artists as far as i'm concerned.
Paying for access to their servers, network, data assets, their data transmission, electricity to run the server, the server provider ex. AT&T for WoW, employee salary including but not limited to developers/community staff/customer service.
I can go on. Counterargument though: Do you ever go to the cinema to see a movie, ever go out to eat, ever go to a bar and order alcohol, or do you smoke cigarettes?
Anyone who complains about $15 monthly fee certainly doesn't do any of the above either, right? One ticket to a 3D movie where I live is 13.50. And that's about two hours.
Can't really see how people complain about monthly fees. I mean, do these people also not have cell phones? That's a superfluous monthly fee also.
I don't know about other people, but for me it's not the price, it's the principle of the matter.
Any developer who wants me to pay for the privelage of playing their game and then is going to lock me out after a certain amount of time unless i pay them more are con artists as far as i'm concerned.
Paying for access to their servers, network, data assets, their data transmission, electricity to run the server, the server provider ex. AT&T for WoW, employee salary including but not limited to developers/community staff/customer service.
I can go on. Counterargument though: Do you ever go to the cinema to see a movie, ever go out to eat, ever go to a bar and order alcohol, or do you smoke cigarettes?
Anyone who complains about $15 monthly fee certainly doesn't do any of the above either, right? One ticket to a 3D movie where I live is 13.50. And that's about two hours.
Can't really see how people complain about monthly fees. I mean, do these people also not have cell phones? That's a superfluous monthly fee also.
To the orange: Game sales. I get access to the servers when I purchase the game. Server costs are moot. Those are so low that NCSoft pays for all of their's with revenue generated from a game that doesn't have a subscription. Whoda thunk?
To the red: Nice strawman, don't think I've ever seen that one before. Oh wait! I have. From just about everyone who has responded to my post. The conversation is about games, keep it there.
To the yellow: Thank for not bothering to read my post. If you took the time you would have realized I said that for me the problem isn't the price, it's the principle. I don't care if it's $15 or $150, any developer who wants me to buy the game and then locks me out until I give them more money can kiss my ass.
I'm just happy that those kind of people won't be playing SWTOR when it comes out so I won't have to deal with them
That's a very narrow-minded thing of you to say, echolynfan. I think I have learned enough from your posts to judge you -- it's all quite black and white.
This +1
{mod edit}
Oh you will. You see I don't mind paying a sub fee. Unlike you however I have to see the value instead of thinking of it as some gated community.
IMO F2P games are the more expensive .Even paying 60 bucks for the box and 15 a month.I just feel that its a great deal.I am one who plays to win.I like the social aspect, but ultimately I play to compete.In Sub based games I can get the best stuff based on how much effort i want to put into it .In F2B games I can usually only get the best stuff by purchasing it.And in most cases those items and upgrades are as much as a monthly sub.
So in F2P games you get a low developement budget and have to pay to compete.IN sub based games you just have to play to compete.Seems pretty obvious for me .Especially since most sub based games get a bigger budget to develope with.
This was a huge stink the moment MMORPGs started doing it way back at the beginning. It's only become marginally more acceptable over time, but I still think the general populace isn't too fond of it. They're much more willing to embrace games with zero entry fee and zero ongoing fees but which have optional purchases (especially if they're lateral purchases which don't break the core gameplay, as exist in the better non-MMORPG f2p titles.)
Have any viable and verifiable research data to back that up, Axe?
First: Not to be confrontational, but considering the subscription model is pretty much exclusively what we had in the Western market for all those y ears and many (I'd even argue most) people weren't even aware of the microtransaction model (unless they followed the Eastern market which started doing it some years back), I'm not sure on what basis you can say people "embrace zero entry fee and zero ongoing fees but which optional purchases" and offer it as anything other than your own personal opinion.
Second: There's a rather "well, duh" obviousness to the whole "embracing zero entry and zero ongoing cost with optional purchases" model... People are going to tend to prefer getting something for free over having to pay for it. That's universal to pretty much anything. I'm not sure anyone would prefer paying for something if they can get the same exact product without having to. So, your assertion there is really not proof of anything more than that people tend to like getting something for nothing. To reiterate: "Well, duh...".
Third: There's a notable contingent people who do not prefer the "free entry and no ongoing fees" approach when it entails any kind of Cash Shop because, in truth, the idea of "MMOs that offer nothing game effecting and have 100% aesthetic or non-game-effecting items" is a myth. In order to make money and keep their product on the market, they have to sell stuff that enough people will find compelling or desirable... even necessary. Pure fluff or otherwise non-game-affecting items will not guarantee that. Selling items that specifically remedy potholes, speed bumps and obstacles they've deliberately designed into the game, will.
In order to sell their product (ie. cash shop items) they have to create a demand. F2P/Cash Shop MMO developers are in a position where it's win-win for them.. They can create and/or increase the demand for anything they want, any time they want. They also have the ability to arbitrarily set the amount and cost of the supply. And considering their supply is infinite and can be created at will, in whatever quantity they wish, the ball is 100% in their court. They set the demand and they control the supply. If that complete and utter control over their entire situation isn't enough to give one pause, then I don't know what is.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Have any viable and verifiable research data to back that up, Axe?
First: Not to be confrontational, but considering the subscription model is pretty much exclusively what we had in the Western market for all those y ears and many (I'd even argue most) people weren't even aware of the microtransaction model (unless they followed the Eastern market which started doing it some years back), I'm not sure on what basis you can say people "embrace zero entry fee and zero ongoing fees but which optional purchases" and offer it as anything other than your own personal opinion.
Second: There's a rather "well, duh" obviousness to the whole "embracing zero entry and zero ongoing cost with optional purchases" model... People are going to tend to prefer getting something for free over having to pay for it. That's universal to pretty much anything. I'm not sure anyone would prefer paying for something if they can get the same exact product without having to. So, your assertion there is really not proof of anything more than that people tend to like getting something for nothing. To reiterate: "Well, duh...".
Third: There's a notable contingent people who do not prefer the "free entry and no ongoing fees" approach when it entails any kind of Cash Shop because, in truth, the idea of "MMOs that offer nothing game effecting and have 100% aesthetic or non-game-effecting items" is a myth. In order to make money and keep their product on the market, they have to sell stuff that enough people will find compelling or desirable... even necessary. Pure fluff or otherwise non-game-affecting items will not guarantee that. Selling items that specifically remedy potholes, speed bumps and obstacles they've deliberately designed into the game, will.
In order to sell their product (ie. cash shop items) they have to create a demand. F2P/Cash Shop MMOs are in a position where it's win-win for them.. They can create and/or increase the demand for anything they want, any time they want. They also have the ability to arbitrarily set the amount and cost of the supply. And considering their supply is infinite and can be created at will, in whatever quantities as they wish, the ball is 100% in their court. They control both ends of the deal. They create the demand and they have endless supply. If that complete and utter control over their entire situation isn't enough to give one pause, then I don't know what is.
During the early days of MMORPGs, the most common criticisms of MMORPGs were "timesinks" and "subscription fees for a videogame". These posts were common in forums at the time, and anyone who frequented forums will confirm this.
Same as any change, I guess. It's the exact same thing with F2P's introduction -- over the past year as players have become more aware that F2P is an inevitability they've become dissatisfied at having to accept the change (although usually it's MMORPG players with genuine concerns over pay2win; you don't really hear people complain of League of Legends being free, because it's awesome, free, and fair which is basically the ideal way to make a F2P game.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This was a huge stink the moment MMORPGs started doing it way back at the beginning. It's only become marginally more acceptable over time, but I still think the general populace isn't too fond of it. They're much more willing to embrace games with zero entry fee and zero ongoing fees but which have optional purchases (especially if they're lateral purchases which don't break the core gameplay, as exist in the better non-MMORPG f2p titles.)
Have any viable and verifiable research data to back that up, Axe?
First: Not to be confrontational, but considering the subscription model is pretty much exclusively what we had in the Western market for all those y ears and many (I'd even argue most) people weren't even aware of the microtransaction model (unless they followed the Eastern market which started doing it some years back), I'm not sure on what basis you can say people "embrace zero entry fee and zero ongoing fees but which optional purchases" and offer it as anything other than your own personal opinion.
Second: There's a rather "well, duh" obviousness to the whole "embracing zero entry and zero ongoing cost with optional purchases" model... People are going to tend to prefer getting something for free over having to pay for it. That's universal to pretty much anything. I'm not sure anyone would prefer paying for something if they can get the same exact product without having to. So, your assertion there is really not proof of anything more than that people tend to like getting something for nothing. To reiterate: "Well, duh...".
Third: There's a notable contingent people who do not prefer the "free entry and no ongoing fees" approach when it entails any kind of Cash Shop because, in truth, the idea of "MMOs that offer nothing game effecting and have 100% aesthetic or non-game-effecting items" is a myth. In order to make money and keep their product on the market, they have to sell stuff that enough people will find compelling or desirable... even necessary. Pure fluff or otherwise non-game-affecting items will not guarantee that. Selling items that specifically remedy potholes, speed bumps and obstacles they've deliberately designed into the game, will.
In order to sell their product (ie. cash shop items) they have to create a demand. F2P/Cash Shop MMOs are in a position where it's win-win for them.. They can create and/or increase the demand for anything they want, any time they want. They also have the ability to arbitrarily set the amount and cost of the supply. And considering their supply is infinite and can be created at will, in whatever quantities as they wish, the ball is 100% in their court. They control both ends of the deal. They create the demand and they have endless supply. If that complete and utter control over their entire situation isn't enough to give one pause, then I don't know what is.
During the early days of MMORPGs, the most common criticisms of MMORPGs were "timesinks" and "subscription fees for a videogame". These posts were common in forums at the time, and anyone who frequented forums will confirm this.
Same as any change, I guess. It's the exact same thing with F2P's introduction -- over the past year as players have become more aware that F2P is an inevitability they've become dissatisfied at having to accept the change (although usually it's MMORPG players with genuine concerns over pay2win; you don't really hear people complain of League of Legends being free, because it's awesome, free, and fair which is basically the ideal way to make a F2P game.)
What about those games that existed prior to the creation of the term MMORPG? Like AOL's NWN or TSN's The Shadows of Yserbius. Those issues were paying the $6/$8 per hour to play the game. When the flat monthly fee came out, it was a god send. That's the biggest issue.
As to dropping costs, there are many people who want things without having to doing anything for them. Free to play is the trend toward appealing to this type of player. Players are unreasonable imo.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
What about those games that existed prior to the creation of the term MMORPG? Like AOL's NWN or TSN's The Shadows of Yserbius. Those issues were paying the $6/$8 per hour to play the game. When the flat monthly fee came out, it was a god send. That's the biggest issue.
As to dropping costs, there are many people who want things without having to doing anything for them. Free to play is the trend toward appealing to this type of player. Players are unreasonable imo.
I don't subscribe to EVE. Telling me there are worse MMOs than EVE won't change that.
Players don't like monthly subscription. Telling them there are worse payment models than monthly won't change that.
Something worse doesn't justify something bad, so that's not the biggest issue -- it's not the issue at all. NWN players certainly weren't the ones making the complaints, in fact they were usually the ones counter-posting with "but it's not as bad as..." arguments -- and just like now, worse isn't a justification for bad.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I don't have so much of a problem with subscriptions. I do have a problem with games trying to charge a subscription AND release expansion packs. WTF is my subscription money going towards if you're gonna sell me an expansion pack? Isn't the subscription money supposed to be put towards developing new stuff? These companies that do this know they can. They grab more money out of our pockets, because we, the gamers, want to keep playing the latest stuff. That is why I've quit playing any P2P MMO. It is the principle that matters here, not the money.
Players don't like monthly subscription. Telling them there are worse payment models than monthly won't change that.
Something worse doesn't justify something bad, so that's not the biggest issue -- it's not the issue at all. NWN players certainly weren't the ones making the complaints, in fact they were usually the ones counter-posting with "but it's not as bad as..." arguments -- and just like now, worse isn't a justification for bad.
Don't generalize too much. I know roughly 20 or so MMORPG players in real life, and not a single one dislikes the subscription modle. Not one. In fact, they all prefer it.
So to say "Players don't like monthly subscription," according to my data is wildly inaccurate. It is just opinion, like what is your favorite pizza topping.
What I do hate, overall, is the free to play model. I have seen it destroy community after community. To me it is like playing in a sandbox that you built, all your toys laid out. You worked hard on this thing, and you like it how it is. But then your dad thinks that more coulds should enjoy this sand box. Then your dad invites every kid in the neighborhood over. Some are cool, some add to the fun in that sandbox, but then a percentage of them do not care about your sandbox, because they didn't build it or invest in it. One kid craps in the sand box, another eats dirt, and a few more start trashing the place. Doesn't take long and that sandbox smells like a litter box and is filled with broken toys.
Yeah, more kids are playing in it, but it still smells like crap.
Don't generalize too much. I know roughly 20 or so MMORPG players in real life, and not a single one dislikes the subscription modle. Not one. In fact, they all prefer it.
So to say "Players don't like monthly subscription," according to my data is wildly inaccurate. It is just opinion, like what is your favorite pizza topping.
What I do hate, overall, is the free to play model. I have seen it destroy community after community. To me it is like playing in a sandbox that you built, all your toys laid out. You worked hard on this thing, and you like it how it is. But then your dad thinks that more coulds should enjoy this sand box. Then your dad invites every kid in the neighborhood over. Some are cool, some add to the fun in that sandbox, but then a percentage of them do not care about your sandbox, because they didn't build it or invest in it. One kid craps in the sand box, another eats dirt, and a few more start trashing the place. Doesn't take long and that sandbox smells like a litter box and is filled with broken toys.
Yeah, more kids are playing in it, but it still smells like crap.
Selection bias:Of my friends who play WOW, all of them like it. All players must like WOW.
This obviously isn't true, but it seems to be your argument regarding subscriptions.
I'm not even saying a majority percentage of the potential audience are so strongly against the subscription model that they refuse to play those games. Mostly I'm saying that two other models (F2P and B2P) clearly beat the Subscription model in terms of acceptability.
"Players don't like subscription models" is admittedly a wrong generalization to have made.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That reason still doesn't justify a subscription. It only sounds like an excuse people in denial would use so they don't have to face the fact that they are being scammed.
All reasoning that a subscription is needed is nullified when a developer makes money off of game sales and makes money through microtransactions.
Subscriptions for games are scams.
No - they're not. You want an example of a scam - here's one:
You order a BK Whopper after you see this lucious picture:
snip
Now THAT is a scam.
Funny. If you don't have anything to add to the conversation then don't bother posting.
Broke ass mofos is what it's all about. People with money don't complain about such costs. If one should complain just out of some weird principle, it's be cause of some arbitrary reason to go against the grain. Some people just need a cause just to feel they are individualists amongs all the sheeple
Comments
This was a huge stink the moment MMORPGs started doing it way back at the beginning. It's only become marginally more acceptable over time, but I still think the general populace isn't too fond of it. They're much more willing to embrace games with zero entry fee and zero ongoing fees but which have optional purchases (especially if they're lateral purchases which don't break the core gameplay, as exist in the better non-MMORPG f2p titles.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I wonder when BW will offer the first DLC for TOR? It took what, two weeks after launch before it became available for DA? Thats when I guess you will quit the game? Or is a cash shop game ok as long as they allow you to pay a sub at the same time?
Really? This game sucks and Im not having fun? Im going to unsub right now. Thanks for the tip.
Paying for access to their servers, network, data assets, their data transmission, electricity to run the server, the server provider ex. AT&T for WoW, employee salary including but not limited to developers/community staff/customer service.
I can go on. Counterargument though: Do you ever go to the cinema to see a movie, ever go out to eat, ever go to a bar and order alcohol, or do you smoke cigarettes?
Anyone who complains about $15 monthly fee certainly doesn't do any of the above either, right? One ticket to a 3D movie where I live is 13.50. And that's about two hours.
Can't really see how people complain about monthly fees. I mean, do these people also not have cell phones? That's a superfluous monthly fee also.
To the orange: Game sales. I get access to the servers when I purchase the game. Server costs are moot. Those are so low that NCSoft pays for all of their's with revenue generated from a game that doesn't have a subscription. Whoda thunk?
To the red: Nice strawman, don't think I've ever seen that one before. Oh wait! I have. From just about everyone who has responded to my post. The conversation is about games, keep it there.
To the yellow: Thank for not bothering to read my post. If you took the time you would have realized I said that for me the problem isn't the price, it's the principle. I don't care if it's $15 or $150, any developer who wants me to buy the game and then locks me out until I give them more money can kiss my ass.
Oh you will. You see I don't mind paying a sub fee. Unlike you however I have to see the value instead of thinking of it as some gated community.
My theme song.
IMO F2P games are the more expensive .Even paying 60 bucks for the box and 15 a month.I just feel that its a great deal.I am one who plays to win.I like the social aspect, but ultimately I play to compete.In Sub based games I can get the best stuff based on how much effort i want to put into it .In F2B games I can usually only get the best stuff by purchasing it.And in most cases those items and upgrades are as much as a monthly sub.
So in F2P games you get a low developement budget and have to pay to compete.IN sub based games you just have to play to compete.Seems pretty obvious for me .Especially since most sub based games get a bigger budget to develope with.
Have any viable and verifiable research data to back that up, Axe?
First: Not to be confrontational, but considering the subscription model is pretty much exclusively what we had in the Western market for all those y ears and many (I'd even argue most) people weren't even aware of the microtransaction model (unless they followed the Eastern market which started doing it some years back), I'm not sure on what basis you can say people "embrace zero entry fee and zero ongoing fees but which optional purchases" and offer it as anything other than your own personal opinion.
Second: There's a rather "well, duh" obviousness to the whole "embracing zero entry and zero ongoing cost with optional purchases" model... People are going to tend to prefer getting something for free over having to pay for it. That's universal to pretty much anything. I'm not sure anyone would prefer paying for something if they can get the same exact product without having to. So, your assertion there is really not proof of anything more than that people tend to like getting something for nothing. To reiterate: "Well, duh...".
Third: There's a notable contingent people who do not prefer the "free entry and no ongoing fees" approach when it entails any kind of Cash Shop because, in truth, the idea of "MMOs that offer nothing game effecting and have 100% aesthetic or non-game-effecting items" is a myth. In order to make money and keep their product on the market, they have to sell stuff that enough people will find compelling or desirable... even necessary. Pure fluff or otherwise non-game-affecting items will not guarantee that. Selling items that specifically remedy potholes, speed bumps and obstacles they've deliberately designed into the game, will.
In order to sell their product (ie. cash shop items) they have to create a demand. F2P/Cash Shop MMO developers are in a position where it's win-win for them.. They can create and/or increase the demand for anything they want, any time they want. They also have the ability to arbitrarily set the amount and cost of the supply. And considering their supply is infinite and can be created at will, in whatever quantity they wish, the ball is 100% in their court. They set the demand and they control the supply. If that complete and utter control over their entire situation isn't enough to give one pause, then I don't know what is.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
During the early days of MMORPGs, the most common criticisms of MMORPGs were "timesinks" and "subscription fees for a videogame". These posts were common in forums at the time, and anyone who frequented forums will confirm this.
Same as any change, I guess. It's the exact same thing with F2P's introduction -- over the past year as players have become more aware that F2P is an inevitability they've become dissatisfied at having to accept the change (although usually it's MMORPG players with genuine concerns over pay2win; you don't really hear people complain of League of Legends being free, because it's awesome, free, and fair which is basically the ideal way to make a F2P game.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
What about those games that existed prior to the creation of the term MMORPG? Like AOL's NWN or TSN's The Shadows of Yserbius. Those issues were paying the $6/$8 per hour to play the game. When the flat monthly fee came out, it was a god send. That's the biggest issue.
As to dropping costs, there are many people who want things without having to doing anything for them. Free to play is the trend toward appealing to this type of player. Players are unreasonable imo.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
I don't subscribe to EVE. Telling me there are worse MMOs than EVE won't change that.
Players don't like monthly subscription. Telling them there are worse payment models than monthly won't change that.
Something worse doesn't justify something bad, so that's not the biggest issue -- it's not the issue at all. NWN players certainly weren't the ones making the complaints, in fact they were usually the ones counter-posting with "but it's not as bad as..." arguments -- and just like now, worse isn't a justification for bad.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I don't have so much of a problem with subscriptions. I do have a problem with games trying to charge a subscription AND release expansion packs. WTF is my subscription money going towards if you're gonna sell me an expansion pack? Isn't the subscription money supposed to be put towards developing new stuff? These companies that do this know they can. They grab more money out of our pockets, because we, the gamers, want to keep playing the latest stuff. That is why I've quit playing any P2P MMO. It is the principle that matters here, not the money.
Don't generalize too much. I know roughly 20 or so MMORPG players in real life, and not a single one dislikes the subscription modle. Not one. In fact, they all prefer it.
So to say "Players don't like monthly subscription," according to my data is wildly inaccurate. It is just opinion, like what is your favorite pizza topping.
What I do hate, overall, is the free to play model. I have seen it destroy community after community. To me it is like playing in a sandbox that you built, all your toys laid out. You worked hard on this thing, and you like it how it is. But then your dad thinks that more coulds should enjoy this sand box. Then your dad invites every kid in the neighborhood over. Some are cool, some add to the fun in that sandbox, but then a percentage of them do not care about your sandbox, because they didn't build it or invest in it. One kid craps in the sand box, another eats dirt, and a few more start trashing the place. Doesn't take long and that sandbox smells like a litter box and is filled with broken toys.
Yeah, more kids are playing in it, but it still smells like crap.
Selection bias: Of my friends who play WOW, all of them like it. All players must like WOW.
This obviously isn't true, but it seems to be your argument regarding subscriptions.
I'm not even saying a majority percentage of the potential audience are so strongly against the subscription model that they refuse to play those games. Mostly I'm saying that two other models (F2P and B2P) clearly beat the Subscription model in terms of acceptability.
"Players don't like subscription models" is admittedly a wrong generalization to have made.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think he pretty much blew your argument.
Nothing new here.SoE actually did not believe people will pay a monthly sub and only changed their mind when UO did well.
Initally wow had loads of spam on forums about monthly fee.
What is the obsession with sub cost?
Broke ass mofos is what it's all about. People with money don't complain about such costs. If one should complain just out of some weird principle, it's be cause of some arbitrary reason to go against the grain. Some people just need a cause just to feel they are individualists amongs all the sheeple