"Why do I have to pay a subscription fee, and buy expansions?" [Mod Edit]

VirusDancer

From another thread discussing the cost of EVE, I noticed something down at the bottom of the page that had the info:

But I already bought the game. Why do I have to pay a subscription fee?



Your subscription fee gives you unlimited access to the EVE Online servers, website, and customer support. Unlike console games where you are purchasing the game as-is, the development of EVE as a persistent world is ongoing with frequent updates to add new features and improve your gameplay experience. Subscriptions allow us to continue making EVE bigger and better as well as paying our staff their monthly wages. CCP does not charge extra for game expansions.

That is from the following page: http://www.eveonline.com/faq/faq_02.asp

This is basically the de facto reply/reasoning/response that you get when asked about subscription fees.  It makes sense, no?

Some games sell expansions.  So one might ask how can they charge a subscription fee, eh?

Does CCP have the correct model here?  You pay the sub for what they state...?

Do companies like Blizzard have it wrong?  Paying a sub and paying for additional content?

We know that ArenaNet did what they did with GW1 through box sales, other items available through the NCSoft store - expansions, skill unlocks, costumes - as well as other merchandising.  They're planning to do something more MMORPGier with GW2... many are interested to see if they can pull off what they did with GW1 with a project most acknowledge cost more to develop and will cost more to run.

With this mainly focused on the subscription fee, I'd prefer mainly to talk about what CCP does and states compared to other subscription games...ie...is it wrong to have to pay for expansions if you are paying a sub?  Even CoX, with the Issues/updates they did - still sold expansions.  What are your thoughts?

mmogawd

I've always thought that selling expansions on top of a sub fee was a bit extreme... unless they're offering me enough to make me feel that it's worth it.  I rarely think it's worth it.

Gravarg

It could be worse. Look at SOE games, you have to buy the game, buy expansions, pay subscription, and have cash shop...talk about greedy lol.

Havok2all

Research or make your own game and compare costs and see the the monetary figures required to do all things necessary to run a game and to create large updates like an expansion and you will understand. As far as GW1 goes, compare GW1 to a common AAA game to see what they provided during their existence along with expansions and you will see a fairly large difference.

This is not to say that P2P games are lacking in providing free updates (actually new content on a smaller scale compared to an expansions). For the record, I personally feel a P2P game having a store also is pathetic. One or the other muchachos.

kingfelix

The question I've had for a while is why has nearly every game charges the same amount for a subscription fee. I realize it's just kind of become an industry standard, but with so many games that are struggling to stay afloat, facing the choice of either shutting down or switching to the still somewhat controversial freemium business model, why haven't any tried going with a lower subscription fee? I would be far more likely to subscribe to 3 games for $5 a month, rather than 1 for $15. Am I alone on this?

 

As far as the OP's main question, my opinion is that it should either be one or the other: a subscription that includes access to all game content, including expansions (and absolutely no RMT for in-game items), or no subscription and charge for new content. It seems like too many companies these days are trying to teeter somewhere in between, and it really just seems greedy.

Zylaxx

Wait for GW2 and watch the game break the MMO.  Innovation out the wazoo and it starts with no subscription fee.

 

 

(disclaimer) I am an anti F2P MMO gamer as there is but B2P worked for GW1 and will def be better for GW2 since it is actually an MMO.  So I consider B2P and F2P as polar opposite as one can get.

VirusDancer

Originally posted by Havok2all

Research or make your own game and compare costs and see the the monetary figures required to do all things necessary to run a game and to create large updates like an expansion and you will understand. As far as GW1 goes, compare GW1 to a common AAA game to see what they provided during their existence along with expansions and you will see a fairly large difference.

This is not to say that P2P games are lacking in providing free updates (actually new content on a smaller scale compared to an expansions). For the record, I personally feel a P2P game having a store also is pathetic. One or the other muchachos.

I've argued in many threads about the topics of B2P, P2P, F2P, etc... with this thread, it was just something that struck me about what CCP stated on that page (btw, I was there because of couple of the threads discussing USD vs EUR costs).

I only included part of what I did in regard to GW1/2 - because of what CCP states about not charging for expansions - while GW1/2 do not charge a sub but charge for expansions.  I've participated in a few threads discussing the B2P + DLC model.

I think the B2P + DLC and Sub (no xpac costs) models attempt to do the same thing...

...thus, the question wham-bam-damn appeared before me...

...why do some sub games charge for expansions?  And I wanted to know what others thought about that.

Hoplites

Sub fees are dying the way of the dodo which is why we are seeing hybrid pay schemes now.  Honestly, hybrid pay schemes are a fair compromise between P2P and F2P (especially how polarizing it can be as most players prefer one over the other).

Axehilt

There's no "right" or "wrong".  There's simply more and less successful business models.  I imagine EVE's model is slightly superior* in that they don't charge expansion costs; meanwhile F2P is the most successful model for any given game.

(*factoring out the fact that it probably makes a lot less money than WOW, the model itself is almost certainly superior.)

VirusDancer

Originally posted by Hoplites

Sub fees are dying the way of the dodo which is why we are seeing hybrid pay schemes now.  Honestly, hybrid pay schemes are a fair compromise between P2P and F2P (especially how polarizing it can be as most players prefer one over the other).

The thing is... by having a sub and paid expansions - we've already had hybrid models.

As an aside, I'd prefer not to discuss whether or not that the sub model is dying - there are plenty of threads discussing that.

VirusDancer

Originally posted by Axehilt

There's no "right" or "wrong".  There's simply more and less successful business models.  I imagine EVE's model is slightly superior* in that they don't charge expansion costs; meanwhile F2P is the most successful model for any given game.

(*factoring out the fact that it probably makes a lot less money than WOW, the model itself is almost certainly superior.)

That is where it gets interesting.  One would likely have to assume that the sub + paid expansions would generate greater revenue.  The question I suppose that arises, is whether that is for greater profit - greater revenue to invest in the game - necessary bump for continued maintenance not covered by the subs, etc... or is it a source of funding for other game lines or development.  With WoW for example, how much of what Blizzard takes in for WoW is actually for WoW - how much is going toward other things, etc.

Which to an extent with some of the exodus with EVE...is that why we've seen the change in regard to WoD, etc.

So for other companies, is it a case that they dip into their profits for new projects... or is it time to put out an expansion or some DLC, etc...

Toradac

Name one f2p game that will be a household name 10 years from now or that even a majority of  players in the community will talk about 10 years from now?

Lurv

I'm happy with the monthly subs. They need to get paid for their work. Paying a monthly subs fees helps the devs produce more content and bring better expansions. The more the subs. The bigger the budget. The better support and content.

Hoplites

Originally posted by VirusDancer

Originally posted by Axehilt

There's no "right" or "wrong".  There's simply more and less successful business models.  I imagine EVE's model is slightly superior* in that they don't charge expansion costs; meanwhile F2P is the most successful model for any given game.

(*factoring out the fact that it probably makes a lot less money than WOW, the model itself is almost certainly superior.)

That is where it gets interesting.  One would likely have to assume that the sub + paid expansions would generate greater revenue.  The question I suppose that arises, is whether that is for greater profit - greater revenue to invest in the game - necessary bump for continued maintenance not covered by the subs, etc... or is it a source of funding for other game lines or development.  With WoW for example, how much of what Blizzard takes in for WoW is actually for WoW - how much is going toward other things, etc.

Which to an extent with some of the exodus with EVE...is that why we've seen the change in regard to WoD, etc.

So for other companies, is it a case that they dip into their profits for new projects... or is it time to put out an expansion or some DLC, etc...

It is hypothesized that only a third of sub fees go to maintaining servers.

The rest is spent on future developement of content of the game, or on another game.   Expansions are pretty much a cushion and have no impact on server maintenance as an example. 

VirusDancer

Originally posted by r3zs1ckn3ss

I'm happy with the monthly subs. They need to get paid for their work. Paying a monthly subs fees helps the devs produce more content and bring better expansions. The more the subs. The bigger the budget. The better support and content.

Originally posted by Toradac

Name one f2p game that will be a household name 10 years from now or that even a majority of  players in the community will talk about 10 years from now?

What do either of these have to do with my original post?

 

 

VirusDancer

Originally posted by Hoplites

Originally posted by VirusDancer

...snip...

It is hypothesized that only a third of sub fees go to maintaining servers.

The rest is spent on future developement of content of the game, or on another game.   Expansions are pretty much a cushion and have no impact on server maintenance as an example. 

Yeah, I've been trying to picture it more from my area of experience - which is more SLAs and Upgrades - rather the models utilized in MMOs... and trying to do a little side research on it for another project.  Thanks.

Lurv

Originally posted by VirusDancer

Originally posted by r3zs1ckn3ss

I'm happy with the monthly subs. They need to get paid for their work. Paying a monthly subs fees helps the devs produce more content and bring better expansions. The more the subs. The bigger the budget. The better support and content.

Originally posted by Toradac

Name one f2p game that will be a household name 10 years from now or that even a majority of  players in the community will talk about 10 years from now?

What do either of these have to do with my original post?

 

 

Well for me to justify a sub fee. What else?

VirusDancer

Originally posted by r3zs1ckn3ss

Originally posted by VirusDancer

Originally posted by r3zs1ckn3ss

I'm happy with the monthly subs. They need to get paid for their work. Paying a monthly subs fees helps the devs produce more content and bring better expansions. The more the subs. The bigger the budget. The better support and content.

Originally posted by Toradac

Name one f2p game that will be a household name 10 years from now or that even a majority of  players in the community will talk about 10 years from now?

What do either of these have to do with my original post?

 

 

Well for me to justify a sub fee. What else?

Which has what to do with the question posed in my original post...?

"is it wrong to have to pay for expansions if you are paying a sub"

Moirae

I really don't understand this complaint. Subscription fees pay the ongoing costs of running the MMO. The servers and employees do not come free. And buying the game only once plus expansions means there is extremely limited amount of money coming in. The only reason f2p isn't acceptable is because of the element of the population it brings in. If games would have better moderation (including HEAVY moderation of the live chats), then f2p would be fine.

Axehilt

Originally posted by VirusDancer

Originally posted by Axehilt

There's no "right" or "wrong".  There's simply more and less successful business models.  I imagine EVE's model is slightly superior* in that they don't charge expansion costs; meanwhile F2P is the most successful model for any given game.

(*factoring out the fact that it probably makes a lot less money than WOW, the model itself is almost certainly superior.)

That is where it gets interesting.  One would likely have to assume that the sub + paid expansions would generate greater revenue.  The question I suppose that arises, is whether that is for greater profit - greater revenue to invest in the game - necessary bump for continued maintenance not covered by the subs, etc... or is it a source of funding for other game lines or development.  With WoW for example, how much of what Blizzard takes in for WoW is actually for WoW - how much is going toward other things, etc.

Which to an extent with some of the exodus with EVE...is that why we've seen the change in regard to WoD, etc.

So for other companies, is it a case that they dip into their profits for new projects... or is it time to put out an expansion or some DLC, etc...

Well what I really overlooked with my prior post was microtransactions (PLEX, WOW mounts, WOW server stuff).  Purely based on sub fees, I think it's better to be sub-only than sub+expansion (seriously; it introduces this huge price requirement each time you introduce an expansion which just shaves off your playerbase.)

Factoring in the microtransactions, I suppose WOW makes more due to the sheer variety they have (even though PLEX as a single purchase type is probably superior to any individual purchase WOW offers.)

Toradac

Originally posted by Axehilt

There's no "right" or "wrong".  There's simply more and less successful business models.  I imagine EVE's model is slightly superior* in that they don't charge expansion costs; meanwhile F2P is the most successful model for any given game.

(*factoring out the fact that it probably makes a lot less money than WOW, the model itself is almost certainly superior.)

I'm sorry got caught up on the above post.

 

But it's hard to say that Blizzard has it wrong, as they are by far the most successful mmo to date. I personally have never been much for WoW but I am a minority in that. I personally do not mind paying a sub and shelling out for "major" expansions. This is a business and I understand they need to turn a profit. Would I love to pay a sub and get everything for my 15ish bucks a month? Sure I would, but I don't think that is a reasonable expectation with out an additional source of income like a store. I have never played Eve but I believe it is a very nitch market in the mmo world. If I'm not mistaken they do also have a store correct?

VirusDancer

Originally posted by Moirae

I really don't understand this complaint. Subscription fees pay the ongoing costs of running the MMO. The servers and employees do not come free. And buying the game only once plus means there is extremely limited amount of money coming in. The only reason f2p isn't acceptable is because of the element of the population it brings in. If games would have better moderation (including HEAVY moderation of the live chats), then f2p would be fine.

What complaint?  Obviously you did not read the original post... seriously, I don't understand why you bothered to post.

If you're going to respond to a thread...at least read the first post.

maplestone

Originally posted by Axehilt

There's no "right" or "wrong".  There's simply more and less successful business models.  I imagine EVE's model is slightly superior* in that they don't charge expansion costs; meanwhile F2P is the most successful model for any given game.

(*factoring out the fact that it probably makes a lot less money than WOW, the model itself is almost certainly superior.)

I don't entirely agree ... I think there are "evil" business models and "benign" business models. A good model makes sure that the interests of players and developers are pointing in the same direction.  A bad model sees players and developers as opponents, each trying to milk the other as much as possible.

One of the problems that you get with subscription games is that you don't know how much of your subscritption is actually going to productive development, vs how much is going to fund other projects, pure profit, etc.  Ideally, I would like to see companies have to publish a pie chart of where exactly a subscription dollar goes so that players can make a more informed choice about what exactly a company is actually devoting to maintanence, to support, to paying down the original development costs, to paying current development costs vs taking as their share of the profit.

EVE is a rare game that has any formal input from players on what the priorities for development should be - some games won't even tell players what they are working on until the patches go into beta. As a player, this has often left me feeling ripped off when there is a long span without patches, not knowing what, if anything, my subscription money was actually paying for.

 

 

VirusDancer

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by VirusDancer

...snip...

Well what I really overlooked with my prior post was microtransactions (PLEX, WOW mounts, WOW server stuff).  Purely based on sub fees, I think it's better to be sub-only than sub+expansion (seriously; it introduces this huge price requirement each time you introduce an expansion which just shaves off your playerbase.)

Factoring in the microtransactions, I suppose WOW makes more due to the sheer variety they have (even though PLEX as a single purchase type is probably superior to any individual purchase WOW offers.)

No doubt Blizzard makes a killing on merchandising as well.  Do not have the extent of it with CCP by a longshot, even though they have some items - it is just not on the same scale.

http://store.eveonline.com/  compared to  http://us.blizzard.com/store/

If a company can tap into the merchandising aspects as well.  That definitely adds an interesting point to the conversation.  Thanks for triggering more thoughts on that.

Lurv

The anwer is obviously yes. Becuz um.......expansions, basically like a big update require money if you want something good. It all comes down to money for the devs to make their game better. So no its NOT wrong.

VirusDancer

Originally posted by maplestone

Originally posted by Axehilt

There's no "right" or "wrong".  There's simply more and less successful business models.  I imagine EVE's model is slightly superior* in that they don't charge expansion costs; meanwhile F2P is the most successful model for any given game.

(*factoring out the fact that it probably makes a lot less money than WOW, the model itself is almost certainly superior.)

I don't entirely agree ... I think there are "evil" business models and "benign" business models. A good model makes sure that the interests of players and developers are pointing in the same direction.  A bad model sees players and developers as opponents, each trying to milk the other as much as possible.

One of the problems that you get with subscription games is that you don't know how much of your subscritption is actually going to productive development, vs how much is going to fund other projects, pure profit, etc.  Ideally, I would like to see companies have to publish a pie chart of where exactly a subscription dollar goes so that players can make a more informed choice about what exactly a company is actually devoting to maintanence, to support, to paying down the original development costs, to paying current development costs vs taking as their share of the profit.

EVE is a rare game that has any formal input from players on what the priorities for development should be - some games won't even tell players what they are working on until the patches go into beta. As a player, this has often left me feeling ripped off when there is a long span without patches, not knowing what, if anything, my subscription money was actually paying for.

 

 

I agree with what you said about it would be good to have some general idae of where your sub money is going - pie chart, etc - even if it were not down to 1/100th of a penny or the like -but that you at least had a general and honest idea of where it was going.

Just wanted to say thanks for bringing that up as well...the part in yellow.  That is something that is very important to keep in mind - that specifically and the communication in general, which ties in well with letting players know to an extent where their sub money is going.