They make more money through free to play monetization. It uncaps how much a person can spend. Sadly, there is a small percentage of people who really spend uber amounts but it's there.
What you have described is the opposite of stable. Free-to-play games are notorious for bringing in a lot of cash in the short term and then dropping off quickly.
On the other hand, a subscription game that fosters strong community ties and delivers continued content on a regular basis will have far more predictable income and be able to weather a dip in subs here and there because the community will be more likely to return after a break.
It is no coincidence that the only two subscription-only games in existence are always among the top three MMOs in terms of market share and have demonstrated the strongest staying power.
Yes that’s true as far as free to play.
But “nowadays “ sub games can’t sustain the amount they need to keep the game running and profitable.
That’s the whole reason why Dungeons and Dragons online made the ftp gamble as it wasn’t looking good. And that was a game that did foster community and did have regular updates.
Because it worked so well they tried it with Lord of the Rings Online.
I’ll add that if what you said was true about subs then we would still have a lot of sub games as most games started out with subs. Clearly that didn’t work out.
You are still using stable as a replacement for income potential when they are very different things. It didn't work out for most games because those particular games weren't and aren't worth a subscription and are only monetarily successful due to a subpopulation of whales (aka stupid people). A good game with a good community can make plenty of money with a subscription model if daily log ins aren't fostered/forced by fomo daily quests and treats, but instead by engaging gameplay and steady progression. Unfortunately, no one can seem to make a game like that anymore. A bad or eh game on the other hand can only survive on a ftp model.
IMO games need to figure how to make us want to pay them and "want" to is the key. Sub still works for some games and cash shops work for others. IMO if you have a good game and ask a fair price. It does not matter if its a cash shop game or Sub. Most of the fails you mention are either bad games or the payment method used was not worth it to the market that game was trying to penetrate. Anyone who says a sub fee is too big of a gate. I just spent $20 at Starbucks getting a cookie and a coffee.
CCP figured out how to keep players subbed over the long term almost 20 years ago by tying skill points training to being subbed.
If a game tied something of real worth to the price of a sub along with a halfway decent game people will pay and play it.
I think this is a great point one of the things that final fantasy does is it ties extra retainers to a sub if your a crafter thats a great value for you and maybe some people will think it is pay to win but it doesn't really hurt the game in any way shape or form to me. Lotro has added a lot of value to the sub over recent years besides the points you get with the sub you can get a buff that adds a crafting speed buff which can be nice and other benefits that while aren't gamebreaking are really nice bonuses just for having a sub. I have two life times so they lost money on me but i do buy every expansion and carry a third account that I also buy expansions for.
They make more money through free to play monetization. It uncaps how much a person can spend. Sadly, there is a small percentage of people who really spend uber amounts but it's there.
What you have described is the opposite of stable. Free-to-play games are notorious for bringing in a lot of cash in the short term and then dropping off quickly.
On the other hand, a subscription game that fosters strong community ties and delivers continued content on a regular basis will have far more predictable income and be able to weather a dip in subs here and there because the community will be more likely to return after a break.
It is no coincidence that the only two subscription-only games in existence are always among the top three MMOs in terms of market share and have demonstrated the strongest staying power.
Yes that’s true as far as free to play.
But “nowadays “ sub games can’t sustain the amount they need to keep the game running and profitable.
That’s the whole reason why Dungeons and Dragons online made the ftp gamble as it wasn’t looking good. And that was a game that did foster community and did have regular updates.
Because it worked so well they tried it with Lord of the Rings Online.
I’ll add that if what you said was true about subs then we would still have a lot of sub games as most games started out with subs. Clearly that didn’t work out.
I agree with everything you said about DDO FTP or fremium whatever you want to call it saved that game and it is a good game that some people really like so good for them. the same model was nearly the death stroke for lotro and it was totally at the time they did it just a cash grab. When lotro went ftp it was huge they had tons of players who were subbed and had just bought and played a great expansion in moria. They were not hurting and then they shortsightedly delayed the next expansion and trimmed it to half of what it was supposed to be in siege of mirkwood so they could put effort and resources in the free to play changes. DDO went from financially being in crisis mode to really good and those payers knew it was needed to save the game and that game was also really modular so it worked well. But Turbine saw the cash and thought lotro would rake in the dough and some of the things they said and did was so arrogant or i dont know the word for it but divisive i guess. things like oh you bought the base game but you don't actually own it and if you don't sub your going to loose access to a lot of content unless you buy it piece meal again as quest packs. the attitude and the way they handled it was just terrible they lost a ton of people and I think it forever for lotro changed that games progression and future. anyways I do not know what would have happened to lotro in the long run maybe it would be at this same level today or maybe it would be in a better position. I think a sub can support a game along with paid expansions that are good value if the game is good. The problem these companies have is sometimes no one wants there game cause its garbage but most times they make self inflicted wounds that jade people and hurt the player base and stick to things that are clearly not working and never just say wow that was stupid then they can never get that goodwill back and the game dies or whatever. One thing I would say is being a game developer especially of mmos must suck and there are some really tough things that have to be decided.
I’ll add that if what you said was true about subs then we would still have a lot of sub games as most games started out with subs. Clearly that didn’t work out.
It was working out fine, actually. But then the corporate geniuses started noticing the short-term cash influx you get from the free-to-play model, and the games started flipping like dominoes. When the f2p model stopped bringing in the big profits, a lot of those games were shut down. (Proving what actually "didn't work out.")
Games that couldn't survive on a sub model were probably not that good in the first place. Others were under pressure from publishers to go f2p or to sell out to companies that would convert them to f2p.
It has been so long since a game even tried a sub model, there is absolutely no factual basis to claim it would not work out. Sadly, MMOs are so expensive that they usually need big investors. Those investors are usually more interested in quick returns than longevity. And that is why we are where we are.
Comments
When lotro went ftp it was huge they had tons of players who were subbed and had just bought and played a great expansion in moria. They were not hurting and then they shortsightedly delayed the next expansion and trimmed it to half of what it was supposed to be in siege of mirkwood so they could put effort and resources in the free to play changes. DDO went from financially being in crisis mode to really good and those payers knew it was needed to save the game and that game was also really modular so it worked well. But Turbine saw the cash and thought lotro would rake in the dough and some of the things they said and did was so arrogant or i dont know the word for it but divisive i guess. things like oh you bought the base game but you don't actually own it and if you don't sub your going to loose access to a lot of content unless you buy it piece meal again as quest packs. the attitude and the way they handled it was just terrible they lost a ton of people and I think it forever for lotro changed that games progression and future. anyways I do not know what would have happened to lotro in the long run maybe it would be at this same level today or maybe it would be in a better position. I think a sub can support a game along with paid expansions that are good value if the game is good. The problem these companies have is sometimes no one wants there game cause its garbage but most times they make self inflicted wounds that jade people and hurt the player base and stick to things that are clearly not working and never just say wow that was stupid then they can never get that goodwill back and the game dies or whatever.
One thing I would say is being a game developer especially of mmos must suck and there are some really tough things that have to be decided.