Originally posted by VassagoMael That $15 sub isn't worth as much as it was 10 years ago. Cash shops subsidize the subscription to counter the loss of revenue from inflation. Sub price would be over $18 per month to match inflation.
That's an interesting take I've seen a few times now. Considering companies like Anet tried to convince people that 15 dollar monthly subscription fees were a scam. And maybe most are, because the perceived value of MMOs has declined over the years.
Well I don't know about Anet convincing me that subs were a scam. However, they proved to me twice in a row with GW1 and GW2 that subs and good games don't always go hand in hand and that an MMO can indeed be just a one time purchase investment without a monthly rental fee.
I know it's a small thing and probably not many people care. But it has always bothered me. Selling cosmetic items in a cash shop is generally seen as an acceptable practice. And yet that has allowed for a subtle but steady shift away from the immersive virtual worlds I miss so dearly these days.
Cosmetic items: clothing, mounts, pets, titles, auras etc. These used to be part of the game itself. Part of the lore. Perhaps a side quest somewhere. Or tied into a crafting system.
But they are not anymore. They are in a store. And the devs get a pat on the back because at least they aren't selling combat buffs.
I guess I just don't belong in this new style of mmorpg. Even my mmo of choice does it. Best I can do is try to ignore it. My preferred play style is becoming a niche of a niche of a niche lol. Oh well. Nothing lasts forever
I agree, I think all parts of the game should come from achievement in the game. Good looking or unique gear was a part of progression, along with the power increase. The problem is that cosmetics are the least invasive form of income for titles and this alternate revenue is paramount in the F2P/B2P era we are in. I would love to go back to the box-sub model as the standard but I don't see it coming back until available technology creates gameplay that is not like everyone else.
This all comes back to games today being only about progression and gaining items. This was originally just something to make you feel like you were progressing in games. Now it is the only purpose in game.
I know it's a small thing and probably not many people care. But it has always bothered me. Selling cosmetic items in a cash shop is generally seen as an acceptable practice. And yet that has allowed for a subtle but steady shift away from the immersive virtual worlds I miss so dearly these days.
Cosmetic items: clothing, mounts, pets, titles, auras etc. These used to be part of the game itself. Part of the lore. Perhaps a side quest somewhere. Or tied into a crafting system.
But they are not anymore. They are in a store. And the devs get a pat on the back because at least they aren't selling combat buffs.
I guess I just don't belong in this new style of mmorpg. Even my mmo of choice does it. Best I can do is try to ignore it. My preferred play style is becoming a niche of a niche of a niche lol. Oh well. Nothing lasts forever
I agree, I think all parts of the game should come from achievement in the game. Good looking or unique gear was a part of progression, along with the power increase. The problem is that cosmetics are the least invasive form of income for titles and this alternate revenue is paramount in the F2P/B2P era we are in. I would love to go back to the box-sub model as the standard but I don't see it coming back until available technology creates gameplay that is not like everyone else.
I just don't see it at least not for the first few generations of this new gameplay style that is hugely popular whatever that might end up being. To build a big game with advanced new systems takes money, lots of it and the game market we are in today you can't get that money to build the game with subscription models alone unless you can self finance like Bioware/EA, Square Enix and Bethesda did. So unless one of the handful of game companies out there sitting on the cash to self finance one of these projects takes it on (most of the ones who could have already tried once) it's going to be driven towards the highest possible revenue model which is some form of cash shop and most likely so called F2P. At this point Valve is probably the only company who could do it and they haven't exactly been shy of micro transactions.
Kickstarter couldn't do it either. As even the basic idea of adding reward tiers for contributing will pollute a project like this before it even begins and most kickstarter projects have no where near the money poured into them to make the leap it's going to take to really pull this market together under one game never the less a subscription game. If that's even possible at this point at all.
Gamers: "It looks like you're trying to make enough money to survive as a company. I dislike that. You should stop that. Instead, use the payment model that all those MMORPGs used who went out of business! I liked that better. Gosh, I wonder what happened to all those MMORPGs anyway?"
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by Axehilt Gamers: "It looks like you're trying to make enough money to survive as a company. I dislike that. You should stop that. Instead, use the payment model that all those MMORPGs used who went out of business! I liked that better. Gosh, I wonder what happened to all those MMORPGs anyway?"
Well if they hadn't dumped 300 million into single player features in the first place...
I know it's a small thing and probably not many people care. But it has always bothered me. Selling cosmetic items in a cash shop is generally seen as an acceptable practice. And yet that has allowed for a subtle but steady shift away from the immersive virtual worlds I miss so dearly these days.
Cosmetic items: clothing, mounts, pets, titles, auras etc. These used to be part of the game itself. Part of the lore. Perhaps a side quest somewhere. Or tied into a crafting system.
But they are not anymore. They are in a store. And the devs get a pat on the back because at least they aren't selling combat buffs.
I guess I just don't belong in this new style of mmorpg. Even my mmo of choice does it. Best I can do is try to ignore it. My preferred play style is becoming a niche of a niche of a niche lol. Oh well. Nothing lasts forever
And that whole "at least is isn't a combat buff", or "at least it isn't game-breaking", or "at least it isn't P2W", or of course, the ever popular "It's optional!" is how they pull it off.
The idea is to divert attention away from the fact that you're selling them content that's already created and likely on their HDs, by distracting them with statements about how "it could be worse! At least we're not selling power!", and they'll more readily accept what you were actually after to begin with.
You're essentially swapping one question with a different one. You get them asking "is selling cosmetic items as bad as selling power?", rather than what they should be thinking, which is "shouldn't even the cosmetic items be content available by playing the game too?"
It's in the same vein as the whole bargaining thing. If you want to sell something for 20,000... advertise selling it for 25,000 instead - even if you know 25k is completely unrealistic. The idea is that someone's going to say "25,000 is ridiculous! No way it's worth that much! I'll pay you 15,000 (because they're doing the same thing as you, but in reverse). You eventually settle on 20k as a nice "middle point". They feel like they got a better deal, and you got what you wanted to in the first place.
Same exact concept at work here.
And people fall for it every time. Because gullibility, and inability, or refusal to think critically.
I'm totally there with you. I don't want to buy a mount for $20. I want to kill a boss riding it and loot it. I don't want to loot some sword that looks like a rusty piece of junk on purpose to drive me to the cash shop to buy the cool lightning effect. I want quests in the game to get these items. They have value for a reason and all cosmetics are is Pay2LookCool instead of playing the game to get the items you pay the game to get the items.
It just feels so virtual shopping mall to me, I really hate putting up with it. Every time I think they could have put that in the game as a drop or quest not a credit card swipe.
If you were a CEO of a mmorpg dev studio and you were not able to maintain profitability with your game with a P2P model - and you wanted to keep your game alive and your employees getting a steady paycheck - what would you do?
Make a better game?
It can be done. I've played more Skyrim in the past year than I have spent in any one particular MMORPG.
Good point. Skyrim's servers seem to maintain 24/7 uptime, and their GMs are some of the best in the industry. How are they on delivering expansions for it? Monthly? Once a year? They are expanding the game, right? Whatever the case, I hear their engine handles PVP battles of 100+ players flawlessly.
Because that's all that matters when it comes to quality game design. Once you have all that ironed out, the rest of it is a cakewalk. Don't really need a great game once you have the server infrastructure in place.
Are you being consistently obtuse for a reason or do you come from a realm where money grows on trees?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Why settle for $30 subscription when it can be $100 or even $500 per month? Clearly, the more money you spend, the better the product you get... or so they'd like you to believe.
Just make the game, put it in a box, slap a price on it and sell it. Don't promise new content or balancing, just bug fixes. When you have something new to add, put it in a box, slap a price on it and sell it. Worked for decades. People made a living. Gamers were happy.
We live in a nickel and dime world... greed is the only game there is and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.
Originally posted by Axehilt Gamers: "It looks like you're trying to make enough money to survive as a company. I dislike that. You should stop that. Instead, use the payment model that all those MMORPGs used who went out of business! I liked that better. Gosh, I wonder what happened to all those MMORPGs anyway?"
That seems to be the gist of it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by Axehilt Gamers: "It looks like you're trying to make enough money to survive as a company. I dislike that. You should stop that. Instead, use the payment model that all those MMORPGs used who went out of business! I liked that better. Gosh, I wonder what happened to all those MMORPGs anyway?"
Axe, that is the most awfully disingenuous and inaccurate depiction of P2P gamers I've ever seen.
Seriously, does your dishonesty have no limits, Axe? Is there nothing too ludicrous for you to type, so long as it serves your ends?
So, let me get this straight... in a world of F2P gamers, of whom a very high % admittedly play as much as they want without ever contributing a dime to support the developers... you have the temerity to come here and characterize pro-P2P gamers - the people who prefer to pay and want to actively support the developers - as the ones who don't want to see them survive?
What's worse, with F2P'ers, we're talking about a population of people whom expect others to spend lots of money (ie. whales), so they don't have to spend any.
And you're attempting to bash the P2P folks?
Seriously?
What are you smoking, Axe?
Now, on the possibility that you're implying that supporting P2P is supporting a failing revenue model, well... again, allow me to disabuse you of that notion...
1) A game's revenue model doesn't determine its success. Its quality as a game does. Good games continue to do just fine as P2P. Poor ones don't.
FFXI is over 11 years old and still going strong with a sub, because it's worth it to enough people to keep it going.
FFXIV ARR is proof that not only can a modern MMORPG be successful with a subscription model, but that a failed MMO can have a second chance and succeed... if it's done well.
Eve Online - still going strong with a subscription.
WoW - 'nuff said.
DAoC - still P2P and doing well enough for them to keep it that way.
And so on. These games are all doing well enough with their subscription bases to keep going, to keep developing, to keep adding content and supporting the game. P2P is working just fine for them... your implications otherwise notwithstanding.
2) Among P2P MMOs that have gone F2P, I can think of only 1 (Lineage 2) that didn't retain a standard monthly subscription option, which remain popular. That's not arbitrary. It's because there are still many people who prefer a flat, persistent fee over the nickel-and-dime nature of a cash shop.
3) To append #1... Like any other product or service... a MMORPG succeeds or fails based on its perceived quality to its intended market. Period.
Over 10 years of MMORPGs successfully running with a subscription (before F2P became "the thing" here in the West) shows perfectly well that people will readily and willingly pay a monthly fee if the service they are buying is worth it to them. In the cases where that service wasn't up to snuff, the games went offline, in much the same way that a failed brick-and-mortar business will have to close its doors if it's not generating enough business to survive.
This isn't rocket science. It's pretty basic, conventional wisdom type stuff. I shouldn't really have to explain it, yet, when I read posts like yours, Axe, I feel like I have to... because your arguments are just so incredibly shallow and one-dimensional.
I know it's a small thing and probably not many people care. But it has always bothered me. Selling cosmetic items in a cash shop is generally seen as an acceptable practice. And yet that has allowed for a subtle but steady shift away from the immersive virtual worlds I miss so dearly these days.
Cosmetic items: clothing, mounts, pets, titles, auras etc. These used to be part of the game itself. Part of the lore. Perhaps a side quest somewhere. Or tied into a crafting system.
But they are not anymore. They are in a store. And the devs get a pat on the back because at least they aren't selling combat buffs.
I guess I just don't belong in this new style of mmorpg. Even my mmo of choice does it. Best I can do is try to ignore it. My preferred play style is becoming a niche of a niche of a niche lol. Oh well. Nothing lasts forever
As opposed to paying a Subscription when 99% of the money you speant on the sub does not go toward the development of the game? no thanks, I'll stick with the superior, more robust, more rewarding F2P business model. Subscription's where a product of the mid 90's when Internet was in in its infancy and server hosting fees were astronomical. This isn't the case any more and 99% of gaming realizes it hence Subscriptions are such a small sub set of gaming that it is almost infinitely non existent.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
I agree,some are not showing the greed of others but still it is not a good thing for gaming.I want to have access to everything in a game,if the developer is ONLY making items for the cash shop,then the design is a big fail and the f2p system is a fail.
The MAIN game should always be the devs focus not the cash shop.
However in saying that,i could accept a cash shop under two circumstances.
1 A subscription is an alternative and all sub players have access to every item in game through logical means,such as crafting or a quest reward,NOT via some .5% drop making the cash shop a better option.
2 the cash shop would ONLY apply to players that don't have a subscription.
What baffles me is why these two alternatives have not been a staple of every developer,it gives the best of both options.
Having given my two exceptions still needs one more added and that is i would NOT want to see a slack effort by the developer ONLY aiming at cash shop.Example,i want to see CONTENT added not just fluff wear and any other item they can sell in the cash shop.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I know it's a small thing and probably not many people care. But it has always bothered me. Selling cosmetic items in a cash shop is generally seen as an acceptable practice. And yet that has allowed for a subtle but steady shift away from the immersive virtual worlds I miss so dearly these days.
Cosmetic items: clothing, mounts, pets, titles, auras etc. These used to be part of the game itself. Part of the lore. Perhaps a side quest somewhere. Or tied into a crafting system.
But they are not anymore. They are in a store. And the devs get a pat on the back because at least they aren't selling combat buffs.
I guess I just don't belong in this new style of mmorpg. Even my mmo of choice does it. Best I can do is try to ignore it. My preferred play style is becoming a niche of a niche of a niche lol. Oh well. Nothing lasts forever
As opposed to paying a Subscription when 99% of the money you speant on the sub does not go toward the development of the game? no thanks, I'll stick with the superior, more robust, more rewarding F2P business model. Subscription's where a product of the mid 90's when Internet was in in its infancy and server hosting fees were astronomical. This isn't the case any more and 99% of gaming realizes it hence Subscriptions are such a small sub set of gaming that it is almost infinitely non existent.
99% doesn't go toward the development of the game?
...
Okay, back that up, with a valid, verifiable source, please. I want to see where you're getting your numbers from. And I don't mean providing one specific example from one specific developer, where it may have been true at one specific time in one specific situation - not that I think you can provide even that much.
I mean, provide proof that this was in any way common practice among MMO developers when you say it was.
I mean seriously... you're honestly arguing that, of the revenue a P2P MMO brings in... that only 1% of it goes back to paying the programmers, artists, writers, QA staff, musicians, etc. etc. etc?
Well, okay.. I've requested proof to back up your figures, and so I'll allow you the opportunity to provide it. I won't be holding my breath, though.
In a world where game development costs have skyrocketed (good or bad) competition has increased 10 fold and the cost to buy has not changed in over a decade then yes those advocating for that model are saying don't survive.
If someone is advocating for a model that for many games have shown is not enough to sustain their, then yes they are advocating for the game to not survive.
It's all very well and good to say make a better game and for games currently in development they have that shot. But for games already released then need to make money or they will die. And p2p alone in todays world of competition and overpriced development has been shown in many many cases to not be enough.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I know it's a small thing and probably not many people care. But it has always bothered me. Selling cosmetic items in a cash shop is generally seen as an acceptable practice. And yet that has allowed for a subtle but steady shift away from the immersive virtual worlds I miss so dearly these days.
Cosmetic items: clothing, mounts, pets, titles, auras etc. These used to be part of the game itself. Part of the lore. Perhaps a side quest somewhere. Or tied into a crafting system.
But they are not anymore. They are in a store. And the devs get a pat on the back because at least they aren't selling combat buffs.
I guess I just don't belong in this new style of mmorpg. Even my mmo of choice does it. Best I can do is try to ignore it. My preferred play style is becoming a niche of a niche of a niche lol. Oh well. Nothing lasts forever
As opposed to paying a Subscription when 99% of the money you speant on the sub does not go toward the development of the game? no thanks, I'll stick with the superior, more robust, more rewarding F2P business model. Subscription's where a product of the mid 90's when Internet was in in its infancy and server hosting fees were astronomical. This isn't the case any more and 99% of gaming realizes it hence Subscriptions are such a small sub set of gaming that it is almost infinitely non existent.
You do realize that 99% (you seem to like this figure) of MMO players play WoW and that WoW is a subsciption MMO ?
In a world where game development costs have skyrocketed (good or bad) competition has increased 10 fold and the cost to buy has not changed in over a decade then yes those advocating for that model are saying don't survive.
If someone is advocating for a model that for many games have shown is not enough to sustain their, then yes they are advocating for the game to not survive.
It's all very well and good to say make a better game and for games currently in development they have that shot. But for games already released then need to make money or they will die. And p2p alone in todays world of competition and overpriced development has been shown in many many cases to not be enough.
Then how do you resolve FFXI, FFXIV, DAoC, Eve, WoW, etc? They're surviving and doing just fine as P2P. XIV is doing very well, and it came back as a re-launched game, which had failed horribly the first time around and very few had any faith in going anywhere. Even SE had low expectations for how it would go. It relaunched among all this other competition. This is in a genre where 2nd chances are typically non-existent. Yet there it is... doing fine.
AC1 and AC2 maintained a subscription up 'til just very recently.
If F2P is the superior revenue model, then why are developers still spending the time and expense to implement and maintain a P2P/Monthly Sub option, even after making that switch? Why continue to support a model that, according to the pro-F2P crowd, is obsolete?
I know it's convenient, but when you're making arguments like this, you can not just simply ignore all examples that refute your claims. It's completely dishonest to continue saying "nope, can't be done", when it very plainly is being done as we speak.
Ignoring all data that refutes your point-of-view, and only adhering what does is not the way to make a compelling argument. It's called Confirmation Bias.
There are MMORPGs that are surviving and even thriving on a monthly subscription - even with all the competition and such you mention. It's blatant willful ignorance to argue otherwise.
So, clearly it is possible, and there's something these games are doing well, or well enough to make them succeed as P2P, where others have failed.
Again, I shouldn't have to explain this, but I'll come out and say it...
Preferring P2P is not asking developers to not succeed - because clearly it is possible to do just that. It's asking - or at least wanting - developers to produce a product that people will find worth paying a monthly fee to play.
Is that really such a complicated idea to grasp, that it has to be spelled out?
1. Daoc Eve and WoW are over a decade old and have repaid all their costs and were developed at time when the costs were not nearly this exorbitant. And 3 of those games are not p2p alone, they have some other system to support costs such as a CS or plex.
2. I stated many games - not all. A few will be able to do it. Many will not.
I did not state f2p is the superior model. The superior model appears (right now anyway) to be some combination. A freemium model that gives the user the choice to sub, or go free to sub and still get CS items.
I'm not ignoring them. I've stated many, again a few will be able to do it. But many (most?) will not.
It's risk vs reward as many gamers like to say. If I was a dev I just don't see the reward in only offering p2p. The reward (more money) seems to be with a CS of some kind.
Advocating for P2P alone imo is asking devs to gamble with their livelihoods when the stats don't support them.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
1. Daoc Eve and WoW are over a decade old and have repaid all their costs. - Irrelevant. The costs of operating, supporting and developing the game don't go away just because the original development has been paid off.
2. I stated many games - not all. A few will be able to do it. Many will not. If you acknowledge that it's possible, then why make the absolute statement that it's asking for developers to not be successful? Why not argue instead as I have... give us a game that is actually worth paying a sub, and we'll happily pay it.
I did not state f2p is the superior model. The superior model appears (right now anyway) to be some combination. A freemium model that gives the user the choice to sub, or go free to sub and still get CS items. You didn't say it specifically, but it's a pretty widely argued belief that it is. Also, people who are anti-P2P are typically pro-F2P to some degree.
I'm not ignoring them. I've stated many, again a few will be able to do it. But many (most?) will not. See my response to item 2.
It's risk vs reward as many gamers like to say. If I was a dev I just don't see the reward in only offering p2p. The reward (more money) seems to be with a CS of some kind. I rather like Runescape's approach. Can play the game for free, and do quite a lot, but with a number of limitations. Paying a monthly sub unlocks the whole game to you.
Advocating for P2P alone imo is asking devs to gamble with their livelihoods when the stats don't support them. Maybe, though at least the waters are friendlier to a developer who attempts P2P but finds it not working out. Once upon a time it was sink or swim. Now it's swim or go F2P/Hybrid. So, while there's still risk, it's not as bad as it used to be. As much as I dislike F2P/Cash Shops, I realize they can at least provide a life jacket to a deveoper who's not having a good go of it as P2P.
Though again, if a developer isn't doing well as P2P, I would say they should be looking at their design/execution, and listening to the more constructive feedback they're getting, because something there isn't working. If other MMOs can survive as P2P, then any MMO can... if they're doing it right.
One thing I will agree with is that there is a lot more competition in the MMO space now, so yes.. you do have to do more to stand out and be noticed. Of course, it's also a lot easier to get the word out now with Social Media being so pervasive, etc. But at that point, it's a matter of also delivering a solid product that makes a monthly sub feel worthwhile. If your game is solid and fun, and you don't blow it, word will get around and you'll see your player-base grow.
Like I said WoW and FFXIV have cash shops. EVE has PLEX to supplement their revenue. They aren't P2P. They're hybrid with mandatory subs. SquareEnix isn't beholden to anyone else and can run their IPs how they want. They can accept lower potential revenue to present the PR they want. FFXI and DAoC are in maintenance mode and aren't worth the investment to upgrade their infrastructure. They have enough revenue to keep their doors open and provide anemic lackluster updates.
If a game company wants to succeed now, outside of small niche titles with low expectations, they need a hybrid approach at the very least. Note the new Crowfall is being advertised as B2P not P2P-sub locked.
You're deluded my friend. If an MMORPG wants to succeed it needs to be a good source of lasting entertainment, period. Payment model is completely irrelevant. Games generally go free to play because they're terrible and would otherwise have zero players, not because F2P is the superior model that everyone has wet dreams about.
Comments
Well I don't know about Anet convincing me that subs were a scam. However, they proved to me twice in a row with GW1 and GW2 that subs and good games don't always go hand in hand and that an MMO can indeed be just a one time purchase investment without a monthly rental fee.
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
I agree, I think all parts of the game should come from achievement in the game. Good looking or unique gear was a part of progression, along with the power increase. The problem is that cosmetics are the least invasive form of income for titles and this alternate revenue is paramount in the F2P/B2P era we are in. I would love to go back to the box-sub model as the standard but I don't see it coming back until available technology creates gameplay that is not like everyone else.
I just don't see it at least not for the first few generations of this new gameplay style that is hugely popular whatever that might end up being. To build a big game with advanced new systems takes money, lots of it and the game market we are in today you can't get that money to build the game with subscription models alone unless you can self finance like Bioware/EA, Square Enix and Bethesda did. So unless one of the handful of game companies out there sitting on the cash to self finance one of these projects takes it on (most of the ones who could have already tried once) it's going to be driven towards the highest possible revenue model which is some form of cash shop and most likely so called F2P. At this point Valve is probably the only company who could do it and they haven't exactly been shy of micro transactions.
Kickstarter couldn't do it either. As even the basic idea of adding reward tiers for contributing will pollute a project like this before it even begins and most kickstarter projects have no where near the money poured into them to make the leap it's going to take to really pull this market together under one game never the less a subscription game. If that's even possible at this point at all.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And that whole "at least is isn't a combat buff", or "at least it isn't game-breaking", or "at least it isn't P2W", or of course, the ever popular "It's optional!" is how they pull it off.
The idea is to divert attention away from the fact that you're selling them content that's already created and likely on their HDs, by distracting them with statements about how "it could be worse! At least we're not selling power!", and they'll more readily accept what you were actually after to begin with.
You're essentially swapping one question with a different one. You get them asking "is selling cosmetic items as bad as selling power?", rather than what they should be thinking, which is "shouldn't even the cosmetic items be content available by playing the game too?"
It's in the same vein as the whole bargaining thing. If you want to sell something for 20,000... advertise selling it for 25,000 instead - even if you know 25k is completely unrealistic. The idea is that someone's going to say "25,000 is ridiculous! No way it's worth that much! I'll pay you 15,000 (because they're doing the same thing as you, but in reverse). You eventually settle on 20k as a nice "middle point". They feel like they got a better deal, and you got what you wanted to in the first place.
Same exact concept at work here.
And people fall for it every time. Because gullibility, and inability, or refusal to think critically.
Are you being consistently obtuse for a reason or do you come from a realm where money grows on trees?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Why settle for $30 subscription when it can be $100 or even $500 per month? Clearly, the more money you spend, the better the product you get... or so they'd like you to believe.
Just make the game, put it in a box, slap a price on it and sell it. Don't promise new content or balancing, just bug fixes. When you have something new to add, put it in a box, slap a price on it and sell it. Worked for decades. People made a living. Gamers were happy.
We live in a nickel and dime world... greed is the only game there is and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.
That seems to be the gist of it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Axe, that is the most awfully disingenuous and inaccurate depiction of P2P gamers I've ever seen.
Seriously, does your dishonesty have no limits, Axe? Is there nothing too ludicrous for you to type, so long as it serves your ends?
So, let me get this straight... in a world of F2P gamers, of whom a very high % admittedly play as much as they want without ever contributing a dime to support the developers... you have the temerity to come here and characterize pro-P2P gamers - the people who prefer to pay and want to actively support the developers - as the ones who don't want to see them survive?
What's worse, with F2P'ers, we're talking about a population of people whom expect others to spend lots of money (ie. whales), so they don't have to spend any.
And you're attempting to bash the P2P folks?
Seriously?
What are you smoking, Axe?
Now, on the possibility that you're implying that supporting P2P is supporting a failing revenue model, well... again, allow me to disabuse you of that notion...
1) A game's revenue model doesn't determine its success. Its quality as a game does. Good games continue to do just fine as P2P. Poor ones don't.
FFXI is over 11 years old and still going strong with a sub, because it's worth it to enough people to keep it going.
FFXIV ARR is proof that not only can a modern MMORPG be successful with a subscription model, but that a failed MMO can have a second chance and succeed... if it's done well.
Eve Online - still going strong with a subscription.
WoW - 'nuff said.
DAoC - still P2P and doing well enough for them to keep it that way.
And so on. These games are all doing well enough with their subscription bases to keep going, to keep developing, to keep adding content and supporting the game. P2P is working just fine for them... your implications otherwise notwithstanding.
2) Among P2P MMOs that have gone F2P, I can think of only 1 (Lineage 2) that didn't retain a standard monthly subscription option, which remain popular. That's not arbitrary. It's because there are still many people who prefer a flat, persistent fee over the nickel-and-dime nature of a cash shop.
3) To append #1... Like any other product or service... a MMORPG succeeds or fails based on its perceived quality to its intended market. Period.
Over 10 years of MMORPGs successfully running with a subscription (before F2P became "the thing" here in the West) shows perfectly well that people will readily and willingly pay a monthly fee if the service they are buying is worth it to them. In the cases where that service wasn't up to snuff, the games went offline, in much the same way that a failed brick-and-mortar business will have to close its doors if it's not generating enough business to survive.
This isn't rocket science. It's pretty basic, conventional wisdom type stuff. I shouldn't really have to explain it, yet, when I read posts like yours, Axe, I feel like I have to... because your arguments are just so incredibly shallow and one-dimensional.
As opposed to paying a Subscription when 99% of the money you speant on the sub does not go toward the development of the game? no thanks, I'll stick with the superior, more robust, more rewarding F2P business model. Subscription's where a product of the mid 90's when Internet was in in its infancy and server hosting fees were astronomical. This isn't the case any more and 99% of gaming realizes it hence Subscriptions are such a small sub set of gaming that it is almost infinitely non existent.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
How come my internet access is 1/4 of what it was a decade ago, yet $15 subscription cost is not enough?
I agree,some are not showing the greed of others but still it is not a good thing for gaming.I want to have access to everything in a game,if the developer is ONLY making items for the cash shop,then the design is a big fail and the f2p system is a fail.
The MAIN game should always be the devs focus not the cash shop.
However in saying that,i could accept a cash shop under two circumstances.
1 A subscription is an alternative and all sub players have access to every item in game through logical means,such as crafting or a quest reward,NOT via some .5% drop making the cash shop a better option.
2 the cash shop would ONLY apply to players that don't have a subscription.
What baffles me is why these two alternatives have not been a staple of every developer,it gives the best of both options.
Having given my two exceptions still needs one more added and that is i would NOT want to see a slack effort by the developer ONLY aiming at cash shop.Example,i want to see CONTENT added not just fluff wear and any other item they can sell in the cash shop.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
99% doesn't go toward the development of the game?
...
Okay, back that up, with a valid, verifiable source, please. I want to see where you're getting your numbers from. And I don't mean providing one specific example from one specific developer, where it may have been true at one specific time in one specific situation - not that I think you can provide even that much.
I mean, provide proof that this was in any way common practice among MMO developers when you say it was.
I mean seriously... you're honestly arguing that, of the revenue a P2P MMO brings in... that only 1% of it goes back to paying the programmers, artists, writers, QA staff, musicians, etc. etc. etc?
Well, okay.. I've requested proof to back up your figures, and so I'll allow you the opportunity to provide it. I won't be holding my breath, though.
In a world where game development costs have skyrocketed (good or bad) competition has increased 10 fold and the cost to buy has not changed in over a decade then yes those advocating for that model are saying don't survive.
If someone is advocating for a model that for many games have shown is not enough to sustain their, then yes they are advocating for the game to not survive.
It's all very well and good to say make a better game and for games currently in development they have that shot. But for games already released then need to make money or they will die. And p2p alone in todays world of competition and overpriced development has been shown in many many cases to not be enough.
You do realize that 99% (you seem to like this figure) of MMO players play WoW and that WoW is a subsciption MMO ?
Then how do you resolve FFXI, FFXIV, DAoC, Eve, WoW, etc? They're surviving and doing just fine as P2P. XIV is doing very well, and it came back as a re-launched game, which had failed horribly the first time around and very few had any faith in going anywhere. Even SE had low expectations for how it would go. It relaunched among all this other competition. This is in a genre where 2nd chances are typically non-existent. Yet there it is... doing fine.
AC1 and AC2 maintained a subscription up 'til just very recently.
If F2P is the superior revenue model, then why are developers still spending the time and expense to implement and maintain a P2P/Monthly Sub option, even after making that switch? Why continue to support a model that, according to the pro-F2P crowd, is obsolete?
I know it's convenient, but when you're making arguments like this, you can not just simply ignore all examples that refute your claims. It's completely dishonest to continue saying "nope, can't be done", when it very plainly is being done as we speak.
Ignoring all data that refutes your point-of-view, and only adhering what does is not the way to make a compelling argument. It's called Confirmation Bias.
There are MMORPGs that are surviving and even thriving on a monthly subscription - even with all the competition and such you mention. It's blatant willful ignorance to argue otherwise.
So, clearly it is possible, and there's something these games are doing well, or well enough to make them succeed as P2P, where others have failed.
Again, I shouldn't have to explain this, but I'll come out and say it...
Preferring P2P is not asking developers to not succeed - because clearly it is possible to do just that. It's asking - or at least wanting - developers to produce a product that people will find worth paying a monthly fee to play.
Is that really such a complicated idea to grasp, that it has to be spelled out?
1. Daoc Eve and WoW are over a decade old and have repaid all their costs and were developed at time when the costs were not nearly this exorbitant. And 3 of those games are not p2p alone, they have some other system to support costs such as a CS or plex.
2. I stated many games - not all. A few will be able to do it. Many will not.
I did not state f2p is the superior model. The superior model appears (right now anyway) to be some combination. A freemium model that gives the user the choice to sub, or go free to sub and still get CS items.
I'm not ignoring them. I've stated many, again a few will be able to do it. But many (most?) will not.
It's risk vs reward as many gamers like to say. If I was a dev I just don't see the reward in only offering p2p. The reward (more money) seems to be with a CS of some kind.
Advocating for P2P alone imo is asking devs to gamble with their livelihoods when the stats don't support them.
You're deluded my friend. If an MMORPG wants to succeed it needs to be a good source of lasting entertainment, period. Payment model is completely irrelevant. Games generally go free to play because they're terrible and would otherwise have zero players, not because F2P is the superior model that everyone has wet dreams about.