Howdy, Stranger!

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

How Can MMOs Be Monetized Fairly? a Column at MMORPG.com

1356710

Comments

  • ErevusErevus Member UncommonPosts: 96
    Sub based MMOs are the ONLY option for a fair game. Simple as that.

    "If men are stronger than women, then why do male characters
     need full plate armor, while women only need a chainmail bikini"


  • RPGMASTERGAMERRPGMASTERGAMER Member UncommonPosts: 516
    edited August 2016

    Mardukk said:



    Amathe said:


    My preferred system is:





    1. Pay for the game;


    2, No monthly subscription;


    3. Shop that has cosmetic items only (e.g., armor skins, not armor); and


    4. Expansions cost extra.






    This would be 90% of everyone's preferred option. However, it does not appear that this model is bringing in enough cash for the devs. As almost all of them with this model have started in game cash for RL cash conversions.



    I've thought about the classic $15/month sub and I've determined that I really do not like paying a box price and then have no access to my purchased game without that $15 a month. If it was like $5-7 a month I would have less of a problem, $15 just seems a bit much to access a game with a box price and likely a cash shop. Unless you are the top of the top I doubt you are pumping out content to justify $15 a month.



    well we dont realy know if it does not bring enough cash for the devs or not, for these big company they never have enough cash, if they can make more they will do it, f2p ( p2win, + box price ) + charge everything bring ALOT more cash that a subs of 15-20$ months... who know if 20$ a months was enough or not ?? for wow activision this was enough but not for activision blizzard . ff14 work wonderfull and they do alot of contents.. so im inclined to think that enough for make a games good.

    also that more stable they got stable income that better for the peoples who work for them, they know the resource they can put for contents ect, while f2p you need find new way get into the customer pocket each new months that never stable... and sadly when they go f2p they got mostly time only to find way to get into customer pocket and rarely way to add contents for the games ( unless they charge it )

    so im inclined to think that the best way for mmorpg would be with subs again, but for that we need quality games and in 2016 most company and dev use mmorpg to get a fash cash grab and forget the title usualy... even worst, they just do asian/korean mmorpg translation and cash them the most they can before almost drop them and go to the next games... when mmorpg need time and longevity... that bad for everyone...

    f2p = cancer and honestly that the reason we got such bad games each years

    peoples are to blame because peoples accept these trash games, they even dont know what p2win anymore... so dev play with that and releases games realy p2win... each time.. for games with subs,... if you have pay the games box they could just offert a free 2-3 days each new months if you want look at the contents before subs... i agree it suck you need active a subs just to look if you want play again... im in this boat with various games... a litle check way would be nice !! but im sure like my exemple they could find small fix to improve pay to play if they realy want it... but f2p bring more money so they dont care about it
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 20,997
    Most MMORPG players agree on what the business model should be:  only someone else should have to pay, but they shouldn't get any advantage from doing so.

    Among people willing to pay money for an MMORPG, people really aren't that price sensitive.  If you'd sooner play a game you dislike for free than a game you like for $20/month, you probably wouldn't be willing to pay anything no matter what the game did.
  • ShaighShaigh Member RarePosts: 2,007
    Either go with p2p, b2p with cash shop items or fremium with cash shop. I'm sick and tired of games that sell a box, go with subscription that becomes almost mandatory and on top of that go full on with a cash shop.

    Stop selling gear and xp potions in cash shops. That shit has no place in gaming.

    Stop with the slippery slope approach to monetization. It starts with a mount and a pet, it ends with a big cash shop, selling max level characters for money and/or gambling boxes.
    The cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
  • SteelhelmSteelhelm Member UncommonPosts: 329
    I'm comfortable paying for the content developed and then for the game time. I can see why those things are moneytized. If you make a good game and price it right people will buy it and play it. That should be enough for moneytizing imo.
    Talking about games where thousands of players exist simultaneously in a single instance and mechanics related to such games.
  • RobokappRobokapp Member RarePosts: 6,086
    Quizzical said:
    Most MMORPG players agree on what the business model should be:  only someone else should have to pay, but they shouldn't get any advantage from doing so.

    Among people willing to pay money for an MMORPG, people really aren't that price sensitive.  If you'd sooner play a game you dislike for free than a game you like for $20/month, you probably wouldn't be willing to pay anything no matter what the game did.
    all I require is a 15-day trial.

    In EVE I subscribed on Day 2 of my trial, for example. In WoW it was within first week.


    image

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 12,911
    Quizzical said:
    Most MMORPG players agree on what the business model should be:  only someone else should have to pay, but they shouldn't get any advantage from doing so.


    That's just cutesy cynical crap that passes as old fart wisdom around here.

    Pay for the game because it's the type of game you enjoy (with or without grind,) pay a reasonable monthly fee because you want to keep playing it and everyone pays no more and no less.

    That would be ideal from a game player's perspective.

    Of course people can put their wannabe game capitalist hat on and praise ingenious, seductive schemes that produce ever increasing ROIs... maybe there should be a separate forum for them?
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
  • R3d.GallowsR3d.Gallows Member UncommonPosts: 155
    edited August 2016
    I still feel the most comfortable with the model WoW has. You pay the box price, you pay the sub, the devs dont design the game around pulling the money from your pocket but around keeping you playing. Problem is... you need a pretty damn good game to be profitable with that model and even then youll get people saying 'oh, I wont pay a sub on top of the box price' and going off to play b2p and f2p games which will make their gameplay miserable until they end up spending 3x as much as theyd have spent on the sub game.
  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,826
    A good example would be ArcheAge, many loved the game but people left in droves because of the monetization.
    If the game just had a box and a sub I wonder how many people would be playing and loving the game.


    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,767
    A good example would be ArcheAge, many loved the game but people left in droves because of the monetization.
    If the game just had a box and a sub I wonder how many people would be playing and loving the game.


    I'd probably be
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 33,976



    Scorchien said:




    Scorchien said:


    H0urg1ass said:



    Separating the MMO business from shareholders is a good start.


    This is really the first step.  The second you have shareholders, then you have a group of people who:

    1. Have zero interest in any part of the game mechanics, game play or anything else associated with the finer details of what makes a game "fun".
    2. Are only interested in whether the game is profitable, how profitable and how to make it more profitable.

    By removing these blind, greedy suits from the process and funding the game by any other means necessary, then you retain control over point one and can make a game that people will enjoy playing.

    These RNG loot boxes that are becoming the rage in games recently, for instance, are all in response to point two.  They are a despicable means of drawing cash out of gamers by preying on the randomness of gambling.

    Personally, I prefer my MMO style games to have a flat subscription and no cash shop whatsoever.  I want to pay my monthly fee and have everything that's in the game be earned through in-game means.  I don't like shortcuts or exclusives in any way at all.


    This isnt true , I have been a major shareholder with ATVI , EA , FCMKF, Sqnx, etc.. for many many years .. Got involved because i love games ...

       I will tell you this , None of them have ever , ever in anyway asked for input on Game direction , development or monetization...


    I invest in many as well but what I think Hourglass is saying is the publisher answers to the shareholders looking for a positive ROI on their investments which in turn puts the publishers in a situation where they feel the need to pressure the developers. When ever you add layers of accountability to a process it becomes overly complicated and influences the product. 


    Most of the better games are run by Publishers that are publicly owned , the privatley owned games are the more agrievous cashshop games
    with less success long term....


    That has been the case but moving forward I do not think that will be the case.
    I think private Indie companies are the future for the genre in the West.



    Todays indie dev is tomorrow's money grubbing, soul sucking, mega corporation.

    Even EA was small at one point

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing POE at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 12,911
    edited August 2016
    Kyleran said:



    Scorchien said:




    Scorchien said:


    H0urg1ass said:



    Separating the MMO business from shareholders is a good start.


    This is really the first step.  The second you have shareholders, then you have a group of people who:

    1. Have zero interest in any part of the game mechanics, game play or anything else associated with the finer details of what makes a game "fun".
    2. Are only interested in whether the game is profitable, how profitable and how to make it more profitable.

    By removing these blind, greedy suits from the process and funding the game by any other means necessary, then you retain control over point one and can make a game that people will enjoy playing.

    These RNG loot boxes that are becoming the rage in games recently, for instance, are all in response to point two.  They are a despicable means of drawing cash out of gamers by preying on the randomness of gambling.

    Personally, I prefer my MMO style games to have a flat subscription and no cash shop whatsoever.  I want to pay my monthly fee and have everything that's in the game be earned through in-game means.  I don't like shortcuts or exclusives in any way at all.


    This isnt true , I have been a major shareholder with ATVI , EA , FCMKF, Sqnx, etc.. for many many years .. Got involved because i love games ...

       I will tell you this , None of them have ever , ever in anyway asked for input on Game direction , development or monetization...


    I invest in many as well but what I think Hourglass is saying is the publisher answers to the shareholders looking for a positive ROI on their investments which in turn puts the publishers in a situation where they feel the need to pressure the developers. When ever you add layers of accountability to a process it becomes overly complicated and influences the product. 


    Most of the better games are run by Publishers that are publicly owned , the privatley owned games are the more agrievous cashshop games
    with less success long term....


    That has been the case but moving forward I do not think that will be the case.
    I think private Indie companies are the future for the genre in the West.



    Todays indie dev is tomorrow's money grubbing, soul sucking, mega corporation.

    Even EA was small at one point
    EA was always different. Sure they had their own games before they started buying things up. Games like M.U.L.E., Archon, etc.

    But I remember their early ads in magazines like Computer Gaming World. They always portrayed themselves as being above the fray and not your typical garage developer. Games as business was always their thing right from the start.

    http://www.filfre.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Anzeige_Can_a_computer_make_you_cry.jpg
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
  • jbladderjbladder Member UncommonPosts: 36


    Separate monetization from game play. After that, charge a fair price for the service.
    It's not hard.....really, it's not.

    What seems to be hard is creating a game where players want to keep returning to.



    your second statement is the reason the first doesn't work. It does seem to be that hard to make a good game and figure out the finances around keeping it operating at a profit. It really isn't that easy in the end to have a profitable company doing well most of the time.

    People act like it is easy but it is actually very hard. For every one business even in this industry succeeding there are prob 10 failing or failed. Just my shitty opinion but I know a lot of people with failed ventures.
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,663
    Iselin said:
    Quizzical said:
    Most MMORPG players agree on what the business model should be:  only someone else should have to pay, but they shouldn't get any advantage from doing so.
    That's just cutesy cynical crap that passes as old fart wisdom around here.

    Pay for the game because it's the type of game you enjoy (with or without grind,) pay a reasonable monthly fee because you want to keep playing it and everyone pays no more and no less.

    That would be ideal from a game player's perspective.

    Of course people can put their wannabe game capitalist hat on and praise ingenious, seductive schemes that produce ever increasing ROIs... maybe there should be a separate forum for them?
    That's a bit harsh and glosses over all the problems and baggage that system carries that I mentioned earlier. Gross advantages for those with a lot more time to spend or account sharing, third party rmt gold sales, etc.

    Why do we need a monthly fee? In what world did we convince ourselves that renting access to games was a good idea? That might be ideal for some gamers, but the larger gaming populace has not agreed that this is the best or subs + box fees wouldn't have failed.
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

    It only took 3 people 8 words to rock Blizzard to its core.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 20,997
    Kyleran said:



    Scorchien said:




    Scorchien said:


    H0urg1ass said:



    Separating the MMO business from shareholders is a good start.


    This is really the first step.  The second you have shareholders, then you have a group of people who:

    1. Have zero interest in any part of the game mechanics, game play or anything else associated with the finer details of what makes a game "fun".
    2. Are only interested in whether the game is profitable, how profitable and how to make it more profitable.

    By removing these blind, greedy suits from the process and funding the game by any other means necessary, then you retain control over point one and can make a game that people will enjoy playing.

    These RNG loot boxes that are becoming the rage in games recently, for instance, are all in response to point two.  They are a despicable means of drawing cash out of gamers by preying on the randomness of gambling.

    Personally, I prefer my MMO style games to have a flat subscription and no cash shop whatsoever.  I want to pay my monthly fee and have everything that's in the game be earned through in-game means.  I don't like shortcuts or exclusives in any way at all.


    This isnt true , I have been a major shareholder with ATVI , EA , FCMKF, Sqnx, etc.. for many many years .. Got involved because i love games ...

       I will tell you this , None of them have ever , ever in anyway asked for input on Game direction , development or monetization...


    I invest in many as well but what I think Hourglass is saying is the publisher answers to the shareholders looking for a positive ROI on their investments which in turn puts the publishers in a situation where they feel the need to pressure the developers. When ever you add layers of accountability to a process it becomes overly complicated and influences the product. 


    Most of the better games are run by Publishers that are publicly owned , the privatley owned games are the more agrievous cashshop games
    with less success long term....


    That has been the case but moving forward I do not think that will be the case.
    I think private Indie companies are the future for the genre in the West.



    Todays indie dev is tomorrow's money grubbing, soul sucking, mega corporation.

    Even EA was small at one point
    I didn't like EA when they were small, either.  I've been avoiding their games for well over 20 years now, precisely because I didn't like their antics way back when they were small, and they haven't done anything to convince me to drop that view since then.
  • bingbongbrosbingbongbros Member UncommonPosts: 689
    Sub based MMO's were the only way to go. No stupid ass cash shop that only exists to try to force you to buy everything so they don't go out of business. Which then makes the game only produce quality content for the cash shop. Leaving the actual game to stagnant and die.

    Subs were fine, you get everything for 15 bucks. 24/7 with no hidden costs or cash shop bullshit, and the company gets paid.

    The reason why subs died is because blood sucking companies rushed out unfinished messes to try to rape us for our money.

    They abandoned subs when they realized Korea was making a killing with f2p cash shop games. So they convinced everyone that f2p was the new messiah and was to the benefit of us gamers.

    In actuality it is just easier for them to farm our money.

    Playing: Smite, Marvel Heroes
    Played: Nexus:Kingdom of the Winds, Everquest, DAoC, Everquest 2, WoW, Matrix Online, Vangaurd, SWG, DDO, EVE, Fallen Earth, LoTRo, CoX, Champions Online, WAR, Darkfall, Mortal Online, Guild Wars, Rift, Tera, Aion, AoC, Gods and Heroes, DCUO, FF14, TSW, SWTOR, GW2, Wildstar, ESO, ArcheAge
    Waiting On: Nothing. Mmorpg's are dead.

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 20,997
    I think that the ideal, albeit thoroughly impractical, system would go something like this.  You pay $30/month or so for a universal gaming subscription that gets you unlimited access to all video games in existence--console, PC, mobile, everything.  Each month, you'd decide which developers should get the money you paid into the system on the basis of which games you enjoyed that month.  It could be all $30 to one company, or divided however you want among several, or whatever.  Only games that you actually played a substantial amount that month would be eligible, however.

    That way, if you pick up a game, play for a few days, and decide you don't like it, the developer gets nothing.  He didn't make a game you liked, so he gets nothing and instead you give the money to those who made games you do like.  But if you love a game and play it solidly for a year, the developer of that game that you loved can get hundreds of dollars from you.

    Alas, this is completely impossible.  Quite apart from the impracticality of setting up such a system, it would also break down because there are so many ways to cheat the system and developers would try to convince you to give them money for reasons other than because you liked the games they made.
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 12,911
    Torval said:
    Iselin said:
    Quizzical said:
    Most MMORPG players agree on what the business model should be:  only someone else should have to pay, but they shouldn't get any advantage from doing so.
    That's just cutesy cynical crap that passes as old fart wisdom around here.

    Pay for the game because it's the type of game you enjoy (with or without grind,) pay a reasonable monthly fee because you want to keep playing it and everyone pays no more and no less.

    That would be ideal from a game player's perspective.

    Of course people can put their wannabe game capitalist hat on and praise ingenious, seductive schemes that produce ever increasing ROIs... maybe there should be a separate forum for them?
    That's a bit harsh and glosses over all the problems and baggage that system carries that I mentioned earlier. Gross advantages for those with a lot more time to spend or account sharing, third party rmt gold sales, etc.

    Why do we need a monthly fee? In what world did we convince ourselves that renting access to games was a good idea? That might be ideal for some gamers, but the larger gaming populace has not agreed that this is the best or subs + box fees wouldn't have failed.
    "Fail" is relative though isn't it? Dark Age of Camelot is still going with a sub fee today last time I looked. Does box + sub make as much money as F2P + cash shop and all the mixes of the two systems? Obviously not. FB and the app store have shown that.

    There's fail as in "we can't pay salaries anymore and have to shut down" and there's faux-fail as in "we can make more money doing it the other way" and that's without even getting into the forum troll's use of "fail."

    Time factor? Yeah... that argument again. It's just part of simulated 24/7 worlds. Never was a type of game for everyone.

    Gold sellers and buyers? Yup. Used to be just a shady underground thing right along with bots and hacks. All of those will always be with us. It took a while for some companies to adopt it as part of their BM (SOE was first in the West I believe) but eventually they did... some of us even defend it as a good thing now.

    Harsh reply to Quiz?  Well I do get tired of seeing that thrown around here as truth. No I don't think players are freeloaders that want others to pay. Some I'm sure are, just like there are gold buyers, botters, hackers, etc. But you don't use that to dismiss all gamers and their opinions about what feels fair... emphasis on feel.
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
  • syriinxsyriinx Member UncommonPosts: 1,383
    Torval said:


    @syriinx
    I think there are drawbacks to paying annually and it doesn't save that much. The four subs I have right now are all at 3 months blocks of time except WoW (that's a month to month sub). I don't like committing to 12 months at a time. It's risky. It's also a large chunk of change to drop all at once.

    I disagree that all content has gotten worse/less frequent for games that have transitioned from sub to hybrid. WoW is a sub game and has an abysmal track record for updates. FF14 was great for the first year but then has dropped off on the content updates since then. ESO has picked up on the pace and quality of updates. I think SWTOR is a better game now than ever before and it still gets consistent updates.

    Well so much for not writing a novel lol......
    Im talking about the games that had extended lives as sub games before transitioning.  Games like EQ2, LOTRO, and Rift all saw significant decreases in both quantity and quality after their transition.  ESO and SWtOR both launched as sub games, but shifted to freemium model before regular content updates really began.  I cant speak for ESO but its not like SWtOR has released this significant chunk of content over the last few years.  

    Nothing today comes close to EQ in its heyday of course, but thats probably because graphics are the enemy of MMORPG content design.  
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,063
    Just give me a box fee and a sub. Make the sub a reasonable number to sustain the game. Don't be afraid to crack the $14.99 barrier. Charge $25 a month (or more). I'd pay $50 a month sub for a great game without blinking an eyelash.

    And it would be FAIR... nobody buying advantages...


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

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

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

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

    My ignore list finally has one occupant after 12 years. I am the strongest supporter of free speech on here, but free speech does not mean forced listening. Have fun my friend. Hope you find a new stalking target.

  • DrDread74DrDread74 Member UncommonPosts: 308

    Most people claim they want the fair model but the reality is that 5% of the players are happily dishing out 90% of the games income on pay to win purchases.

    I think in the current environment the best way to run an MMO may very well be paid classes. As in you can pay for free with a selection of normal classes but if you want to pay an extra X a month or X up front, you can now be a Knight class or you come with your own land, status, reputation, NPC army etc. Your character is actually a semi-permanent part of the game and other players can utilize you for quest rewards or something. (you and your land/castle can be removed or made abandoned without being game breaking if you stop paying) 

    If you want to be King of a region its thousands of dollars or hundreds a month.

    You will never get around the reality of the big money players in games, you should really try to embrace it and make them a part of the game without simply making them higher level, hit harder, super weapons. You should instead allow them to rule or be responsible for small to big parts of the game depending on how much money they want to throw into it.


    http://baronsofthegalaxy.com/
     An MMO game I created, solo. It's live now and absolutely free to play!
  • WarlyxWarlyx Member RarePosts: 2,882
    p2p mmorpgs are FORCED to give u updates , and keep the game fresh , and thats awesome (well wow is the outlier , since woltk it has always 1 year of no content )

    b2p-f2p? doesnt have to update if they dont want to , but then players will gear up , get bored and quit , so updating the game and adding some lvls or higher ilvls gear is a fast way to force ppl to enchant , gem , farm and buy those overpriced failsafe stones on the cash shop

    cosmetics are "ok" , but there is a line that must no be crossed and thats having half your artist team working on cash shop only items....or putting ingame horrible sets and cool sets on cash shop , thats lame and a fast way to make ppl rage quit

    i miss the times of paying my sub and having acces to EVERYTHING (mounts , gear , pets )

    dont get me started on overpriced crap like name , sex , race , server ect changes Blizz is the worse on that by miles ....oh dont forget the LEVEL BOOST to max ....in a p2p come on now...
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,063
    DrDread74 said:

    Most people claim they want the fair model but the reality is that 5% of the players are happily dishing out 90% of the games income on pay to win purchases.

    I think in the current environment the best way to run an MMO may very well be paid classes. As in you can pay for free with a selection of normal classes but if you want to pay an extra X a month or X up front, you can now be a Knight class or you come with your own land, status, reputation, NPC army etc. Your character is actually a semi-permanent part of the game and other players can utilize you for quest rewards or something. (you and your land/castle can be removed or made abandoned without being game breaking if you stop paying) 

    If you want to be King of a region its thousands of dollars or hundreds a month.

    You will never get around the reality of the big money players in games, you should really try to embrace it and make them a part of the game without simply making them higher level, hit harder, super weapons. You should instead allow them to rule or be responsible for small to big parts of the game depending on how much money they want to throw into it.

    Yes this is the Buy to King model found in Chronicles of Elyria.  Taking P2W to new heights...


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

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

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

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

    My ignore list finally has one occupant after 12 years. I am the strongest supporter of free speech on here, but free speech does not mean forced listening. Have fun my friend. Hope you find a new stalking target.

  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,826
    DrDread74 said:

    Most people claim they want the fair model but the reality is that 5% of the players are happily dishing out 90% of the games income on pay to win purchases.

    I think in the current environment the best way to run an MMO may very well be paid classes. As in you can pay for free with a selection of normal classes but if you want to pay an extra X a month or X up front, you can now be a Knight class or you come with your own land, status, reputation, NPC army etc. Your character is actually a semi-permanent part of the game and other players can utilize you for quest rewards or something. (you and your land/castle can be removed or made abandoned without being game breaking if you stop paying) 

    If you want to be King of a region its thousands of dollars or hundreds a month.

    You will never get around the reality of the big money players in games, you should really try to embrace it and make them a part of the game without simply making them higher level, hit harder, super weapons. You should instead allow them to rule or be responsible for small to big parts of the game depending on how much money they want to throw into it.

    Big money players in traditional MMOs used to only be those who multiboxed with more than one account. It does not need to be embraced. On top of that I completely disagree with paying for classes. MMOs are NOT MOBAs

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 20,997
    Iselin said:
    Torval said:
    Iselin said:
    Quizzical said:
    Most MMORPG players agree on what the business model should be:  only someone else should have to pay, but they shouldn't get any advantage from doing so.
    That's just cutesy cynical crap that passes as old fart wisdom around here.

    Pay for the game because it's the type of game you enjoy (with or without grind,) pay a reasonable monthly fee because you want to keep playing it and everyone pays no more and no less.

    That would be ideal from a game player's perspective.

    Of course people can put their wannabe game capitalist hat on and praise ingenious, seductive schemes that produce ever increasing ROIs... maybe there should be a separate forum for them?
    That's a bit harsh and glosses over all the problems and baggage that system carries that I mentioned earlier. Gross advantages for those with a lot more time to spend or account sharing, third party rmt gold sales, etc.

    Why do we need a monthly fee? In what world did we convince ourselves that renting access to games was a good idea? That might be ideal for some gamers, but the larger gaming populace has not agreed that this is the best or subs + box fees wouldn't have failed.
    "Fail" is relative though isn't it? Dark Age of Camelot is still going with a sub fee today last time I looked. Does box + sub make as much money as F2P + cash shop and all the mixes of the two systems? Obviously not. FB and the app store have shown that.

    There's fail as in "we can't pay salaries anymore and have to shut down" and there's faux-fail as in "we can make more money doing it the other way" and that's without even getting into the forum troll's use of "fail."

    Time factor? Yeah... that argument again. It's just part of simulated 24/7 worlds. Never was a type of game for everyone.

    Gold sellers and buyers? Yup. Used to be just a shady underground thing right along with bots and hacks. All of those will always be with us. It took a while for some companies to adopt it as part of their BM (SOE was first in the West I believe) but eventually they did... some of us even defend it as a good thing now.

    Harsh reply to Quiz?  Well I do get tired of seeing that thrown around here as truth. No I don't think players are freeloaders that want others to pay. Some I'm sure are, just like there are gold buyers, botters, hackers, etc. But you don't use that to dismiss all gamers and their opinions about what feels fair... emphasis on feel.
    Outside of whales, most people's perceptions of what is fair skews toward themselves paying less and others paying more.  For example:

    1.  People who want to play betas and early access sometimes get upset about being charged more to play early.  People who wait until well after launch often think it's fair that people who want to be first to play should pay more for it.

    2.  People who play for 30 or 40 hours per week tend to think it's fair if everyone pays a flat subscription fee.  People who only play a few hours per month commonly think it's unfair that they should have to pay just as much for that as someone who plays vastly more.

    3.  People who like the leveling process and avoid endgames don't particularly mind if the endgame is heavily pay to win.  People who want to rush to endgame and get the best gear and so forth tend to be far more upset about models that heavily favor whales at endgame.

    4.  People who don't care what they look like tend to favor pushing monetization of purely cosmetic things.  People who love to decorate their characters with many different outfits get upset if they have to pay vastly more than everyone else just because they like to look good.
Sign In or Register to comment.