An MMO justifies a sub *exactly* the same way it justifies a cash shop. For ongoing monetization.
Once you wake up to that, the only real conversation to be had is how do you like your money to be taken off you... via a transparent and easy to monitor sub that promotes PLAY to achieve, as well as being better for core design and social development, *or* via a cloaked stealth low value PAY to achieve cash shop that preys on the addicted and vulnerable and has terrible effects on core game design and produces a transient uncommited playerbase.
Games need to make profit, that's a given, but it's impossible (and stupid tbh) to criticise a sub for this and then support cash shops. You simply cannot question the sub and support the shop- they both exist to the same ends, it is just one delivers a more honest and open way of doing it. If you challenge one to justify itself then you need to challenge both.
You title really should have been 'How can a MMO justify ongoing monetisation?'
If you are proposing *just* buy to play (with no cash shop) then that's a different argument. I would love a true B2P play to achieve MMORPG with no cash shop that uses such exploitative tricks as RNG boxes and whatever to deliver content. Know any?
So, you think subs are a rip off, but then if you go F2P with a cash shop, then it is P2W and you get complaints too. At some point the expenses of a game need to be paid. I'm choosing the F2P with cash shop initially, but would love a cheap yearly subscription option down the road in order to have a level playing field.
I work in internet company - we have around 180 million users log in daily. Yet we have moved all our servers to Amazon cloud.
Plus we have a inhouse server cluster for content updates and main system (hardened)
This costs around 16 thousand dollars a month.
Lot of money ? For 180 million users - which is over 100 times more than WOW had in its hay day ?
Second. I never said development tools do not cost money. But its a same cost single player games have. Yet they are B2P.
How come ?
We are being milked.
And as for claim that B2P games do not invest in user because they gat their money up front ? P2P games get all the money upfront too !
Ok, so why not have only subscription without box price ? Fair is fair ?
No they want Box price + sub (19$ for TSW) + cash shop !!!
Some nerve...
no offense mate, but i wouldnt touch a company that did that, the reduction in game quality would be horrendous, not to mention the decreased security inherent in cloud applications which you appear to have 'ignored' never mind that such things are not suitable for MMO's, in fact i question whether you are as you represent yourself to be, as you appear to have very little knowledge of what the 'cloud' actually is. so, i challenge you to name the game company you claim is doing this.
An MMO justifies a sub *exactly* the same way it justifies a cash shop. For ongoing monetization.
Once you wake up to that, the only real conversation to be had is how do you like your money to be taken off you... via a transparent and easy to monitor sub that promotes PLAY to achieve, as well as being better for core design and social development, *or* via a cloaked stealth low value PAY to achieve cash shop that preys on the addicted and vulnerable and has terrible effects on core game design and produces a transient uncommited playerbase.
Games need to make profit, that's a given, but it's impossible (and stupid tbh) to criticise a sub for this and then support cash shops. You simply cannot question the sub and support the shop- they both exist to the same ends, it is just one delivers a more honest and open way of doing it. If you challenge one to justify itself then you need to challenge both.
You title really should have been 'How can a MMO justify ongoing monetisation?'
If you are proposing *just* buy to play (with no cash shop) then that's a different argument. I would love a true B2P play to achieve MMORPG with no cash shop that uses such exploitative tricks as RNG boxes and whatever to deliver content. Know any?
I find it funny that you consider a subscription as a more honest way while I consider a more dishonest way. Let me give you an example from a different context.
A "land" needs money to operate. There are roads to be built, and garbage to be removed and wages for people that do the work keeping the infrastructure going. The way they receive money to pay for this is through taxes, and there are two main ways to collect.
The first way is to impose a standard tax on each individual at a set rate. This seems fair however the person that has lots of money hardly notices while the person that has little notices heavily. There are more people that have little money then there are people that have lots, so a majority of people are burdened while a few don't even notice.
The other way is to impose a sales tax. This tax can be positioned to only be applied to non-vital goods and services. The people that have little money purchase little and therefore are taxed little, where as the people that are rich can purchase alot and therefore are taxed alot. Nobody has to spend money they don't want to, and nobody is burdened beyond their means.
Either system can be corrupted by how the revenue is handled, so you can't say that one system is actually more corrupt than the other, but in the income tax system the poor carry the weight, while in the sales tax system the rich carry the wieght. I think the latter is the most honest.
Subscription models is very similar to an income tax system, Everybody pays, the poor carry the burden or can't play. In the F2P w CS model, the rich pay and the poor can still enjoy the game. Once again, I think the latter is the most honest.
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
You bring up a good argument. I'm not saying expansions should be totally free but 20.00 would be more understandable than 49.99. Plus as more companies move to direct download it's certainly not worth the same anymore.
We are being ripped off. Folks were willing to swallow the subscription business model for things we no longer get today. That said, I don't think the sub model has to fail. I would pay much, much more per month for quality, episodic content, fast and reliable customer service/technical support, constant live events, etc. What would an hour worth of new, story driving content delivered weekly and nightly live events, that interactively lead into the next weeks installment be worth to you? For an AAA title that did this, while also delivering deep gameplay elements and some other expectations I'd pay up to $60 per month. I'd pay that AND drop another $60 twice per year on expansion content which adds and extends the game systems. I might even be willing to pay more, depending on how much of my entertainment needs are met by this one company. Afterall, if I didn't have to purchase a console and games for it I'd have additional disposable income. Same with Steam games.
League of Legends introduces a new champ every 2 weeks. TV sitcoms deliver a new show weekly. TV soap operas deliver daily. There is no excuse available for why a new dungeon or quest line couldn't be introduced weekly, even at the current sub fees.
I think "more honest" means "more upfront" regarding just having subs. As someone that used to hate anything but sub I have seen the additional people F2P brings and think a freemium/sub option is the best of both worlds.
How can a modern themepark MMO justify box price + ongoing 15$ subscription ?
Are we being ripped of ?
Lets analyse here :
1. Server cost : Today cloud servers are dime and dozen , its actually much much cheaper than even couple years ago. Asking players to chip in for server cost - false
MMOS dont run on small servers than can host 30 people... they tend to be very powerfull servers and usually more than one per MMO server. So no they are not cheap to run and maintain. You then have bandwidth costs on top of that for somthing like an MMO this can cost a bit as well.
2. Engine development cost : Let assume that MMO engines are more complicated than your regular game engines. And so they cost more to develop. But today there are several licenced engines that are so good even the biggest companies use them - Players chipping in for engine cost - false
Well you still need to buy the rights to an engine if you want access to the source code so you can make big changes to the way the engine works. Without source code you basically have to stick with what you get and thatwould lead to a load of games playing very similar.. Getting a full license for the source code for some engines is very expensive.. Cryengine for example is rumored to be in the millions.
3. Game development cost : What makes MMO more expensive than single player RPG ? Amount of content ? Judging from todays trends I seen single player RPGs with same or more content than many MMO games at release. Yet they dont ask for subscription. And even if amount of content is a question. Why not make less content , and than charge for aditional content as DLC ? - Platyers chipping in for content - false
Wages tend to be higher today than they did years ago so development can cost a lot, all those 3d artists you need, world designers, game designers programmers and so on do not come cheap. Also buying in all the software and hardware for the people to make the game on is not cheap either.. Then a company usually have to think about pensions and other worker benefits, building running costs yadda yadda.. you get the point.
4. Constant updates : Yea. I heared that myth. Most of MMOs fire 80% of work force month after release. And all those "Monthly new content!" turns out to be just PR bull.. Even if new content comes after all , it happens once or twice - than it turns into payed mini expansions. So paying for developers developing something that we get to pay for again. - Players paying for constant updates - false
Develops need to get paid as well, most MMOPGS i have played have had small updates now and then with paid for exp packs or in Eves and darkfalls case free exp packs.
So what we are paying 15$ for ? 180$ yearly ? Plus 60$ on box price ... thats 240$ a year from each player.
Paying for all the above and of course the company is in existance to do one main thing.. yes thats right make money.
Not bad. No wonder the market is full with MMO wannabies that planned to cash in on this golden goose !
I give credit to games like EVE that are sandbox , and PVP based. With amazing "all players on same server" technology and actual free updates all the time. Even they could live with B2P+F2P model - if there was no PVP balance to keep in mind.
But themepark PVE games ?
No excuse !
Discuss
Thats why i tend not to play themepark games and only play sandbox type games.. i dont liek themeparks MMORPGs anyway.
An MMO justifies a sub *exactly* the same way it justifies a cash shop. For ongoing monetization.
Once you wake up to that, the only real conversation to be had is how do you like your money to be taken off you... via a transparent and easy to monitor sub that promotes PLAY to achieve, as well as being better for core design and social development, *or* via a cloaked stealth low value PAY to achieve cash shop that preys on the addicted and vulnerable and has terrible effects on core game design and produces a transient uncommited playerbase.
Games need to make profit, that's a given, but it's impossible (and stupid tbh) to criticise a sub for this and then support cash shops. You simply cannot question the sub and support the shop- they both exist to the same ends, it is just one delivers a more honest and open way of doing it. If you challenge one to justify itself then you need to challenge both.
You title really should have been 'How can a MMO justify ongoing monetisation?'
If you are proposing *just* buy to play (with no cash shop) then that's a different argument. I would love a true B2P play to achieve MMORPG with no cash shop that uses such exploitative tricks as RNG boxes and whatever to deliver content. Know any?
I find it funny that you consider a subscription as a more honest way while I consider a more dishonest way. Let me give you an example from a different context.
A "land" needs money to operate. There are roads to be built, and garbage to be removed and wages for people that do the work keeping the infrastructure going. The way they receive money to pay for this is through taxes, and there are two main ways to collect.
The first way is to impose a standard tax on each individual at a set rate. This seems fair however the person that has lots of money hardly notices while the person that has little notices heavily. There are more people that have little money then there are people that have lots, so a majority of people are burdened while a few don't even notice.
The other way is to impose a sales tax. This tax can be positioned to only be applied to non-vital goods and services. The people that have little money purchase little and therefore are taxed little, where as the people that are rich can purchase alot and therefore are taxed alot. Nobody has to spend money they don't want to, and nobody is burdened beyond their means.
Either system can be corrupted by how the revenue is handled, so you can't say that one system is actually more corrupt than the other, but in the income tax system the poor carry the weight, while in the sales tax system the rich carry the wieght. I think the latter is the most honest.
Subscription models is very similar to an income tax system, Everybody pays, the poor carry the burden or can't play. In the F2P w CS model, the rich pay and the poor can still enjoy the game. Once again, I think the latter is the most honest.
Are you really suggesting that a game studio would or should be concerned with the total household income of their subscribers? $15 for an entire month of potential entertainment is one of the best deals out there, as far as entertainment expenses go. If anything, they are doing a favor for the "poor". If these "poor" people can afford a computer adequate to run the MMORPG and the monthly costs of an internet connection, they can handle the $15 per month sub cost. Even if they can't, no one is forcing them to pay. People with guns force you to pay taxes.
An MMO justifies a sub *exactly* the same way it justifies a cash shop. For ongoing monetization.
Once you wake up to that, the only real conversation to be had is how do you like your money to be taken off you... via a transparent and easy to monitor sub that promotes PLAY to achieve, as well as being better for core design and social development, *or* via a cloaked stealth low value PAY to achieve cash shop that preys on the addicted and vulnerable and has terrible effects on core game design and produces a transient uncommited playerbase.
Games need to make profit, that's a given, but it's impossible (and stupid tbh) to criticise a sub for this and then support cash shops. You simply cannot question the sub and support the shop- they both exist to the same ends, it is just one delivers a more honest and open way of doing it. If you challenge one to justify itself then you need to challenge both.
You title really should have been 'How can a MMO justify ongoing monetisation?'
If you are proposing *just* buy to play (with no cash shop) then that's a different argument. I would love a true B2P play to achieve MMORPG with no cash shop that uses such exploitative tricks as RNG boxes and whatever to deliver content. Know any?
I find it funny that you consider a subscription as a more honest way while I consider a more dishonest way. I think the latter is the most honest.
That's cool, I obviously do not agree but you can see it whatever way you want, but it is kinda derailing the thread to pick up and focus on that one word though here. I would be happy to debate this in another thread
not sure how accurate that is, but lets look at the costliest game on that list, GTA4. 100 million budget. It sold over 6 million units its first week and grossed over 500 mil in revenue. In week 1.
Rockstar also didnt have to buy expensive servers to host everyone online, or hire a large CS team. They dont have to deal with securing people's information or any of that.
bottom line = non MMOs *are* cheaper, and they sell much, much, much, much better.
(note: I know only one MMO is on that list, but we know that MMO budgets can top 100 mil and I would say the average AAA budget is somewhere around 50 mil these days, whereas the average game budget is closer to 30 mil)
Agree 100% that there really is little to no justification for subs now.
The only actual customer value that should come from subs is free expansions, patches, and no cash shop....plus solid customer support and active GMs enforcing community "laws" including the possibilityof frequent live GM/Dynamic events.
Instead people get served 60 dollar game purchase, sub fee, expansion purchases, and a cash shop to add insult to injury (of the wallet).
Plus its been statistically proven that unless you are WoW, subsciptions are a deterrent to increasing players. An Triple A MMO that has 300K subscrptions has potential to garner twice that many players if the game was F2P. The issue is game studios who invest millions of dollars want guareteed return on their investment (subscriptions) even at the expense of profitablity that comes with a more lucrative but non specific payment model (F2P).
Until studios are willing to forgo the paradigms of old, subscription services will remain the defacto payment model.
Playing: GW2 Waiting on: TESO Next Flop: Planetside 2 Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
I work in internet company - we have around 180 million users log in daily. Yet we have moved all our servers to Amazon cloud.
Plus we have a inhouse server cluster for content updates and main system (hardened)
This costs around 16 thousand dollars a month.
Lot of money ? For 180 million users - which is over 100 times more than WOW had in its hay day ?
Second. I never said development tools do not cost money. But its a same cost single player games have. Yet they are B2P.
How come ?
We are being milked.
And as for claim that B2P games do not invest in user because they gat their money up front ? P2P games get all the money upfront too !
Ok, so why not have only subscription without box price ? Fair is fair ?
No they want Box price + sub (19$ for TSW) + cash shop !!!
Some nerve...
no offense mate, but i wouldnt touch a company that did that, the reduction in game quality would be horrendous, not to mention the decreased security inherent in cloud applications which you appear to have 'ignored' never mind that such things are not suitable for MMO's, in fact i question whether you are as you represent yourself to be, as you appear to have very little knowledge of what the 'cloud' actually is. so, i challenge you to name the game company you claim is doing this.
He never explicitly said game company. He was using an internet company example where they get 180 million + hits per day using their bandwidth. The point is to illustrate that bandwidth costs and hardware costs are not where a majority of expense is at.
The whole "cloud has poorer security" is laughable at best. They're all internet facing servers. The security of any of that depends on who is running it. Are you really going to posit that SoE, NCSoft, Turbine, Funcom, and others really have better security than Microsoft, Google, or Amazon among other major cloud players? Please do support that argument with some facts.
Are you also trying to claim that game companies don't ever use hosted solutions? Are you also going to say that those who do run their own servers do so with better uptime, less latency, and better performance? Because all those are walking into a minefield. You can't paint any of that with a broad stroked brush.
One of the few things we can assert as fact is that more powerful hardware and bandwidth costs are cheaper than they have ever been. The most expensive cost in providing bandwidth would likely be the game download which is often outsourced to download providers and services like Steam, Pando, etc.
cloud servers also charge by the gb in terms of useage too, i'd love to see how having 180 million users only costs 16k a month.. as for cloud apps etc being secure, its well known that their not, which is why business' keep the core of their resources etc, on their own servers, 'farming out' or 'outsourcing' things to the cloud is usually relegated to 'none mission critical' applications or resources, purely for that reason. But thats purely from a business point of view.. gamers of course are far less critical of security issues in the games that they play
I think "more honest" means "more upfront" regarding just having subs. As someone that used to hate anything but sub I have seen the additional people F2P brings and think a freemium/sub option is the best of both worlds.
Except none of the subscription services offer the full meal deal just for the subscription. The closest is EVE which sells ISK and that definitely affects the game. All the rest charge a sub plus microtransactions of some sort to supplement the income. They sell Collector Edition upgrades, mounts, fluff, leveling power packs (this is often as the pre-purchase bonus), and such. They just don't sell as much that way as a full F2P or B2P game does. So it's not more upfront and honest. It's more double dipping to get the entire game experience.
If publishers used the Lineage model where you get it all for the sub then I might still sub. But they don't and they double dip. I find that less than upfront and honest.
After seeing the additional people that P2P brings I don't see much difference in the communities between different payment models. Different games yes, different payment models? No.
Just to point something out btw, Eve does not sell ISK, they sell plex's for real money, the player then has to negotiate with other players to buy that plex for isk, which is why the market for plex's fluctuates so wildly, but the point is, is that CCP only sell game time, what players do with that game time, is a seperate issue entirely.
Plus its been statistically proven that unless you are WoW, subsciptions are a deterrent to increasing players. An Triple A MMO that has 300K subscrptions has potential to garner twice that many players if the game was F2P. The issue is game studios who invest millions of dollars want guareteed return on their investment (subscriptions) even at the expense of profitablity that comes with a more lucrative but non specific payment model (F2P).
Until studios are willing to forgo the paradigms of old, subscription services will remain the defacto payment model.
I have yet to see a quality game wthout a sub option.. GW2 is too new to tell if their model has long term viability. Everything else either has a sub option or is of poor quality. I do not think this is coincidence.
Some responses in this thread are implying the OP wants games to be AAA quality and free. I dont get that conclusion from the OP...rather the OP (from my interpretation of it) questions if subs at their current rate ($15) PLUS initial box sale, PLUS expansion sales, PLUS Cash shop are fair to us as the consumer.
I think subs can be a great thing, but are currently not being put to good use for us as consumers (imo). This is understandable from the company point of view since they will try to get as much as they can to maximizing profits.
With that said we as educated consumers shouldn't settle for this business model since the subscription that we pay isnt for all the services. Instead they stack on all the other BS charges.
IMO if I buy the game, and pay 15 a month or more I shouldnt have to pay for name changes, server transfers, cash shop items that should be in game, apperance changes, or anything else these companies try to tack. If I do have to pay for those services what else does my subscription go to?
Bad trend in these sub games are the treadmills to justify subscriptions, it kills gameplay to build a hamster wheel. Wouldnt you much rather have a game company use your subs to develop new content consistently rather than fake it by gating content through gear grinds, or "dailies/Rep" grinds?
Plus its been statistically proven that unless you are WoW, subsciptions are a deterrent to increasing players. An Triple A MMO that has 300K subscrptions has potential to garner twice that many players if the game was F2P. The issue is game studios who invest millions of dollars want guareteed return on their investment (subscriptions) even at the expense of profitablity that comes with a more lucrative but non specific payment model (F2P).
Until studios are willing to forgo the paradigms of old, subscription services will remain the defacto payment model.
I have yet to see a quality game wthout a sub option.. GW2 is too new to tell if their model has long term viability. Everything else either has a sub option or is of poor quality. I do not think this is coincidence.
While Arenanets B2P model is admirable, it remains to be see if its viable, when the game has been running for a year, then we'll get a far better idea of how well its working out for them, a measure of which will probably be what items appear in the cash shop, how much they cost, and when they appear in the cash shop.
An MMO justifies a sub *exactly* the same way it justifies a cash shop. For ongoing monetization.
Once you wake up to that, the only real conversation to be had is how do you like your money to be taken off you... via a transparent and easy to monitor sub that promotes PLAY to achieve, as well as being better for core design and social development, *or* via a cloaked stealth low value PAY to achieve cash shop that preys on the addicted and vulnerable and has terrible effects on core game design and produces a transient uncommited playerbase.
Games need to make profit, that's a given, but it's impossible (and stupid tbh) to criticise a sub for this and then support cash shops. You simply cannot question the sub and support the shop- they both exist to the same ends, it is just one delivers a more honest and open way of doing it. If you challenge one to justify itself then you need to challenge both.
You title really should have been 'How can a MMO justify ongoing monetisation?'
If you are proposing *just* buy to play (with no cash shop) then that's a different argument. I would love a true B2P play to achieve MMORPG with no cash shop that uses such exploitative tricks as RNG boxes and whatever to deliver content. Know any?
I find it funny that you consider a subscription as a more honest way while I consider a more dishonest way. Let me give you an example from a different context.
A "land" needs money to operate. There are roads to be built, and garbage to be removed and wages for people that do the work keeping the infrastructure going. The way they receive money to pay for this is through taxes, and there are two main ways to collect.
The first way is to impose a standard tax on each individual at a set rate. This seems fair however the person that has lots of money hardly notices while the person that has little notices heavily. There are more people that have little money then there are people that have lots, so a majority of people are burdened while a few don't even notice.
The other way is to impose a sales tax. This tax can be positioned to only be applied to non-vital goods and services. The people that have little money purchase little and therefore are taxed little, where as the people that are rich can purchase alot and therefore are taxed alot. Nobody has to spend money they don't want to, and nobody is burdened beyond their means.
Either system can be corrupted by how the revenue is handled, so you can't say that one system is actually more corrupt than the other, but in the income tax system the poor carry the weight, while in the sales tax system the rich carry the wieght. I think the latter is the most honest.
Subscription models is very similar to an income tax system, Everybody pays, the poor carry the burden or can't play. In the F2P w CS model, the rich pay and the poor can still enjoy the game. Once again, I think the latter is the most honest.
Are you really suggesting that a game studio would or should be concerned with the total household income of their subscribers? $15 for an entire month of potential entertainment is one of the best deals out there, as far as entertainment expenses go. If anything, they are doing a favor for the "poor". If these "poor" people can afford a computer adequate to run the MMORPG and the monthly costs of an internet connection, they can handle the $15 per month sub cost. Even if they can't, no one is forcing them to pay. People with guns force you to pay taxes.
Actually a game studio or any business needs to pay attention to the total household income of all of it's clients, but that's not the point I'm trying to get across.
The cash shop operates like a sales tax system where the revenue to maintain the game is provided by people that can afford to spend money on frivilous things. Everybody can play, the people that can afford to are the ones that support it.
The subscription model makes everybody pay the costs of maintaining the game. Only the people that can justify the expense can play.
And you have no right to determine what someone else should consider a sizeable amount of money, so your perception of what is a good deal is really only a perception of what is a good deal for you.
@ Aelious
I guess I was looking at "honest" more along the lines of "fair", I didn't mean to imply that subscriptions were dishonest as such.
@ Vesavius
"That's cool, I obviously do not agree but you can see it whatever way you want, but it is kinda derailing the thread to pick up and focus on that one word though here. I would be happy to debate this in another thread "
I apologize, I didn't mean to focus on "honest" and I misrepresented that. As I stated above, I was using the term "honest" as fair and shouldn't have put it in the context that I did.
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
Agree 100% that there really is little to no justification for subs now.
The only actual customer value that should come from subs is free expansions, patches, and no cash shop....plus solid customer support and active GMs enforcing community "laws" including the possibilityof frequent live GM/Dynamic events.
Instead people get served 60 dollar game purchase, sub fee, expansion purchases, and a cash shop to add insult to injury (of the wallet).
Plus its been statistically proven that unless you are WoW, subsciptions are a deterrent to increasing players. An Triple A MMO that has 300K subscrptions has potential to garner twice that many players if the game was F2P. The issue is game studios who invest millions of dollars want guareteed return on their investment (subscriptions) even at the expense of profitablity that comes with a more lucrative but non specific payment model (F2P).
Until studios are willing to forgo the paradigms of old, subscription services will remain the defacto payment model.
Are we really sure F2P models are more lucrative? Under what circumstances, does it matter? Perhaps if one makes a bad MMORPG, then they are more lucrative, but if one were to make a good (or at least popular) MMORPG then subs would make sense?
I've found almost without exception most F2P titles (that start out that way) have design characteristics that I strongly dislike, therefore I challenge the notion that F2P is the best way to build a game, unless of course perhaps if money is the only consideration.
And what about a person like me? I'm willing to pay not only a single sub fee, but 3, 4 or even 5, should companies totally disregard my preferred payment mpdel in order to chase the dream of the "big rocks" spenders that F2P games sometimes rope in?
Perhaps the OP's question should be rephrased, can a company afford to release a quality MMORPG with only a single payment model ) or should they offer alternatives right from the start to service all customer's preferences.
One might argue that ANET are geniuses with their B2P model, but by not offering any sort of subscription model (some sort of extra services for a regular monthly fee) they're leaving money on the table and its not smart business normally to do so.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
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
Comments
An MMO justifies a sub *exactly* the same way it justifies a cash shop. For ongoing monetization.
Once you wake up to that, the only real conversation to be had is how do you like your money to be taken off you... via a transparent and easy to monitor sub that promotes PLAY to achieve, as well as being better for core design and social development, *or* via a cloaked stealth low value PAY to achieve cash shop that preys on the addicted and vulnerable and has terrible effects on core game design and produces a transient uncommited playerbase.
Games need to make profit, that's a given, but it's impossible (and stupid tbh) to criticise a sub for this and then support cash shops. You simply cannot question the sub and support the shop- they both exist to the same ends, it is just one delivers a more honest and open way of doing it. If you challenge one to justify itself then you need to challenge both.
You title really should have been 'How can a MMO justify ongoing monetisation?'
If you are proposing *just* buy to play (with no cash shop) then that's a different argument. I would love a true B2P play to achieve MMORPG with no cash shop that uses such exploitative tricks as RNG boxes and whatever to deliver content. Know any?
Thanks,
Mike
Working on Social Strategy MMORTS (now Launched!) http://www.worldalpha.com
no offense mate, but i wouldnt touch a company that did that, the reduction in game quality would be horrendous, not to mention the decreased security inherent in cloud applications which you appear to have 'ignored' never mind that such things are not suitable for MMO's, in fact i question whether you are as you represent yourself to be, as you appear to have very little knowledge of what the 'cloud' actually is. so, i challenge you to name the game company you claim is doing this.
So your company is charging its users less than $0.01 per month? Or does it find a way to justify charging them more?
I think you just won.
I find it funny that you consider a subscription as a more honest way while I consider a more dishonest way. Let me give you an example from a different context.
A "land" needs money to operate. There are roads to be built, and garbage to be removed and wages for people that do the work keeping the infrastructure going. The way they receive money to pay for this is through taxes, and there are two main ways to collect.
The first way is to impose a standard tax on each individual at a set rate. This seems fair however the person that has lots of money hardly notices while the person that has little notices heavily. There are more people that have little money then there are people that have lots, so a majority of people are burdened while a few don't even notice.
The other way is to impose a sales tax. This tax can be positioned to only be applied to non-vital goods and services. The people that have little money purchase little and therefore are taxed little, where as the people that are rich can purchase alot and therefore are taxed alot. Nobody has to spend money they don't want to, and nobody is burdened beyond their means.
Either system can be corrupted by how the revenue is handled, so you can't say that one system is actually more corrupt than the other, but in the income tax system the poor carry the weight, while in the sales tax system the rich carry the wieght. I think the latter is the most honest.
Subscription models is very similar to an income tax system, Everybody pays, the poor carry the burden or can't play. In the F2P w CS model, the rich pay and the poor can still enjoy the game. Once again, I think the latter is the most honest.
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
I don't hate much, but I hate Apple© with a passion. If Steve Jobs was alive, I would punch him in the face.
You bring up a good argument. I'm not saying expansions should be totally free but 20.00 would be more understandable than 49.99. Plus as more companies move to direct download it's certainly not worth the same anymore.
We are being ripped off. Folks were willing to swallow the subscription business model for things we no longer get today. That said, I don't think the sub model has to fail. I would pay much, much more per month for quality, episodic content, fast and reliable customer service/technical support, constant live events, etc. What would an hour worth of new, story driving content delivered weekly and nightly live events, that interactively lead into the next weeks installment be worth to you? For an AAA title that did this, while also delivering deep gameplay elements and some other expectations I'd pay up to $60 per month. I'd pay that AND drop another $60 twice per year on expansion content which adds and extends the game systems. I might even be willing to pay more, depending on how much of my entertainment needs are met by this one company. Afterall, if I didn't have to purchase a console and games for it I'd have additional disposable income. Same with Steam games.
League of Legends introduces a new champ every 2 weeks. TV sitcoms deliver a new show weekly. TV soap operas deliver daily. There is no excuse available for why a new dungeon or quest line couldn't be introduced weekly, even at the current sub fees.
I think "more honest" means "more upfront" regarding just having subs. As someone that used to hate anything but sub I have seen the additional people F2P brings and think a freemium/sub option is the best of both worlds.
This
Are you really suggesting that a game studio would or should be concerned with the total household income of their subscribers? $15 for an entire month of potential entertainment is one of the best deals out there, as far as entertainment expenses go. If anything, they are doing a favor for the "poor". If these "poor" people can afford a computer adequate to run the MMORPG and the monthly costs of an internet connection, they can handle the $15 per month sub cost. Even if they can't, no one is forcing them to pay. People with guns force you to pay taxes.
That's cool, I obviously do not agree but you can see it whatever way you want, but it is kinda derailing the thread to pick up and focus on that one word though here. I would be happy to debate this in another thread
[mod edit]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop
not sure how accurate that is, but lets look at the costliest game on that list, GTA4. 100 million budget. It sold over 6 million units its first week and grossed over 500 mil in revenue. In week 1.
Rockstar also didnt have to buy expensive servers to host everyone online, or hire a large CS team. They dont have to deal with securing people's information or any of that.
bottom line = non MMOs *are* cheaper, and they sell much, much, much, much better.
(note: I know only one MMO is on that list, but we know that MMO budgets can top 100 mil and I would say the average AAA budget is somewhere around 50 mil these days, whereas the average game budget is closer to 30 mil)
Plus its been statistically proven that unless you are WoW, subsciptions are a deterrent to increasing players. An Triple A MMO that has 300K subscrptions has potential to garner twice that many players if the game was F2P. The issue is game studios who invest millions of dollars want guareteed return on their investment (subscriptions) even at the expense of profitablity that comes with a more lucrative but non specific payment model (F2P).
Until studios are willing to forgo the paradigms of old, subscription services will remain the defacto payment model.
Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online
Playing: GW2
Waiting on: TESO
Next Flop: Planetside 2
Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
cloud servers also charge by the gb in terms of useage too, i'd love to see how having 180 million users only costs 16k a month.. as for cloud apps etc being secure, its well known that their not, which is why business' keep the core of their resources etc, on their own servers, 'farming out' or 'outsourcing' things to the cloud is usually relegated to 'none mission critical' applications or resources, purely for that reason. But thats purely from a business point of view.. gamers of course are far less critical of security issues in the games that they play
Just to point something out btw, Eve does not sell ISK, they sell plex's for real money, the player then has to negotiate with other players to buy that plex for isk, which is why the market for plex's fluctuates so wildly, but the point is, is that CCP only sell game time, what players do with that game time, is a seperate issue entirely.
I have yet to see a quality game wthout a sub option.. GW2 is too new to tell if their model has long term viability. Everything else either has a sub option or is of poor quality. I do not think this is coincidence.
I HAPPILY pay a monthly sub for good ongoing customer support. Live Support, GMs in game, rapid resolution of problems on top of the usuals.
I've played F2P and B2P (LOL) titles and - you get what you pay for.
Some responses in this thread are implying the OP wants games to be AAA quality and free. I dont get that conclusion from the OP...rather the OP (from my interpretation of it) questions if subs at their current rate ($15) PLUS initial box sale, PLUS expansion sales, PLUS Cash shop are fair to us as the consumer.
I think subs can be a great thing, but are currently not being put to good use for us as consumers (imo). This is understandable from the company point of view since they will try to get as much as they can to maximizing profits.
With that said we as educated consumers shouldn't settle for this business model since the subscription that we pay isnt for all the services. Instead they stack on all the other BS charges.
IMO if I buy the game, and pay 15 a month or more I shouldnt have to pay for name changes, server transfers, cash shop items that should be in game, apperance changes, or anything else these companies try to tack. If I do have to pay for those services what else does my subscription go to?
Bad trend in these sub games are the treadmills to justify subscriptions, it kills gameplay to build a hamster wheel. Wouldnt you much rather have a game company use your subs to develop new content consistently rather than fake it by gating content through gear grinds, or "dailies/Rep" grinds?
While Arenanets B2P model is admirable, it remains to be see if its viable, when the game has been running for a year, then we'll get a far better idea of how well its working out for them, a measure of which will probably be what items appear in the cash shop, how much they cost, and when they appear in the cash shop.
Actually a game studio or any business needs to pay attention to the total household income of all of it's clients, but that's not the point I'm trying to get across.
The cash shop operates like a sales tax system where the revenue to maintain the game is provided by people that can afford to spend money on frivilous things. Everybody can play, the people that can afford to are the ones that support it.
The subscription model makes everybody pay the costs of maintaining the game. Only the people that can justify the expense can play.
And you have no right to determine what someone else should consider a sizeable amount of money, so your perception of what is a good deal is really only a perception of what is a good deal for you.
@ Aelious
I guess I was looking at "honest" more along the lines of "fair", I didn't mean to imply that subscriptions were dishonest as such.
@ Vesavius
"That's cool, I obviously do not agree but you can see it whatever way you want, but it is kinda derailing the thread to pick up and focus on that one word though here. I would be happy to debate this in another thread
"
I apologize, I didn't mean to focus on "honest" and I misrepresented that. As I stated above, I was using the term "honest" as fair and shouldn't have put it in the context that I did.
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
I don't hate much, but I hate Apple© with a passion. If Steve Jobs was alive, I would punch him in the face.
Are we really sure F2P models are more lucrative? Under what circumstances, does it matter? Perhaps if one makes a bad MMORPG, then they are more lucrative, but if one were to make a good (or at least popular) MMORPG then subs would make sense?
I've found almost without exception most F2P titles (that start out that way) have design characteristics that I strongly dislike, therefore I challenge the notion that F2P is the best way to build a game, unless of course perhaps if money is the only consideration.
And what about a person like me? I'm willing to pay not only a single sub fee, but 3, 4 or even 5, should companies totally disregard my preferred payment mpdel in order to chase the dream of the "big rocks" spenders that F2P games sometimes rope in?
Perhaps the OP's question should be rephrased, can a company afford to release a quality MMORPG with only a single payment model ) or should they offer alternatives right from the start to service all customer's preferences.
One might argue that ANET are geniuses with their B2P model, but by not offering any sort of subscription model (some sort of extra services for a regular monthly fee) they're leaving money on the table and its not smart business normally to do so.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
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
Thats pretty much exactly what he is saying. Well, maybe not free, but B2P. Which has yet to be proven as something that is feasible.