Subscription without cash shop is just as fine. Preferably a subscription that gives you loyalty rewards but with the rewards all being cosmetic, nothing that could unbalance the game.
Always a lot of us around who seem ready for a subscription game to come along worthy of being loyal to, eh.
This poll is somewhat flawed, because it does not stipulate the type and scope & depth of the game in discussion.
If the scope and type of game is a cheaply made, run of the mill style of game we have seen over the past 5 to 6 years, then most MMORPG players would chose to try that crap for free, without any risk to themselves.
But you are talking about a well envisioned game, with full fledged crafting and a 10 year life span, they would chose to invest into such a world through a subscription.
Just like some magazines are not worth having, while others are. Content is key.
Subsequently, the payment method, directly influences who will play.
Free games are throw away, so those going in, will have the outlook that cheating, griefing and haptarding around doesn't matter, because their character's reputation doesn't matter, because the game doesn't matter. ergo: it hold little value to them.
Such games have no potential for longevity, so it is just becomes a 6 month trist for the bored gamer. (ie ArcheAge)
Where as a subscription based games offer much more from the start, because they were designed with a different type of content. A different type of demographic.
ArcheAge is the modern day case study for Fremium/Pay 2 Win/Item Mall style of game. It will not last much longer and within a year will be on life support. That doesn't mean it did not make money, it just means it provided very little in terms of what most players where looking to settle down to, or were ultimately looking for. And will soon be a cost to the developer to keep it running, seeing that they harpooned all the whales.
ArcheAge is free... but many people spend $100 to $150 on premium edition to the game. Yet they do not play anymore, or rarely log in. And yet, is is free to do so with no subscription. It dos not offer staying power. Was not designed to offer staying power.
The MMORPG community has matured and most have learned that not one size fits all. In the future you will have a slew of subscription based games to chose from, and from a range of prices that fit the game. (ie: $4.99/month - $24.99/month)
I call these new games in development the Baby Bells, liken to the break and fracturing of WoW's 20 million player base seeking a new home for their Characters, Families and Guilds.
There are Millions of MMORPG players who will spend $39 to buy a game and try it for one month and decide it continuing playing and paying a subscription is worth it to them. Most of those people are not children, but adults. Children have essentially no choice, as they do not earn incomes, nor have credit cards, nor are of legal age to sign a EULA.
Just some input on the subject. Good poll none the less.
I'm removing my comment because the OP considers it off-topic to respond outside of stated constraints. Sorry, it wasn't intentional.
Post edited by KenFisher on
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
B2P with a small unintrusive cash shop. No sub, no free to pay, no greedy cash shop.
I like this option, too. Harder to implement than to describe sometimes, but definitely a plus for players.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
Obviously F2P. Why as a player would I want a model where I hand over money before I'm sure the product is something I'll enjoy?
erm... Option "F2P as a Trial, Subscription if I liked it" wouldn't ask this of you either.
What product or service charges you after the subscription time has been consumed, rather than before?
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
Obviously F2P. Why as a player would I want a model where I hand over money before I'm sure the product is something I'll enjoy?
erm... Option "F2P as a Trial, Subscription if I liked it" wouldn't ask this of you either.
What product or service charges you after the subscription time has been consumed, rather than before?
Oh well there has to be limits on free to play (like cash shop server with all the disadvantages that entails but a taste of the game to give us an idea if we want to take up residence and buy from the cash shop or start over on a subscription server and pony up). Devs have to eat, too!
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
I voted subscription without cash shop. My reasons are simple...
Everyone pays the same to play and gets the same chances to get the top. Of course you have the argument "well the basement dwellers will win because they have so many more hours to put into a game when I have to work for a living". But shouldn't a person be more rewarded for putting in more time into something than someone else? Sounds like a jealousy argument to me.
It mitigates farmers spamming global chat selling stuff. Make them pay for accounts and you will less likely see the gold selling spammers (especially if the game has active gm's).
Less likely to see kids playing on the game.
There are plenty of youtube videos showing the game play that will tell me if it's the game for me or not. However, if you do decide to make a trial, make it to where the trial is in their own separate worlds. It helps keep the gold spammers and farmers at bay.
Had to address this, it goes both ways. But shouldn't a person be more rewarded for putting in more MONEY
into something than someone else? Sounds like a jealousy argument to me. And to top it off the money person is the one who gets the game made, not the time person. In fact the time person uses vastly more resources for his small / non part of it. It's the time whores that push the developers to have more servers, bandwidth, and content for their no or monthly fee.
What I want is free to play, 20-50% of the game, then swap to buy to play with both a sub option and a cash shop.
This poll imposes the idea that payment method is the determining factor in deciding what game to play. If there was a category for 'It depends entirely on other factors, such as game quality, recommendations from friends, media reviews, reputation of the developer or whatever sparked my interest', I'd have voted for that. But since that option isn't provided, I didn't vote.
B2P with a small unintrusive cash shop. No sub, no free to pay, no greedy cash shop.
This is one of the problems I see all the time with posters, not being able to follow the conversation based on conditions and definitions as given. It is one thing to also include your preference, and your preference being included is and will always be appreciated... But only in addition to the conversation to begin with.
And @ ;XAPKen, you must be called out for the same reasons...
This poll imposes the idea that payment method is the determining factor in deciding what game to play. If there was a category for 'It depends entirely on other factors, such as game quality, recommendations from friends, media reviews, reputation of the developer or whatever sparked my interest', I'd have voted for that. But since that option isn't provided, I didn't vote.
And yet, look at the results.
The results were predictable... but they also dont match where people spend there money. This is a very classic issue of people saying one thing, but doing another.
What was it that Henry Ford said? (Somthing like) 'If you asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.'
This poll imposes the idea that payment method is the determining factor in deciding what game to play. If there was a category for 'It depends entirely on other factors, such as game quality, recommendations from friends, media reviews, reputation of the developer or whatever sparked my interest', I'd have voted for that. But since that option isn't provided, I didn't vote.
And yet, look at the results.
The results were predictable... but they also dont match where people spend there money. This is a very classic issue of people saying one thing, but doing another.
What was it that Henry Ford said? (Somthing like) 'If you asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.'
In all reality, those same people are not exactly offered much in the way of options either. That is why, most numbers today (including those that involve $'s), are simply nonsense.
One can somewhat liken the numbers interpretation thing to the whole "Wildstar tragedy" story, and what it supposedly tells. How many times have I heard idiots put into writing that "Wildstar somehow proves that those old school players that say they want difficult content, obviously do not want difficult content"?
Reality check for those idiots, the graphics were not such that appealed to said old schoolers, nor was their action combat system. Both the graphics and combat system appealed to the younger crowds... such that by the way, do not do difficult content. So they implemented backasswards appeal with backasswards content, and THAT is why Wildstar is now finding itself in the position it is in. *Applause* also idiots for not understanding various audiences, and what goes together with what.
Thus, these supposed interpretations are interpreted by idiots as well. Why should anyone believe any differently when it comes to player spending and why they spend what they do where they do. If you go by such idiot interpretations, then I myself must be a great fan of F2P P2W of the extremest kind (PWI) while mostly enjoying easy mode and boring dailies... None of which is true.
B2P with a small unintrusive cash shop. No sub, no free to pay, no greedy cash shop.
This is one of the problems I see all the time with posters, not being able to follow the conversation based on conditions and definitions as given. It is one thing to also include your preference, and your preference being included is and will always be appreciated... But only in addition to the conversation to begin with.
And @ ;XAPKen, you must be called out for the same reasons...
And this is why these sorts of polls and threads are usually just a big fap session. Some poster sets up a field of discussion for self validation and then gets indignant when others point out their tiny scope has limited and ineffective basis in reality.
The reality is that most every "p2p" game won't leave money on the table like they did 15 years ago. The few that do seem happy to live their lives in relative obscurity, but that's the exception not the rule. This is why newer games start box + sub and then make the sub optional later and add a cash shop. Maximum revenue for continued investment and development in the game.
However, and as I was stating to another in private messages :
How would you deal with those that can not simply participate in a discussion, given particular conditions and definitions are given for the sake of discussion?
How would you deal with those that in addition to those points, simply bombarded a thread in nonproductive and cyclical conversation whereas you know it would go no where?
To myself, those are not people that rational discussion will be had with.
Einstein himself dealt with particular phenomena and-or entities in physics separately, even though there were most certainly other phenomena and-or entities relevant to his theories (albeit, his first theory this was done more so on the basis of ignorance as opposed to intentionally focusing thoughts). Conditions and definitions for the sake of argument are necessary, in order to have rational conversation, based on the conversation and intended direction as well as to establish particular base points. Conditions and definitions are the equivalent to, undefined terms as are found as being quite old in the subject of logic. Their purpose is also quite old, as allowing to take what is stated as "known" and thus carrying a logical conversation forward toward "unknowns."
Unless that would all be claimed as wrong too?
So as I stated :
This is one of the problems I see all the time with posters, not being able to follow the conversation based on conditions and definitions as given. It is one thing to also include your preference, and your preference being included is and will always be appreciated... But only in addition to the conversation to begin with.
Everyone complains about f2p models and I have yet to see an acceptable pay model.
Why always with the $15 usa dollars a month? Would it kill them to charge $2 mo? Plus I don't like using my credit card online for any reason. So there would have to be a game card I could buy from Wal-mart / Target / GameStop. Finally, pay models are usually unmotivated to add unique content.
I played Mabinogi cash shop game for years I would give anything to see other mmo's adapt their huge pet & music system. It's not that I don't like exploring, killing mobs, and raiding but no one bothers developing any else.
I don't think there is a single player out there that supports trial. That's a big corp idea to try to get more people to look at their game and want it but the restrictions themselves usually turn players away. If players didn't have the money to fork up in the first place no magic money tree is going to grow in their yards while they are playing the trial. Some players are shit poor and nothing is going to change their economic place soon. Unless these fat game corps want to start hiring.
I would like to suggest a new pay model. The players develop the content and get paid for it. Closest thing I've seen to this is 1st Life tho I don't count that a "game" but think of it more as a glorified chat room.
Why? Simple: With such models, the developer simply tries to create the best game possible, according to their skills, funds and whatnot, to keep people playing and joining. You get the best they can achieve.
With cash shops, it's different. They first try to create the best game possible. Then the add obstacles that make the game worse (like small bag space, few character slots, slow experience gain), to annoy you, and to make you pay money to remove them.
As a comparison: Imagine a new movie comes up that you really want to see. You now have two choices: 1) You just pay the ticket, go to a regular movie, and have a good experience. 2) You go to a free cinema. They will first show you twice as many ads, then the movie starts. Once the movie gets interesting, they will suddenly make the picture blurry. But they will remove it if you pay enough. Then some guy, hired by the cinema, will start poking you with a stick every few seconds, until you pay them to stop. Then they will turn on the radiator to the max, in the summer, unless you pay, or turn it off in the winter. Then the turn off the audio or the video, and only continue when you pay. And so on.
This poll imposes the idea that payment method is the determining factor in deciding what game to play. If there was a category for 'It depends entirely on other factors, such as game quality, recommendations from friends, media reviews, reputation of the developer or whatever sparked my interest', I'd have voted for that. But since that option isn't provided, I didn't vote.
And yet, look at the results.
The results were predictable... but they also dont match where people spend there money. This is a very classic issue of people saying one thing, but doing another.
What was it that Henry Ford said? (Somthing like) 'If you asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.'
In all reality, those same people are not exactly offered much in the way of options either. That is why, most numbers today (including those that involve $'s), are simply nonsense.
One can somewhat liken the numbers interpretation thing to the whole "Wildstar tragedy" story, and what it supposedly tells. How many times have I heard idiots put into writing that "Wildstar somehow proves that those old school players that say they want difficult content, obviously do not want difficult content"?
Reality check for those idiots, the graphics were not such that appealed to said old schoolers, nor was their action combat system. Both the graphics and combat system appealed to the younger crowds... such that by the way, do not do difficult content. So they implemented backasswards appeal with backasswards content, and THAT is why Wildstar is now finding itself in the position it is in. *Applause* also idiots for not understanding various audiences, and what goes together with what.
Thus, these supposed interpretations are interpreted by idiots as well. Why should anyone believe any differently when it comes to player spending and why they spend what they do where they do. If you go by such idiot interpretations, then I myself must be a great fan of F2P P2W of the extremest kind (PWI) while mostly enjoying easy mode and boring dailies... None of which is true.
Wildstar had zero to do with oldschool.
It was the oldschool that was laughing at it's gameplay, and hoping all these kiddies go play and never come back... because action combat is action arcade, and not MMORPG.
Item Mall games are not true games, they are graphical shopping malls.
Nearly 80% of the respondents would choose Subscription only, that is if the game was worth it !!
That has been the problem with these Developers over the last 7 years, and the games over the last 4 to 5 years. They are not worth our time to play.
So much so, that many of them have had to go FREE to entice people to try their garbage.
Business men entered into the Market about that time, after seeing Blizzard make all their money.
These newer business men & their Development teams saw the potential revenues, without having any Vision, yearning, emotion, compassion or zeal for roleplaying. They were just trying to cash in on a new market.
Thus being pushed by max profits, these new Dev Teams did not want to earn their money, but just turn a fast back and ended up making soulless MMOs. Instead of full fledged MMORPGs.
People stepping off from the oldschool games tried many of these games and invested into many of these games, but left after finding out that they were nothing but shiny marketing. When those games (era) all took a plunge, most went FREE to stay alive.
The era of F2P started. Because the market was saturated by MMO's made by business men, not MMORPGs created by Visionaries.
Age of Conan, Warhammer, etc were the first of the flops based on bad development and quick buck marketing. Then all the fast buck clones hit the market trying different marketing strategies, because they did not want to put in the effort to make a Subscription only game. It takes too long to develop. So soon the market turned volatile with many new games came crashing down, or going free to play.. this or that.
So in the last 5 years, the market turned on it's head. All the while, traditional style sub based games just trudged on ahead, earning their monthly revenues.
Now, if you look to the future and what is being developed, you will see why so many kickstarters are taking place. Because gamers do not want business men in the market, they do not want cheap frilly market games. They want full-on fully developed immersive game worlds, that takes years to unfold.
I voted I would not bother. For me the OP's scenario has loads of pitfalls. It sounds great in theory but in the real world it would (imo) cause too much anguish.
The first issue has already been mentioned - server population. If the F2P option is fair and not full in your face P2W the majority (imo) will stick to the FTP servers. If later down the road they sub to gain a few extra benefits, I feel they will still stick to the FTP servers due to the time and effort put in to their characters and the OP's criteria of no server transfers. Also one of the advantages of F2P is the option to leave and come back at a later date without the worry of re-subbing, which is going to be another limitation on a sub only server. I can only see decent population on a sub only server working on a full in your face P2W game, which will bring different issues to the table.
The second issue would be development resources. If most of the game's income is made of the F2P players, you can practically guarantee the majority of the devs time is going to be directed in keeping their core audience happy. If the sub only servers are only a small segment of the playerbase/income, their issues and concerns will take a back seat and be low priority compared to the F2P players.
Another issue is game play. If the game is designed with F2P in mind and more in line with a P2W model, that will still have a negative effect on the sub only servers. The sub only servers will still have to deal with all the tedium and grind to try and force the F2P player to part with their cash. The only difference will be the sub only servers won't have a cash shop there to help them.
The last two issues will also have an impact on the first issue of population.
Personally I feel some people on this forum get too sidetracked regarding the games payment option. The most important critera should be is the game fun and enjoyable. If it is I would play it and not care if it's F2P, B2P or P2P. If it's P2W I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole and no sub only server would tempt me to try it.
This poll imposes the idea that payment method is the determining factor in deciding what game to play. If there was a category for 'It depends entirely on other factors, such as game quality, recommendations from friends, media reviews, reputation of the developer or whatever sparked my interest', I'd have voted for that. But since that option isn't provided, I didn't vote.
Hmm... so if the poll asked what your favorite desert was, you would see that as imposing the idea that breakfast, lunch and-or dinner are somehow not your favorite meals instead?
The poll simply asks a question, given particular conditions. The poll imposes nor even implies, that payment method itself is THEE determining factor in deciding what game to play.
You however would be the type in physics, to state that you can somehow not determine how to calculate gravity between the earth and moon, due to also needing to take into consideration an exact calculation of each and every periodic table element individually and their measures accurately before being able to do so.
This poll imposes the idea that payment method is the determining factor in deciding what game to play. If there was a category for 'It depends entirely on other factors, such as game quality, recommendations from friends, media reviews, reputation of the developer or whatever sparked my interest', I'd have voted for that. But since that option isn't provided, I didn't vote.
Hmm... so if the poll asked what your favorite desert was, you would see that as imposing the idea that breakfast, lunch and-or dinner are somehow not your favorite meals instead?
The poll simply asks a question, given particular conditions. The poll imposes nor even implies, that payment method itself is THEE determining factor in deciding what game to play.
You however would be the type in physics, to state that you can somehow not determine how to calculate gravity between the earth and moon, due to also needing to take into consideration an exact calculation of each and every periodic table element individually and their measures accurately before being able to do so.
Ah the interwebz
That's twice you responded to the same post, both times attacking me.
The initial poll is badly formed, as it does not have a way to simply state 'This isn't important to me'. A negative vote provides much more information about a topic that simply walking away from a poll. Even if given a situation where I wanted to play a game and was presented with an array of servers, each with different payment models, the poll doesn't give the option of walking away and not playing. The option of 'No Choice' can't be evaluated without tracking it. Null sets are vitally important in database operations, and representing null values is something you will deal with when making a game, should you get that far.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Comments
Always a lot of us around who seem ready for a subscription game to come along worthy of being loyal to, eh.
This poll is somewhat flawed, because it does not stipulate the type and scope & depth of the game in discussion.
If the scope and type of game is a cheaply made, run of the mill style of game we have seen over the past 5 to 6 years, then most MMORPG players would chose to try that crap for free, without any risk to themselves.
But you are talking about a well envisioned game, with full fledged crafting and a 10 year life span, they would chose to invest into such a world through a subscription.
Just like some magazines are not worth having, while others are. Content is key.
Subsequently, the payment method, directly influences who will play.
Free games are throw away, so those going in, will have the outlook that cheating, griefing and haptarding around doesn't matter, because their character's reputation doesn't matter, because the game doesn't matter. ergo: it hold little value to them.
Such games have no potential for longevity, so it is just becomes a 6 month trist for the bored gamer. (ie ArcheAge)
Where as a subscription based games offer much more from the start, because they were designed with a different type of content. A different type of demographic.
ArcheAge is the modern day case study for Fremium/Pay 2 Win/Item Mall style of game. It will not last much longer and within a year will be on life support. That doesn't mean it did not make money, it just means it provided very little in terms of what most players where looking to settle down to, or were ultimately looking for. And will soon be a cost to the developer to keep it running, seeing that they harpooned all the whales.
ArcheAge is free... but many people spend $100 to $150 on premium edition to the game. Yet they do not play anymore, or rarely log in. And yet, is is free to do so with no subscription. It dos not offer staying power. Was not designed to offer staying power.
The MMORPG community has matured and most have learned that not one size fits all. In the future you will have a slew of subscription based games to chose from, and from a range of prices that fit the game. (ie: $4.99/month - $24.99/month)
I call these new games in development the Baby Bells, liken to the break and fracturing of WoW's 20 million player base seeking a new home for their Characters, Families and Guilds.
There are Millions of MMORPG players who will spend $39 to buy a game and try it for one month and decide it continuing playing and paying a subscription is worth it to them. Most of those people are not children, but adults. Children have essentially no choice, as they do not earn incomes, nor have credit cards, nor are of legal age to sign a EULA.
Just some input on the subject. Good poll none the less.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
What product or service charges you after the subscription time has been consumed, rather than before?
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 am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
What I want is free to play, 20-50% of the game, then swap to buy to play with both a sub option and a cash shop.
And @ ;XAPKen, you must be called out for the same reasons...
What was it that Henry Ford said? (Somthing like) 'If you asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.'
One can somewhat liken the numbers interpretation thing to the whole "Wildstar tragedy" story, and what it supposedly tells. How many times have I heard idiots put into writing that "Wildstar somehow proves that those old school players that say they want difficult content, obviously do not want difficult content"?
Reality check for those idiots, the graphics were not such that appealed to said old schoolers, nor was their action combat system. Both the graphics and combat system appealed to the younger crowds... such that by the way, do not do difficult content. So they implemented backasswards appeal with backasswards content, and THAT is why Wildstar is now finding itself in the position it is in. *Applause* also idiots for not understanding various audiences, and what goes together with what.
Thus, these supposed interpretations are interpreted by idiots as well. Why should anyone believe any differently when it comes to player spending and why they spend what they do where they do. If you go by such idiot interpretations, then I myself must be a great fan of F2P P2W of the extremest kind (PWI) while mostly enjoying easy mode and boring dailies... None of which is true.
How would you deal with those that can not simply participate in a discussion, given particular conditions and definitions are given for the sake of discussion?
How would you deal with those that in addition to those points, simply bombarded a thread in nonproductive and cyclical conversation whereas you know it would go no where?
To myself, those are not people that rational discussion will be had with.
Einstein himself dealt with particular phenomena and-or entities in physics separately, even though there were most certainly other phenomena and-or entities relevant to his theories (albeit, his first theory this was done more so on the basis of ignorance as opposed to intentionally focusing thoughts). Conditions and definitions for the sake of argument are necessary, in order to have rational conversation, based on the conversation and intended direction as well as to establish particular base points. Conditions and definitions are the equivalent to, undefined terms as are found as being quite old in the subject of logic. Their purpose is also quite old, as allowing to take what is stated as "known" and thus carrying a logical conversation forward toward "unknowns."
Unless that would all be claimed as wrong too?
So as I stated :
This is one of the problems I see all the time with posters, not being able to follow the conversation based on conditions and definitions as given. It is one thing to also include your preference, and your preference being included is and will always be appreciated... But only in addition to the conversation to begin with.
What game was this again?
Why always with the $15 usa dollars a month? Would it kill them to charge $2 mo? Plus I don't like using my credit card online for any reason. So there would have to be a game card I could buy from Wal-mart / Target / GameStop. Finally, pay models are usually unmotivated to add unique content.
I played Mabinogi cash shop game for years I would give anything to see other mmo's adapt their huge pet & music system. It's not that I don't like exploring, killing mobs, and raiding but no one bothers developing any else.
I don't think there is a single player out there that supports trial. That's a big corp idea to try to get more people to look at their game and want it but the restrictions themselves usually turn players away. If players didn't have the money to fork up in the first place no magic money tree is going to grow in their yards while they are playing the trial. Some players are shit poor and nothing is going to change their economic place soon. Unless these fat game corps want to start hiring.
I would like to suggest a new pay model. The players develop the content and get paid for it. Closest thing I've seen to this is 1st Life tho I don't count that a "game" but think of it more as a glorified chat room.
Why? Simple: With such models, the developer simply tries to create the best game possible, according to their skills, funds and whatnot, to keep people playing and joining. You get the best they can achieve.
With cash shops, it's different. They first try to create the best game possible. Then the add obstacles that make the game worse (like small bag space, few character slots, slow experience gain), to annoy you, and to make you pay money to remove them.
As a comparison:
Imagine a new movie comes up that you really want to see. You now have two choices:
1) You just pay the ticket, go to a regular movie, and have a good experience.
2) You go to a free cinema. They will first show you twice as many ads, then the movie starts. Once the movie gets interesting, they will suddenly make the picture blurry. But they will remove it if you pay enough. Then some guy, hired by the cinema, will start poking you with a stick every few seconds, until you pay them to stop. Then they will turn on the radiator to the max, in the summer, unless you pay, or turn it off in the winter. Then the turn off the audio or the video, and only continue when you pay. And so on.
Let's play Fallen Earth (blind, 300 episodes)
Let's play Guild Wars 2 (blind, 45 episodes)
Wildstar had zero to do with oldschool.
It was the oldschool that was laughing at it's gameplay, and hoping all these kiddies go play and never come back... because action combat is action arcade, and not MMORPG.
Item Mall games are not true games, they are graphical shopping malls.
That has been the problem with these Developers over the last 7 years, and the games over the last 4 to 5 years. They are not worth our time to play.
So much so, that many of them have had to go FREE to entice people to try their garbage.
Business men entered into the Market about that time, after seeing Blizzard make all their money.
These newer business men & their Development teams saw the potential revenues, without having any Vision, yearning, emotion, compassion or zeal for roleplaying. They were just trying to cash in on a new market.
Thus being pushed by max profits, these new Dev Teams did not want to earn their money, but just turn a fast back and ended up making soulless MMOs. Instead of full fledged MMORPGs.
People stepping off from the oldschool games tried many of these games and invested into many of these games, but left after finding out that they were nothing but shiny marketing. When those games (era) all took a plunge, most went FREE to stay alive.
The era of F2P started. Because the market was saturated by MMO's made by business men, not MMORPGs created by Visionaries.
Age of Conan, Warhammer, etc were the first of the flops based on bad development and quick buck marketing. Then all the fast buck clones hit the market trying different marketing strategies, because they did not want to put in the effort to make a Subscription only game. It takes too long to develop. So soon the market turned volatile with many new games came crashing down, or going free to play.. this or that.
So in the last 5 years, the market turned on it's head. All the while, traditional style sub based games just trudged on ahead, earning their monthly revenues.
Now, if you look to the future and what is being developed, you will see why so many kickstarters are taking place. Because gamers do not want business men in the market, they do not want cheap frilly market games. They want full-on fully developed immersive game worlds, that takes years to unfold.
The Baby Bells are coming.
The first issue has already been mentioned - server population. If the F2P option is fair and not full in your face P2W the majority (imo) will stick to the FTP servers. If later down the road they sub to gain a few extra benefits, I feel they will still stick to the FTP servers due to the time and effort put in to their characters and the OP's criteria of no server transfers. Also one of the advantages of F2P is the option to leave and come back at a later date without the worry of re-subbing, which is going to be another limitation on a sub only server. I can only see decent population on a sub only server working on a full in your face P2W game, which will bring different issues to the table.
The second issue would be development resources. If most of the game's income is made of the F2P players, you can practically guarantee the majority of the devs time is going to be directed in keeping their core audience happy. If the sub only servers are only a small segment of the playerbase/income, their issues and concerns will take a back seat and be low priority compared to the F2P players.
Another issue is game play. If the game is designed with F2P in mind and more in line with a P2W model, that will still have a negative effect on the sub only servers. The sub only servers will still have to deal with all the tedium and grind to try and force the F2P player to part with their cash. The only difference will be the sub only servers won't have a cash shop there to help them.
The last two issues will also have an impact on the first issue of population.
Personally I feel some people on this forum get too sidetracked regarding the games payment option. The most important critera should be is the game fun and enjoyable. If it is I would play it and not care if it's F2P, B2P or P2P. If it's P2W I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole and no sub only server would tempt me to try it.
The poll simply asks a question, given particular conditions. The poll imposes nor even implies, that payment method itself is THEE determining factor in deciding what game to play.
You however would be the type in physics, to state that you can somehow not determine how to calculate gravity between the earth and moon, due to also needing to take into consideration an exact calculation of each and every periodic table element individually and their measures accurately before being able to do so.
Ah the interwebz
The initial poll is badly formed, as it does not have a way to simply state 'This isn't important to me'. A negative vote provides much more information about a topic that simply walking away from a poll. Even if given a situation where I wanted to play a game and was presented with an array of servers, each with different payment models, the poll doesn't give the option of walking away and not playing. The option of 'No Choice' can't be evaluated without tracking it. Null sets are vitally important in database operations, and representing null values is something you will deal with when making a game, should you get that far.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.