Originally posted by JC-Smith You have to monetize in some way. Subscription is tough these days. The only games that do well on subscription are those which have been around for ages and have an old loyal fanbase. Every other subscription game is free to play a year later. Free to Play or Buy to Play needs to monetize in some way and cosmetics are the lesser evil.
There is another question here. You say "The only games that do well on subscription models are those which have been around" And that is true, but why? Why is that true? Or more to the point, why can't the opposite be true?
I am going to use SWTOR as an example. The game launches as a purely subscription model and fails under that model. They change the business model and go F2P where it becomes much more successful. But what was the reason SWTOR initially failed? Was it because it was subscription? Or was it because the game was released too soon? Once BW completed their game and turned it into something players wanted, they are now making money as a hybrid game Players are subscribing on top of the Cash Shop. So now the question is, Why did that revenue model fail in the 1st place? Was it the model or the game? I think it was more about the game than the model. I have said for years and will continue to say that the reason why the subscription model is failing isn't because of the model. It's because the games themselves are failing to retain players for more than a couple of months.
So it's become a situation where no publisher in their right mind is going to gamble on that. And while I prefer the old model, I can accept some of these hybrid models. It's when publishers become swallowed in their own greed that becomes unacceptable.
Originally posted by JC-Smith You have to monetize in some way. Subscription is tough these days. The only games that do well on subscription are those which have been around for ages and have an old loyal fanbase. Every other subscription game is free to play a year later. Free to Play or Buy to Play needs to monetize in some way and cosmetics are the lesser evil.
There is another question here. You say "The only games that do well on subscription models are those which have been around" And that is true, but why? Why is that true? Or more to the point, why can't the opposite be true?
I am going to use SWTOR as an example. The game launches as a purely subscription model and fails under that model. They change the business model and go F2P where it becomes much more successful. But what was the reason SWTOR initially failed? Was it because it was subscription? Or was it because the game was released too soon? Once BW completed their game and turned it into something players wanted, they are now making money as a hybrid game Players are subscribing on top of the Cash Shop. So now the question is, Why did that revenue model fail in the 1st place? Was it the model or the game? I think it was more about the game than the model. I have said for years and will continue to say that the reason why the subscription model is failing isn't because of the model. It's because the games themselves are failing to retain players for more than a couple of months.
So it's become a situation where no publisher in their right mind is going to gamble on that. And while I prefer the old model, I can accept some of these hybrid models. It's when publishers become swallowed in their own greed that becomes unacceptable.
SWTOR is a bad example because I believe you are absolutely right, it did fail as a P2P for exactly that reason. I remember some dude coming on these forums saying how he had maxed out a character after about 2 weeks. No game is going to last as P2P when people are at endgame in that short a time.
But what about Lord of the Rings? Now there is a game with tons of content and a very popular IP as well. It took a bit longer longer ( more content? ) but it obviously failed as P2P as well. Why?
Is it we as gamers that have a limited attention span today? Is there a limit to how long we are willing to commit mentally and financially to any game? Do we just begin to get wanderlust after a certain period? Or is it just that we have too many options for gaming these days, and it is impossible to focus on just one game anymore?
I think it is a combination of all those things, but that mainly comes down to us as players. The game companies are just giving us what we want. Not what everyone wants obviously, but what most people want it seems.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Selling cosmetic items was a first step to the sorry state we are in now. Rather like a gateway drug it has led to gamers being addicted to the P2W cash shop that is now the norm.
In of itself cosmetic items are not an issue, but they not only made buying items normal for players, they created a signpost for gaming companies. A signpost that said "Make money here". So that's the route they went down, and now we have casino-play as the latest iteration of the cash shop brand. I say latest because if you have any sense you know there is worse to come.
P2P MMOs are nearly dead, B2P MMOs are the fall back position. But there is only one king in the world of MMOs and its name is cash shop, P2P/B2P/F2P it does not matter, cash shop is king.
And since we are talking about an entertainment service, it is the consumer that placed the crown upon its head.
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
But what about Lord of the Rings? Now there is a game with tons of content and a very popular IP as well. It took a bit longer longer ( more content? ) but it obviously failed as P2P as well. Why?
It didn't fail as P2P. The transition was planned. The name for the business model escapes me right now, but it's a strategy in the industry that devs have been using for a half a decade or more. The model basically goes like this:
Sell Founder/VIP/Early access during development to generate revenue pre-release.
Sell "lifetime" memberships or perk-laden annual memberships to bring in 1-year or even 3-year revenue early. "Lifetime" membership means you're passing up continued revenue from your most loyal fans unless you've got a longer term strategy, so yeah...
The F2P switch usually also gets an early revenue boost with rewards or incentives to be a subscriber at the time of switch to the hybrid F2P/Premium sub model.
Again, not all switches are planned and calculated. LOTRO's was. Both Steefel (EP) and Anderson (CEO) brought it up in several interviews prior to release. As a journalist, there wasn't a meeting or gathering I went to where one or both wouldn't try to get a feel from the crowd on F2P in LOTRO. If I can find the name of the model, I'll update this post with 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
LOTRO, *sigh*. It sits in a very strange place in the genre now.
LOTRO stopped being an MMO a while back. It lies somewhere between a marketing campaign and a shopping mall. I'm surprised they didn't replace Gandalf's face with Michael Douglas.
SWTOR is a bad example because I believe you are absolutely right, it did fail as a P2P for exactly that reason. I remember some dude coming on these forums saying how he had maxed out a character after about 2 weeks. No game is going to last as P2P when people are at endgame in that short a time.
But what about Lord of the Rings? Now there is a game with tons of content and a very popular IP as well. It took a bit longer longer ( more content? ) but it obviously failed as P2P as well. Why?
Is it we as gamers that have a limited attention span today? Is there a limit to how long we are willing to commit mentally and financially to any game? Do we just begin to get wanderlust after a certain period? Or is it just that we have too many options for gaming these days, and it is impossible to focus on just one game anymore?
I think it is a combination of all those things, but that mainly comes down to us as players. The game companies are just giving us what we want. Not what everyone wants obviously, but what most people want it seems.
A note here on LOTRO. Several times they have said that the switch to free to play in both DDO and LOTRO had nothing to do with the income from sub model being inefficient to run the company. I'm not sure who started that rumor but you aren't the first I've seen to suggest it.
They talk about that they wanted to learn about microtransactions because they wanted to use it in console development. I was playing LOTRO when it went free to play and I remember people talking about buying lifetime subscriptions up until it happened. Those were about 200 bucks a pop. Some of them posted on the forum angry about having just spent that much on a game that just went free. The population also wasn't dead in LOTRO when the switch happened.
"
Such a transition lends itself to speculation that perhaps the game was not continuing to succeed on a subscription model, but Mersky says that’s not the case. "If that were the case, we wouldn’t have kept rolling out two, three, four updates a year. We were doing fine as a business."
Paiz repeated Turbine's stance that the developer didn't change its business model because Lord of the Rings Online was in trouble; rather, it believed the game could reach new audiences with this move.
Originally posted by JC-Smith You have to monetize in some way. Subscription is tough these days. The only games that do well on subscription are those which have been around for ages and have an old loyal fanbase. Every other subscription game is free to play a year later. Free to Play or Buy to Play needs to monetize in some way and cosmetics are the lesser evil.
There is another question here. You say "The only games that do well on subscription models are those which have been around" And that is true, but why? Why is that true? Or more to the point, why can't the opposite be true?
I am going to use SWTOR as an example. The game launches as a purely subscription model and fails under that model. They change the business model and go F2P where it becomes much more successful. But what was the reason SWTOR initially failed? Was it because it was subscription? Or was it because the game was released too soon? Once BW completed their game and turned it into something players wanted, they are now making money as a hybrid game Players are subscribing on top of the Cash Shop. So now the question is, Why did that revenue model fail in the 1st place? Was it the model or the game? I think it was more about the game than the model. I have said for years and will continue to say that the reason why the subscription model is failing isn't because of the model. It's because the games themselves are failing to retain players for more than a couple of months.
So it's become a situation where no publisher in their right mind is going to gamble on that. And while I prefer the old model, I can accept some of these hybrid models. It's when publishers become swallowed in their own greed that becomes unacceptable.
SWTOR is a bad example because I believe you are absolutely right, it did fail as a P2P for exactly that reason. I remember some dude coming on these forums saying how he had maxed out a character after about 2 weeks. No game is going to last as P2P when people are at endgame in that short a time.
But what about Lord of the Rings? Now there is a game with tons of content and a very popular IP as well. It took a bit longer longer ( more content? ) but it obviously failed as P2P as well. Why?
Is it we as gamers that have a limited attention span today? Is there a limit to how long we are willing to commit mentally and financially to any game? Do we just begin to get wanderlust after a certain period? Or is it just that we have too many options for gaming these days, and it is impossible to focus on just one game anymore?
I think it is a combination of all those things, but that mainly comes down to us as players. The game companies are just giving us what we want. Not what everyone wants obviously, but what most people want it seems.
And that brings up another question. Why are games failing to retain players after only a few months? And can that be corrected or is it that we have changed? I am not so sure we have changed all that much. As individuals, we have. But we have kids who play games the way we played them. And while the technology has improved, what stimulates them hasn't really changed.
Certainly, there are many more options competing for our time now then 12-15 years ago. It's a factor, but that can't be all of it.
SWTOR is a bad example because I believe you are absolutely right, it did fail as a P2P for exactly that reason. I remember some dude coming on these forums saying how he had maxed out a character after about 2 weeks. No game is going to last as P2P when people are at endgame in that short a time.
But what about Lord of the Rings? Now there is a game with tons of content and a very popular IP as well. It took a bit longer longer ( more content? ) but it obviously failed as P2P as well. Why?
Is it we as gamers that have a limited attention span today? Is there a limit to how long we are willing to commit mentally and financially to any game? Do we just begin to get wanderlust after a certain period? Or is it just that we have too many options for gaming these days, and it is impossible to focus on just one game anymore?
I think it is a combination of all those things, but that mainly comes down to us as players. The game companies are just giving us what we want. Not what everyone wants obviously, but what most people want it seems.
A note here on LOTRO. Several times they have said that the switch to free to play in both DDO and LOTRO had nothing to do with the income from sub model being inefficient to run the company. I'm not sure who started that rumor but you aren't the first I've seen to suggest it.
They talk about that they wanted to learn about microtransactions because they wanted to use it in console development. I was playing LOTRO when it went free to play and I remember people talking about buying lifetime subscriptions up until it happened. Those were about 200 bucks a pop. Some of them posted on the forum angry about having just spent that much on a game that just went free. The population also wasn't dead in LOTRO when the switch happened.
"
Such a transition lends itself to speculation that perhaps the game was not continuing to succeed on a subscription model, but Mersky says that’s not the case. "If that were the case, we wouldn’t have kept rolling out two, three, four updates a year. We were doing fine as a business."
Paiz repeated Turbine's stance that the developer didn't change its business model because Lord of the Rings Online was in trouble; rather, it believed the game could reach new audiences with this move.
That almost seems to me like a concession from a major AAA game developer that if we can't beat them, we might as well join them.
I am not sure what that says about the state of MMO's today....
It did get me to try the game however and I really enjoyed it and did spend money on it. If it had remained as a sub, I probably would not have.
"Them" in that context is the consumers.
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
And that brings up another question. Why are games failing to retain players after only a few months? And can that be corrected or is it that we have changed?
Because "retain players after a few month" is not the objective? There are other ways to make money. Single player games don't need to "retain players after a few months", and MMOs are learning how to do that.
If it is not desired, there is no need to "correct" anything.
And that brings up another question. Why are games failing to retain players after only a few months? And can that be corrected or is it that we have changed?
Because "retain players after a few month" is not the objective? There are other ways to make money. Single player games don't need to "retain players after a few months", and MMOs are learning how to do that.
If it is not desired, there is no need to "correct" anything.
As exemplified by the ArcheAge business model?
The only way that's going to work is to get all the money in as hard and fast as possible since MMORPGs are not known for cycling fresh blood though. There is an early window to capture their market, then it's down hill. So Player retention is all they have left.
Selling cosmetic items was a first step to the sorry state we are in now. Rather like a gateway drug it has led to gamers being addicted to the P2W cash shop that is now the norm.
In of itself cosmetic items are not an issue, but they not only made buying items normal for players, they created a signpost for gaming companies. A signpost that said "Make money here". So that's the route they went down, and now we have casino-play as the latest iteration of the cash shop brand. I say latest because if you have any sense you know there is worse to come.
P2P MMOs are nearly dead, B2P MMOs are the fall back position. But there is only one king in the world of MMOs and its name is cash shop, P2P/B2P/F2P it does not matter, cash shop is king.
This will sound weird coming from someone who is so hatefully cynical about most modern MMOs, but what sorry state exactly? The state of games you and I don't want to play? Or the state where there are more profitable MMOs on the market than ever before? Sure while not all of them are making WOW money, and some may have gone the way of the worm, some may have stumbled and had to adjust their marketing plan to stay in the game, as it were, you can't deny that regardless of how you an I may feel about it, just like the rest of the gaming industry, monetarily, MMOs are booming.
The problem is that people do not understand what is happening, but they 'feel' that something has changed. The issue is that markets are saturated, and are competing with other products for the same customers time. The retention rates are about the same, but the acquisition costs are starting to rise again. This is also coupled with a bloated development/operation cost that makes profit more difficult to achieve.
In 2010 games started converting to F2P to get around the higher acquisition cost. Now that (almost) everyone is F2P, the competition is causing the cost to increase again. The bloated development/operations cost has been around for almost a decade (post WoW) but it was sustainable, as long as you can keep acquisition cost low. Now that acquisition costs have bottomed out, and are on the rise... people have to deal with the cost of development/operations, and this is MUCH harder to deal with.
Selling cosmetic items was a first step to the sorry state we are in now. Rather like a gateway drug it has led to gamers being addicted to the P2W cash shop that is now the norm.
In of itself cosmetic items are not an issue, but they not only made buying items normal for players, they created a signpost for gaming companies. A signpost that said "Make money here". So that's the route they went down, and now we have casino-play as the latest iteration of the cash shop brand. I say latest because if you have any sense you know there is worse to come.
P2P MMOs are nearly dead, B2P MMOs are the fall back position. But there is only one king in the world of MMOs and its name is cash shop, P2P/B2P/F2P it does not matter, cash shop is king.
This will sound weird coming from someone who is so hatefully cynical about most modern MMOs, but what sorry state exactly? The state of games you and I don't want to play? Or the state where there are more profitable MMOs on the market than ever before? Sure while not all of them are making WOW money, and some may have gone the way of the worm, some may have stumbled and had to adjust their marketing plan to stay in the game, as it were, you can't deny that regardless of how you an I may feel about it, just like the rest of the gaming industry, monetarily, MMOs are booming.
The problem is that people do not understand what is happening, but they 'feel' that something has changed. The issue is that markets are saturated, and are competing with other products for the same customers time. The retention rates are about the same, but the acquisition costs are starting to rise again. This is also coupled with a bloated development/operation cost that makes profit more difficult to achieve.
In 2010 games started converting to F2P to get around the higher acquisition cost. Now that (almost) everyone is F2P, the competition is causing the cost to increase again. The bloated development/operations cost has been around for almost a decade (post WoW) but it was sustainable, as long as you can keep acquisition cost low. Now that acquisition costs have bottomed out, and are on the rise... people have to deal with the cost of development/operations, and this is MUCH harder to deal with.
These two posts by superman and zebub are great and drive to the core. These would both be excellent comments in the discussion thread around Bill Murphy's "We're Not All Right" article.
The easy money is gone, at least for now, and that is probably a good thing because easy money isn't sustainable and creates all sorts of bad side effects. One of those has been the idiotic development costs around games.
Narius also made a good point in another post (paraphrasing): MMOs are now starting to figure out how to monetize and exist like single player games have for 3 decades now.
I'm hoping this B2P hybrid model is the emerging phoenix from the ashes. This directly addresses acquisition and quality development. It does raise the bar for new entries because they have to get players to try their game, but it also might weed out some of the chaff in the industry.
Would it be considered spamming or against some forum rule to start a new thread with these three posts as the OP?
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
I'm hoping this B2P hybrid model is the emerging phoenix from the ashes. This directly addresses acquisition and quality development. It does raise the bar for new entries because they have to get players to try their game, but it also might weed out some of the chaff in the industry.
Competition will take care of things.
If MMOs are no longer fun for the audience, they will do something else, and MMOs will die. So the devs always adapt and change.
But the point is .. even if MMOs die, there won't be a lack of fun entertainment for most, because that demand is worth a lot.
More and more players are refusing to play a Game where they have to pay a subscription to play the game... So your other options are Buy2Play these games you have to keep on getting box sales in order to pay for the Up keep costs... Sooner or later you run out of people buying the game so the money runs out. So your forced to develop an Expansion pack that is sold to keep the money rolling in to maintain a steady stream of income to keep the Servers online. But wait... There is a huge amount of players who get angry about having to buy Expansion packs... The other form of Model is free2play... These are free games that you can download and play... They are funded by those willing to buy stuff in a Cash shop... However you HAVE to have stuff with value in the Cash Shop that people are willing and interested in paying for. If you don't no one buys anything and the game has no funding to maintain the Servers.
There are groups of people who complain about every single form of monetization available... How do you expect MMOs to maintain the money needed to keep it online with out it becoming just a burden to the Developers?
Back when i was a little kid we paid for each continue and each refill of life...
Today´s F2P games wish they had half the dedication from their players that the old arcades had...
How far we lost sight of our roots indeed.... Don´t make me laugh....
Dedication to electronic entertainment? It is just a past-time. I hope kids are not dedicating their life to games. There are a lot more worthwhile (at least in my opinion) pursuits.
If we lost sight of our "roots" of dedicating lives to single games .. so much the better. More games are more fun, at least to me. It would be insane (for me again) to dedicate to a single game.
Back when i was a little kid we paid for each continue and each refill of life...
Today´s F2P games wish they had half the dedication from their players that the old arcades had...
How far we lost sight of our roots indeed.... Don´t make me laugh....
I understand why comparing an arcade game to the microtransaction model seems logical, but do you really think arcades would have grown at all if they asked extra quarters for buffs, equipment, etc.
I understand why comparing an arcade game to the microtransaction model seems logical, but do you really think arcades would have grown at all if they asked extra quarters for buffs, equipment, etc.
They already did. In some arcade games, you can put more coins in to continue (with new lives) when you die.
That is the ultimate p2w. The only reason why they did not go further is because the technology wasn't there.
Comments
There is another question here. You say "The only games that do well on subscription models are those which have been around" And that is true, but why? Why is that true? Or more to the point, why can't the opposite be true?
I am going to use SWTOR as an example. The game launches as a purely subscription model and fails under that model. They change the business model and go F2P where it becomes much more successful. But what was the reason SWTOR initially failed? Was it because it was subscription? Or was it because the game was released too soon? Once BW completed their game and turned it into something players wanted, they are now making money as a hybrid game Players are subscribing on top of the Cash Shop. So now the question is, Why did that revenue model fail in the 1st place? Was it the model or the game? I think it was more about the game than the model. I have said for years and will continue to say that the reason why the subscription model is failing isn't because of the model. It's because the games themselves are failing to retain players for more than a couple of months.
So it's become a situation where no publisher in their right mind is going to gamble on that. And while I prefer the old model, I can accept some of these hybrid models. It's when publishers become swallowed in their own greed that becomes unacceptable.
SWTOR is a bad example because I believe you are absolutely right, it did fail as a P2P for exactly that reason. I remember some dude coming on these forums saying how he had maxed out a character after about 2 weeks. No game is going to last as P2P when people are at endgame in that short a time.
But what about Lord of the Rings? Now there is a game with tons of content and a very popular IP as well. It took a bit longer longer ( more content? ) but it obviously failed as P2P as well. Why?
Is it we as gamers that have a limited attention span today? Is there a limit to how long we are willing to commit mentally and financially to any game? Do we just begin to get wanderlust after a certain period? Or is it just that we have too many options for gaming these days, and it is impossible to focus on just one game anymore?
I think it is a combination of all those things, but that mainly comes down to us as players. The game companies are just giving us what we want. Not what everyone wants obviously, but what most people want it seems.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Lost sight? Well in unfashionable down trot....Roots?
Need = to be better than or greater than
Time = limit
Gear = Time
Gear = Money Market
(I make A LOT of $$$ on this)
Items = gear
Gear = Dungeons for + Gear and benefits to get chances to be in larger groups for more + Gear
Our entire feminine self worth is based on make-up and 2 waist size jeans with D sized baby feeders.....
That is not cosmetic.......
Planetside 2 I wrote post stating this same effect it had on me as a Gamer who loves FPS games. NOT COD copy cats and wanna be's
And since we are talking about an entertainment service, it is the consumer that placed the crown upon its head.
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
It didn't fail as P2P. The transition was planned. The name for the business model escapes me right now, but it's a strategy in the industry that devs have been using for a half a decade or more. The model basically goes like this:
Sell Founder/VIP/Early access during development to generate revenue pre-release.
Sell "lifetime" memberships or perk-laden annual memberships to bring in 1-year or even 3-year revenue early. "Lifetime" membership means you're passing up continued revenue from your most loyal fans unless you've got a longer term strategy, so yeah...
The F2P switch usually also gets an early revenue boost with rewards or incentives to be a subscriber at the time of switch to the hybrid F2P/Premium sub model.
Again, not all switches are planned and calculated. LOTRO's was. Both Steefel (EP) and Anderson (CEO) brought it up in several interviews prior to release. As a journalist, there wasn't a meeting or gathering I went to where one or both wouldn't try to get a feel from the crowd on F2P in LOTRO. If I can find the name of the model, I'll update this post with 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
LOTRO, *sigh*. It sits in a very strange place in the genre now.
LOTRO stopped being an MMO a while back. It lies somewhere between a marketing campaign and a shopping mall. I'm surprised they didn't replace Gandalf's face with Michael Douglas.
Interesting GreenReen!
That almost seems to me like a concession from a major AAA game developer that if we can't beat them, we might as well join them.
I am not sure what that says about the state of MMO's today....
It did get me to try the game however and I really enjoyed it and did spend money on it. If it had remained as a sub, I probably would not have.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
And that brings up another question. Why are games failing to retain players after only a few months? And can that be corrected or is it that we have changed? I am not so sure we have changed all that much. As individuals, we have. But we have kids who play games the way we played them. And while the technology has improved, what stimulates them hasn't really changed.
Certainly, there are many more options competing for our time now then 12-15 years ago. It's a factor, but that can't be all of it.
"Them" in that context is the consumers.
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
Because "retain players after a few month" is not the objective? There are other ways to make money. Single player games don't need to "retain players after a few months", and MMOs are learning how to do that.
If it is not desired, there is no need to "correct" anything.
Read my response to his post, and realize that my implications are pretty level-headed.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
As exemplified by the ArcheAge business model?
The only way that's going to work is to get all the money in as hard and fast as possible since MMORPGs are not known for cycling fresh blood though. There is an early window to capture their market, then it's down hill. So Player retention is all they have left.
The problem is that people do not understand what is happening, but they 'feel' that something has changed. The issue is that markets are saturated, and are competing with other products for the same customers time. The retention rates are about the same, but the acquisition costs are starting to rise again. This is also coupled with a bloated development/operation cost that makes profit more difficult to achieve.
In 2010 games started converting to F2P to get around the higher acquisition cost. Now that (almost) everyone is F2P, the competition is causing the cost to increase again. The bloated development/operations cost has been around for almost a decade (post WoW) but it was sustainable, as long as you can keep acquisition cost low. Now that acquisition costs have bottomed out, and are on the rise... people have to deal with the cost of development/operations, and this is MUCH harder to deal with.
Would it be considered spamming or against some forum rule to start a new thread with these three posts as the OP?
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
Competition will take care of things.
If MMOs are no longer fun for the audience, they will do something else, and MMOs will die. So the devs always adapt and change.
But the point is .. even if MMOs die, there won't be a lack of fun entertainment for most, because that demand is worth a lot.
More and more players are refusing to play a Game where they have to pay a subscription to play the game... So your other options are Buy2Play these games you have to keep on getting box sales in order to pay for the Up keep costs... Sooner or later you run out of people buying the game so the money runs out. So your forced to develop an Expansion pack that is sold to keep the money rolling in to maintain a steady stream of income to keep the Servers online. But wait... There is a huge amount of players who get angry about having to buy Expansion packs... The other form of Model is free2play... These are free games that you can download and play... They are funded by those willing to buy stuff in a Cash shop... However you HAVE to have stuff with value in the Cash Shop that people are willing and interested in paying for. If you don't no one buys anything and the game has no funding to maintain the Servers.
There are groups of people who complain about every single form of monetization available... How do you expect MMOs to maintain the money needed to keep it online with out it becoming just a burden to the Developers?
Company Owner
MMO Interactive
All i am going to say about this is....
Back when i was a little kid we paid for each continue and each refill of life...
Today´s F2P games wish they had half the dedication from their players that the old arcades had...
How far we lost sight of our roots indeed.... Don´t make me laugh....
This have been a good conversation
Dedication to electronic entertainment? It is just a past-time. I hope kids are not dedicating their life to games. There are a lot more worthwhile (at least in my opinion) pursuits.
If we lost sight of our "roots" of dedicating lives to single games .. so much the better. More games are more fun, at least to me. It would be insane (for me again) to dedicate to a single game.
I understand why comparing an arcade game to the microtransaction model seems logical, but do you really think arcades would have grown at all if they asked extra quarters for buffs, equipment, etc.
They already did. In some arcade games, you can put more coins in to continue (with new lives) when you die.
That is the ultimate p2w. The only reason why they did not go further is because the technology wasn't there.