Yeah so anyway - whoever has an opinion on SUBSCRIPTION games, please continue.
with fun free games like marvel heroes, PoE and warframe, why would i ever want to play a game with a sub?
B2P ... probably, not unlike single player game ... but putting $15 a month for a single game? I can get 1-2 NEW games on steam sales for $15 each month.
Recently, I have seen many people in game and on various sites complain about paying a subscription fee. They describe they feel like they are being forced to play the game just to get their sub time worth. Also with many games doing the whole "free to play and cash shop" combo many developers see lots of profit in that. Let's not forget the B2P without a sub and a cashshop. (Looking at Guild Wars 2 which is really doing good as well.) Heck, even some games like SWTOR converted from sub based only to a freemium model with a cash shop and they make a good profit off of it as well.
Since WOW is really the only game that has been subscription based and a huge success over these past 10 years. (Also FFXIV. Over 2 million subs.) That's really only a whopping two games. I have a feeling that subs will be an even lesser option as the MMO genre continues forward.
So my question to you is should subscriptions remain or go away completely?
Had to check the date on the OP's post because I thought this was a necro'd thread from 2010 !
OP, you're so far behind the curve you're almost back in fashion. The "Great P2P Revolt" was yesterday's news. We're almost at the start of the "Great F2P Revolt" where monthly subs will be heralded as the saviour of the genre, lol
Recently, I have seen many people in game and on various sites complain about paying a subscription fee. They describe they feel like they are being forced to play the game just to get their sub time worth. Also with many games doing the whole "free to play and cash shop" combo many developers see lots of profit in that. Let's not forget the B2P without a sub and a cashshop. (Looking at Guild Wars 2 which is really doing good as well.) Heck, even some games like SWTOR converted from sub based only to a freemium model with a cash shop and they make a good profit off of it as well.
Since WOW is really the only game that has been subscription based and a huge success over these past 10 years. (Also FFXIV. Over 2 million subs.) That's really only a whopping two games. I have a feeling that subs will be an even lesser option as the MMO genre continues forward.
So my question to you is should subscriptions remain or go away completely?
No. Is it archaic? In some ways, but not every iteration the market churns out is ideal. The f2p is a travesty and has ruined immersion in many games for me. I'd rather feel like I have to play a game than have to pay every step along the way to enjoy the game. The key word is enjoy. Sure, some games are playable without paying much. Sure, you can spend time looking at ways to maximize your dollars in the game. Or, you can pay a sub and get the whole game. I look at WoW, Wildstar, FF14, Lineage, AC, FF11, ESO, Wildstar, and I see games with large worlds and content. I look at games like Guild Wars 2 and I see games that are backpack simulators. Subscriptions should remain and those that cannot sustain the model should go away. Make a good game worth playing and people will pay for it. The whole problem is there are too many games, and too many sub games post-WoW that rushed in like lemmings without consideration as to what made a game successful.
I would agree with the majority here that it shouldn't go anywhere. Each payment model has it's place in my view I love the F2P, sub and B2P models. I love the F2P because it allows me to try the game first. Although in the other categories you typically almost always have an option to do a trial before you make a purchase. Not at launch probably but if you want to try it at launch you should be up to making the purchase or waiting till they start offering a trial of some sort.
Personally as I do love all models that doesn't mean that they don't have their drawbacks. I can't stand F2P titles for one specific reason and that's all the Gold sellers, botters and hackers. The F2P model and hybrids that have a F2P option have this issue every time and so far no dev has figured out how to correct it properly, IMO. It's something that can possibly always be a problem since once an account is permabanned, that same user can just make another account and continue.
However the other models have issues as well. For instance, not being able to try the game first unless a trial is offered is an issue IMO. You can watch all the gameplay videos you want but you'll never know if a game is for you until you actually try it and if you either don't have the money or don't want to risk the money than the game not having a trial of some sort is a huge issue.
In the end, none of the models should go away but they do need to be worked on to over come some of their short comings if possible. Time will tell if folks figure out the "perfect payment model" but until that happens having a bunch of different options is always a good thing. Variety is the spice of life, as they say.
For those of you who love to pay a subscription- what do you think is wrong with b2p with a yearly paid expansion and a cosmetic cash shop/dlc? That seems to be the kind of thing Destiny is doing, and while not a full-fledged mmo, it is similar in many ways and I think it is doing well financially.
Is it just that you like giving your money away or is there some reasoning behind your attachment to paying a sub?
For those of you who love to pay a subscription- what do you think is wrong with b2p with a yearly paid expansion and a cosmetic cash shop/dlc? That seems to be the kind of thing Destiny is doing, and while not a full-fledged mmo, it is similar in many ways and I think it is doing well financially.
Is it just that you like giving your money away or is there some reasoning behind your attachment to paying a sub?
That's perfectly fine. Paying to unlock every bit of fun in a game is not.
Is just that you like being duped into spending money through cleverly designed marketed in f2p or is there some reasoning behind your attachment to f2p?
I personally can't play subscription games any more. It feels like I'm renting a game and not that I own it. That leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I much prefer the F2P and B2P models, even with cash shops (as long as they are not P2W).
For those of you who love to pay a subscription- what do you think is wrong with b2p with a yearly paid expansion and a cosmetic cash shop/dlc? That seems to be the kind of thing Destiny is doing, and while not a full-fledged mmo, it is similar in many ways and I think it is doing well financially.
Is it just that you like giving your money away or is there some reasoning behind your attachment to paying a sub?
That's perfectly fine. Paying to unlock every bit of fun in a game is not.
Is just that you like being duped into spending money through cleverly designed marketed in f2p or is there some reasoning behind your attachment to f2p?
Is it that the same of sub? paying to unlock every thing to even to play the game, b2p are good, as long don't come down each week asking for money.
For those of you who love to pay a subscription- what do you think is wrong with b2p with a yearly paid expansion and a cosmetic cash shop/dlc? That seems to be the kind of thing Destiny is doing, and while not a full-fledged mmo, it is similar in many ways and I think it is doing well financially.
Is it just that you like giving your money away or is there some reasoning behind your attachment to paying a sub?
The payment-model itself is never an issue. its always the cash shop and possible side effects. One major issue is the development shift from content to cash shop. The other issue for me (includes cosmetics) is that it is my personal opinion that a character should reflect the things a player accomplished within the game and not how much he spent on the shop. What could work for me is a B2P game and a shop limited to services(name change, appearance change,...) and content packs(if done right).
I honestly wish more games would go back to this model. Honestly aside from the fact that I don't have to spend $60 for the box (something that turns me off on the subscription model), just to try the game to see if it is worth subscribing too, I hate F2P games because generally they are anything but free.
Don't get me wrong, I understand a company has to make money but generally F2P goes well beyond only having to spend more for convienence and I have to spend significant money to actually enjoy the game. That being said, I would rather just spend $15/mo and get access to all my mounts, bank space, inventory space, etc just for playing the game.
Alternatively, I guess a hybrid F2P/Subscription model would be fine as well as long as Subbing gets me full access to everything while allowing a non-subscriber to just bit and piece stuff together as the want but it seriously can't be like Neverwinter where I can only get a Howler for Zen, it has to be available for in game gold if I am a subscriber (None of this controlled astral diamond crap either, I need to be able to earn in game currency just for enjoying the game my way).
Recently, I have seen many people in game and on various sites complain about paying a subscription fee. They describe they feel like they are being forced to play the game just to get their sub time worth. Also with many games doing the whole "free to play and cash shop" combo many developers see lots of profit in that. Let's not forget the B2P without a sub and a cashshop. (Looking at Guild Wars 2 which is really doing good as well.) Heck, even some games like SWTOR converted from sub based only to a freemium model with a cash shop and they make a good profit off of it as well.
Since WOW is really the only game that has been subscription based and a huge success over these past 10 years. (Also FFXIV. Over 2 million subs.) That's really only a whopping two games. I have a feeling that subs will be an even lesser option as the MMO genre continues forward.
So my question to you is should subscriptions remain or go away completely?
Free to play is a plague on this genre, period. All MMOs should be buy to play like GW2 (even that is questionable to me) or subscription models. I just hate the community fre to play conjures.
+1
I have never played a F2P game for very long. The community in F2P games is extremely toxic, and the community is the whole reason to play an MMO. If you don't want a community why not just play an RPG then lol. If you look at ArcheAge, I don't like the P2W model, but even worse is the community. Several times while playing, I had people camping the Nui Statues making it so people couldn't play at all, until they ported out. Luckily you can't fight around the statues, but still it's ridiculous how many times I saw it. If a zone is red in AA, you pretty much are stuck for 2 hours doing nothing unless you're 50 and paid to win.
For those of you who love to pay a subscription- what do you think is wrong with b2p with a yearly paid expansion and a cosmetic cash shop/dlc? That seems to be the kind of thing Destiny is doing, and while not a full-fledged mmo, it is similar in many ways and I think it is doing well financially.
Is it just that you like giving your money away or is there some reasoning behind your attachment to paying a sub?
That's perfectly fine. Paying to unlock every bit of fun in a game is not.
Is just that you like being duped into spending money through cleverly designed marketed in f2p or is there some reasoning behind your attachment to f2p?
Honestly you're doing the same either way.
Playing a subscription model for a year is roughly as much money as buying 4 games. And yet, almost never is it the case that an MMO releases with an Xpac within the first year. At best we usually get minor content updates, the except (at least in recent years) being FFXIVARR.
Now think about this for a minute, if you were to take that same 10-15$ / month and direct it towards a decent F2P game, how much of the content would be locked from you? The answer is not much, if any. In any of the reasonably setup F2P games you can unlock everything you'd want, and then some. The exceptions being with consumables. However the better F2P games either don't have consumables, or they don't really affect gameplay.
So basically, the difference (from our point of view) is that F2P is a selective payment model. We are more conscious of our spending, and thus get a choice of what we want to spend money on. With subscription models you can pay just as much if not more than a F2P game, but many have it paid off behind the scenes. Out of sight- out of mind. So it doesn't feel as bad as paying for something in a cash shop. Even if the result is identical.
Subscriptions are fine, but $15 a month is no longer justified with current bandwidth and development costs if these companies are planning to churn out full or close to full priced expansions every year. Prices should be reduced to $5-$10 a month depending on the quality of the game. F2P and B2P with reasonable item malls that don't sell power are also good options.
On a side note to the OP: FFXIV does not have 2 million subs. This was proven by a statement by Square Enix recently where their 3 MMOs combined have ALMOST 1 million subs. It's more likely sitting at 800-900k subs if it's even that high.
F2P games are expensive, particularly those bound up in PVP, much as i enjoy playing Planetside 2, i had to spend about £70 before i had the things i needed to suit my play style, and now its a case of, when something new is out you have to be prepared to spend a bit more just to keep up, the latest being Spitfire turrets, if your an engineer the temptation to buy the unlock is pretty high, much as it was for the anti-vehicle turret. from better SMG's to Shotguns, and then Crossbows, to the secondary weapons, and the bigger pistols that you can buy, sure you can buy them with certs, but the amounts involved are so high that you'd have to grind for weeks before you could unlock them, and thats with Freepers having less gains than Subbers. And with the various 'camo's you can buy, you can buy yourself a significant advantage in combat by equiping the right camo's for the current terrain, its a tad expensive but it does increase your Kill/Death ratio in a positive way.
I don't see the subscription model going away, but i do see increasing numbers of 'hybrid' games, that have a free and a sub option alongside a cash shop, its just too lucrative, but despite their protestations, players who pay nothing will always be at the bottom of the food chain, while those who do pay, inevitably advance over the corpses of their less lucrative brethren.
I think f2p -can- be a life saver for some games. SWTOR for instance. RIFT for another. LOTRO for a third (though there's gloom and doom currently about the longevity of the game, still, f2p did keep it running this long and may keep it running longer since there are solid talks of Mordor and all that in the works). EQ2 is another I can think of, and there are more. I also like to, personally, use f2p as a "trial run" to see if I'm going to bother to sub to the game. For instance, a couple of months ago I re-installed and tried ESO again. Well, I played for a few days and realized I still didn't like the game or the public dungeon system...and wasted 15 bucks on it. Meh.
...snip
Can I set something straight here. LOTRO did not go free to play to "save it" like people like to claim.
They have said outright that they weren't in dire straights but that's how some choose to remember history though it isn't true.
Paiz repeated Turbine's stance that the developer didn't change its business model because Lord of the Rings Online was in trouble; rather, it believed the game could reach new audiences with this move. The studio saw this first-hand when Dungeons and Dragons Online received a 500 percent revenue boost after its free-to-play shift.
"
Truth is they saw a payoff in D&D where they tested the model because that game was D E A D so they had nothing to lose. As for the revenue increase - their costs also increased to support more players and the porting of the system they created for D&D was a development cost.
The reason their revenue was at its lowest was that they had already sold lifetime subscriptions to many of their "fans" and even I bought one not being a traditional "fan". I owned no previously LOTRO merchandise. Unless those payment were in a floating amortization, they weren't revenue monthly. Now, had you compared revenue for their first 6 months when lifetime purchases would have been abundant instead of talking about nearly 2 years into the game when the box for the game was already in the bargain bin... then you would have had increased revenue from those lifetime subs.
Another piece of this is that they reported a percentage % increase in revenue.
If I make $100 this month and I make $600 next month - by golly, I've had a 500% increase in my revenue. They didn't tell you how much money they made.
They never released the number that the percentage increase was based off of so that your imagination would go wild hearing hundreds of percent increase in sales. Without knowing how much it costs to support 1 million new players and the reworking of the forum they did to segregate them along with the changes to the game itself, you can't assume they were pure profit but ill-informed people read a headline as REVENUE = PROFIT and it doesn't.
I left the game when they went free to play so I'm only guessing outloud here but if they are having problems I think it has a 500% percent relationship to the fact that they aren't the only free game on the market and their microtransactions have become unappealing, in other words, they chose an expiration date for their game by making it something easily duplicated. They also have one of the strongest IPs in the business. Geez, LOTR is taught in schools and is mandatory reading - you can't get any better than that. If they fail, it's because of their decisions to be failures, not in the strength of the original stories told.
So DDO had a 5x boost to revenue.. A game that had hardly any players. I am positive the actual real number were still low considering they used 500 percent instead of 5x and they never said what the revenue was afterwards either.. Bigger numbers look better.
And LotRO did go f2p to save the game. Most of the players right before then were lifetime subs and Turbine wasnt making enough money from what subs they did have left. It was either f2p or eventually shut down. That is why Mirkwood was such a poor expansion.. They had no money. Even now Moria remains their last quality content addition and that happened under P2P. What future games / devs need to learn from them is to NOT sell lifetime subs because it will bite you in the butt. Without doing that IMO LotRO would still be a p2p game with tons better content.
In the end.. I view f2p the same as a failing business.. And those businesses shut down making room for something else to take its place. F2P games should do the same. They are flooding the market from every direction with sub par to horrible games that stick around. Then after outnumbering sub based games enough to make as much or more than them people actually think it s a good business model.. It isnt.
That goes doubly to p2p games. If you HAVE to go f2p with an atrocious cash shop just shut down and make room for some other company to make a game that wont be a failure.
So basically, the difference (from our point of view) is that F2P is a selective payment model. We are more conscious of our spending, and thus get a choice of what we want to spend money on. With subscription models you can pay just as much if not more than a F2P game, but many have it paid off behind the scenes. Out of sight- out of mind. So it doesn't feel as bad as paying for something in a cash shop. Even if the result is identical.
I would call that only half of the truth at best. Unlocking everything in a f2p games does not result in the same game as a player get for p2p. There is a massive difference in gameplay elements, design and reward structures between both models.
I used to prefer the sub model , but as long as I stay away from trying to keep up with the Joneses, I actually prefer f2p now, just don't block my single player leveling and story experience. I can play through all these games, participate in the markets and world events all on my own without any social experience whatsoever all for free, no money. I like that, right now I'm leveling in lotro, rift, swtor, gw2, robocraft, everquest, neverwinter, Tera, and Archeage- all for free. I can't wait for eso and wikdstar to go free as well. It's a great time for mmos, you just have to play them as single player rpgs for the most part with some living community and occasional group content.
subs need to evolve for sure to survive the growing trend of f2p games flooding the market, unless you have a huge fan following like wow or ff to bring enough paying players to stay in profitable margin. newer Ip will no doubt use the f2p model or the buy to play not every dev will have the deep pockets to produce enough content to justify a monthly fee out the door. The old republic is a perfect example they have the fan base to tap into, ea has deep pockets but they lacked content and the numbers dropped they went with a F2P with cash shop and subscription option and now have steady numbers. its more than likely a last resort for certain devs quite a few switched to a hybrid or f2p model to survive with a reasonable amount of success the downfall for f2p game with cash shop is the onslaught of spammer and gold farmers (i am looking at you archeage) I can only think of three mmos that are pure p2p ff11, ff14, and WoW you will probably see more f2p games as they make more money which i find strange but if they can snag a few "whales" they could make in a month that would take a year. I dont think it should go away just needs to evolve.
Too many players demand a sub option for certain types of games. F2P hate is real and widespread especially regionally.
Sub also fits a style of mmo that f2p cannot support. If you want a highly immersive rpg experience you NEED to have the payment model removed from game play as much as possible. Even if this is niche is matters not. Sub model clears the way for player immersion and if that is the primary focus of certain mmos then subs will always exist.
A Sub model works. It nurtures community better than any other payment model. A success of a game is created from it's payment model. It is successful because the game is good and the company is efficient. Earnings potential is entirely another thing. It depends on what type of player community is wanted. A healthy yet small community could easily allow a game to succeed longer than a cash grab f2p model that makes more money in a shorter time. A company has to decide what community they want to attract.
Many payment models will always exist including new ones in the future. They impact the game greatly however in all areas of development so the type of game directly impacts which model a developer chooses.
A final thought with regard to f2p: Every single mmo that became or launched as f2p has had inferior and less frequent content additions than sub model games. F2p maximizes income against minimal content development. THAT is why companies like it. It has absolutely nothing to do with maximizing content potential for a game. It flat out answers the question of if a developer views players community and game focus above profits. If profits win then the integrity of the game declines. It is the history of f2p. You pad their pockts ... not invest in the game.
Comments
with fun free games like marvel heroes, PoE and warframe, why would i ever want to play a game with a sub?
B2P ... probably, not unlike single player game ... but putting $15 a month for a single game? I can get 1-2 NEW games on steam sales for $15 each month.
Had to check the date on the OP's post because I thought this was a necro'd thread from 2010 !
OP, you're so far behind the curve you're almost back in fashion. The "Great P2P Revolt" was yesterday's news. We're almost at the start of the "Great F2P Revolt" where monthly subs will be heralded as the saviour of the genre, lol
No. Is it archaic? In some ways, but not every iteration the market churns out is ideal. The f2p is a travesty and has ruined immersion in many games for me. I'd rather feel like I have to play a game than have to pay every step along the way to enjoy the game. The key word is enjoy. Sure, some games are playable without paying much. Sure, you can spend time looking at ways to maximize your dollars in the game. Or, you can pay a sub and get the whole game. I look at WoW, Wildstar, FF14, Lineage, AC, FF11, ESO, Wildstar, and I see games with large worlds and content. I look at games like Guild Wars 2 and I see games that are backpack simulators. Subscriptions should remain and those that cannot sustain the model should go away. Make a good game worth playing and people will pay for it. The whole problem is there are too many games, and too many sub games post-WoW that rushed in like lemmings without consideration as to what made a game successful.
I would agree with the majority here that it shouldn't go anywhere. Each payment model has it's place in my view I love the F2P, sub and B2P models. I love the F2P because it allows me to try the game first. Although in the other categories you typically almost always have an option to do a trial before you make a purchase. Not at launch probably but if you want to try it at launch you should be up to making the purchase or waiting till they start offering a trial of some sort.
Personally as I do love all models that doesn't mean that they don't have their drawbacks. I can't stand F2P titles for one specific reason and that's all the Gold sellers, botters and hackers. The F2P model and hybrids that have a F2P option have this issue every time and so far no dev has figured out how to correct it properly, IMO. It's something that can possibly always be a problem since once an account is permabanned, that same user can just make another account and continue.
However the other models have issues as well. For instance, not being able to try the game first unless a trial is offered is an issue IMO. You can watch all the gameplay videos you want but you'll never know if a game is for you until you actually try it and if you either don't have the money or don't want to risk the money than the game not having a trial of some sort is a huge issue.
In the end, none of the models should go away but they do need to be worked on to over come some of their short comings if possible. Time will tell if folks figure out the "perfect payment model" but until that happens having a bunch of different options is always a good thing. Variety is the spice of life, as they say.
For those of you who love to pay a subscription- what do you think is wrong with b2p with a yearly paid expansion and a cosmetic cash shop/dlc? That seems to be the kind of thing Destiny is doing, and while not a full-fledged mmo, it is similar in many ways and I think it is doing well financially.
Is it just that you like giving your money away or is there some reasoning behind your attachment to paying a sub?
That's perfectly fine. Paying to unlock every bit of fun in a game is not.
Is just that you like being duped into spending money through cleverly designed marketed in f2p or is there some reasoning behind your attachment to f2p?
I am not gonna play MMORPG with microtransactions/cash shop anymore.
Yes, I don't like cosmetics for $ as well. After I get into a game, cosmetics become similarly important like stats or conveniene stuff.
i don't care for payment model anymore
I don't care if game P2P,B2P,P2W(f2p)... if game is fun for me i ll play & spend my money
DAoC - Excalibur & Camlann
Is it that the same of sub? paying to unlock every thing to even to play the game, b2p are good, as long don't come down each week asking for money.
The payment-model itself is never an issue. its always the cash shop and possible side effects. One major issue is the development shift from content to cash shop. The other issue for me (includes cosmetics) is that it is my personal opinion that a character should reflect the things a player accomplished within the game and not how much he spent on the shop. What could work for me is a B2P game and a shop limited to services(name change, appearance change,...) and content packs(if done right).
I honestly wish more games would go back to this model. Honestly aside from the fact that I don't have to spend $60 for the box (something that turns me off on the subscription model), just to try the game to see if it is worth subscribing too, I hate F2P games because generally they are anything but free.
Don't get me wrong, I understand a company has to make money but generally F2P goes well beyond only having to spend more for convienence and I have to spend significant money to actually enjoy the game. That being said, I would rather just spend $15/mo and get access to all my mounts, bank space, inventory space, etc just for playing the game.
Alternatively, I guess a hybrid F2P/Subscription model would be fine as well as long as Subbing gets me full access to everything while allowing a non-subscriber to just bit and piece stuff together as the want but it seriously can't be like Neverwinter where I can only get a Howler for Zen, it has to be available for in game gold if I am a subscriber (None of this controlled astral diamond crap either, I need to be able to earn in game currency just for enjoying the game my way).
+1
I have never played a F2P game for very long. The community in F2P games is extremely toxic, and the community is the whole reason to play an MMO. If you don't want a community why not just play an RPG then lol. If you look at ArcheAge, I don't like the P2W model, but even worse is the community. Several times while playing, I had people camping the Nui Statues making it so people couldn't play at all, until they ported out. Luckily you can't fight around the statues, but still it's ridiculous how many times I saw it. If a zone is red in AA, you pretty much are stuck for 2 hours doing nothing unless you're 50 and paid to win.
Honestly you're doing the same either way.
Playing a subscription model for a year is roughly as much money as buying 4 games. And yet, almost never is it the case that an MMO releases with an Xpac within the first year. At best we usually get minor content updates, the except (at least in recent years) being FFXIVARR.
Now think about this for a minute, if you were to take that same 10-15$ / month and direct it towards a decent F2P game, how much of the content would be locked from you? The answer is not much, if any. In any of the reasonably setup F2P games you can unlock everything you'd want, and then some. The exceptions being with consumables. However the better F2P games either don't have consumables, or they don't really affect gameplay.
So basically, the difference (from our point of view) is that F2P is a selective payment model. We are more conscious of our spending, and thus get a choice of what we want to spend money on. With subscription models you can pay just as much if not more than a F2P game, but many have it paid off behind the scenes. Out of sight- out of mind. So it doesn't feel as bad as paying for something in a cash shop. Even if the result is identical.
No. Subscriptions are fine.
What needs to die is games that are about how much you pull out the credit card.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/I will sub to a 'good' game any day over a F2P.
Subscriptions are fine, but $15 a month is no longer justified with current bandwidth and development costs if these companies are planning to churn out full or close to full priced expansions every year. Prices should be reduced to $5-$10 a month depending on the quality of the game. F2P and B2P with reasonable item malls that don't sell power are also good options.
On a side note to the OP: FFXIV does not have 2 million subs. This was proven by a statement by Square Enix recently where their 3 MMOs combined have ALMOST 1 million subs. It's more likely sitting at 800-900k subs if it's even that high.
F2P games are expensive, particularly those bound up in PVP, much as i enjoy playing Planetside 2, i had to spend about £70 before i had the things i needed to suit my play style, and now its a case of, when something new is out you have to be prepared to spend a bit more just to keep up, the latest being Spitfire turrets, if your an engineer the temptation to buy the unlock is pretty high, much as it was for the anti-vehicle turret. from better SMG's to Shotguns, and then Crossbows, to the secondary weapons, and the bigger pistols that you can buy, sure you can buy them with certs, but the amounts involved are so high that you'd have to grind for weeks before you could unlock them, and thats with Freepers having less gains than Subbers. And with the various 'camo's you can buy, you can buy yourself a significant advantage in combat by equiping the right camo's for the current terrain, its a tad expensive but it does increase your Kill/Death ratio in a positive way.
I don't see the subscription model going away, but i do see increasing numbers of 'hybrid' games, that have a free and a sub option alongside a cash shop, its just too lucrative, but despite their protestations, players who pay nothing will always be at the bottom of the food chain, while those who do pay, inevitably advance over the corpses of their less lucrative brethren.
So DDO had a 5x boost to revenue.. A game that had hardly any players. I am positive the actual real number were still low considering they used 500 percent instead of 5x and they never said what the revenue was afterwards either.. Bigger numbers look better.
And LotRO did go f2p to save the game. Most of the players right before then were lifetime subs and Turbine wasnt making enough money from what subs they did have left. It was either f2p or eventually shut down. That is why Mirkwood was such a poor expansion.. They had no money. Even now Moria remains their last quality content addition and that happened under P2P. What future games / devs need to learn from them is to NOT sell lifetime subs because it will bite you in the butt. Without doing that IMO LotRO would still be a p2p game with tons better content.
In the end.. I view f2p the same as a failing business.. And those businesses shut down making room for something else to take its place. F2P games should do the same. They are flooding the market from every direction with sub par to horrible games that stick around. Then after outnumbering sub based games enough to make as much or more than them people actually think it s a good business model.. It isnt.
That goes doubly to p2p games. If you HAVE to go f2p with an atrocious cash shop just shut down and make room for some other company to make a game that wont be a failure.
I would call that only half of the truth at best. Unlocking everything in a f2p games does not result in the same game as a player get for p2p. There is a massive difference in gameplay elements, design and reward structures between both models.
Too many players demand a sub option for certain types of games. F2P hate is real and widespread especially regionally.
Sub also fits a style of mmo that f2p cannot support. If you want a highly immersive rpg experience you NEED to have the payment model removed from game play as much as possible. Even if this is niche is matters not. Sub model clears the way for player immersion and if that is the primary focus of certain mmos then subs will always exist.
A Sub model works. It nurtures community better than any other payment model. A success of a game is created from it's payment model. It is successful because the game is good and the company is efficient. Earnings potential is entirely another thing. It depends on what type of player community is wanted. A healthy yet small community could easily allow a game to succeed longer than a cash grab f2p model that makes more money in a shorter time. A company has to decide what community they want to attract.
Many payment models will always exist including new ones in the future. They impact the game greatly however in all areas of development so the type of game directly impacts which model a developer chooses.
A final thought with regard to f2p: Every single mmo that became or launched as f2p has had inferior and less frequent content additions than sub model games. F2p maximizes income against minimal content development. THAT is why companies like it. It has absolutely nothing to do with maximizing content potential for a game. It flat out answers the question of if a developer views players community and game focus above profits. If profits win then the integrity of the game declines. It is the history of f2p. You pad their pockts ... not invest in the game.
You stay sassy!
Should the subscription model go away?
Never
Life is about choices and the more choices we have.... the better
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee