Gdemami said: Of course it is price related, we are talking about what and how much would you pay for - subscription and cash shops.
*sigh*
You said:
Just look at your own reply above - a game you would pay for is sub+cosmetics only cash shop and plenty of cosmetics in the game.
Apparently even you are price sensitive and you won't pay just any price - ie. items affecting game play, because the game is "worthy", right?
I replied:
For the game to be worthy it has to be fun.
and:
This isnt price related. This is fun related.
It being worthy is decided by it being fun. In theory not having a sub but a different monetization scheme shouldnt be a problem. Practice is different however. The issue is, and I explain it further in the part of the post you keep ignoring, other monetization schemes take fun away from the game to maximize income.
Its not that Im 'price sensitive' its that Im fun sensitive. The game doesnt become 'not worthy' because the items it sells in the cash shop are too expensive. Its because in the process of... lets say 'encouraging' people to buy cash shop items the game is designed to be less fun.
For starters, stop being in denial and accept the fact that the only way a MMO can be any good for 5+ years and not the current 5+ weeks and done like most F2P/B2P MMOs, is by going P2P. Time and time again we keep bringing up WoW, yes WoW lost millions of subs over the years but are STILL in the millions of subs, which is 5 to a 100 times more than any F2P/B2P. And FF14, the sleeper MMO as some are starting to call it, is still gathering subs month after month since all of the F2P/B2P releases simply suck. Oh and the stupid idea of removing share holders, again, if people would stop buying crappy EA games for example, we might actually get something good going on in the next few years. But apparently people aren't fed up of ditching 60$ on a release and then having to ditch more cash per DLC only to find out in the end that the millions that purchased the game at launch have all move on to something else, so you're maybe 1 of a few thousand left to actually be playing the stupid DLC's.
I really like the way LOTRO has done it. You can earn in game currency to buy what you need. YES it takes a really long time. Or you can subscribe. You have many options. Subscribe while you are playing often and don't when you aren't.
LOTRO lied though....They said they would only have appearance things in their shop....but you can pay to unlock PVP skills on Creeps much earlier than is possible in-game, which is why my BA has a Rank 15 knock down skill at Rank 7 or 8 or whenever I bought it long ago.....teehee
Gdemami said: Of course it is price related, we are talking about what and how much would you pay for - subscription and cash shops.
*sigh*
You said:
Just look at your own reply above - a game you would pay for is sub+cosmetics only cash shop and plenty of cosmetics in the game.
Apparently even you are price sensitive and you won't pay just any price - ie. items affecting game play, because the game is "worthy", right?
I replied:
For the game to be worthy it has to be fun.
and:
This isnt price related. This is fun related.
It being worthy is decided by it being fun. In theory not having a sub but a different monetization scheme shouldnt be a problem. Practice is different however. The issue is, and I explain it further in the part of the post you keep ignoring, other monetization schemes take fun away from the game to maximize income.
Its not that Im 'price sensitive' its that Im fun sensitive. The game doesnt become 'not worthy' because the items it sells in the cash shop are too expensive. Its because in the process of... lets say 'encouraging' people to buy cash shop items the game is designed to be less fun.
Gdemami said: Of course it is price related, we are talking about what and how much would you pay for - subscription and cash shops.
*sigh*
You said:
Just look at your own reply above - a game you would pay for is sub+cosmetics only cash shop and plenty of cosmetics in the game.
Apparently even you are price sensitive and you won't pay just any price - ie. items affecting game play, because the game is "worthy", right?
I replied:
For the game to be worthy it has to be fun.
and:
This isnt price related. This is fun related.
It being worthy is decided by it being fun. In theory not having a sub but a different monetization scheme shouldnt be a problem. Practice is different however. The issue is, and I explain it further in the part of the post you keep ignoring, other monetization schemes take fun away from the game to maximize income.
Its not that Im 'price sensitive' its that Im fun sensitive. The game doesnt become 'not worthy' because the items it sells in the cash shop are too expensive. Its because in the process of... lets say 'encouraging' people to buy cash shop items the game is designed to be less fun.
It being worthy is decided by it being fun. In theory not having a sub but a different monetization scheme shouldnt be a problem. Practice is different however.
Yes, practice is different because your theory is false - proof right there.
Something I was telling you - pricing DOES matter. We do not accept any pricing/business model just because it is "fun".
No items in stores that help with the leveling process.
No items in stores that upgrade the sets in game to max level.
No advancement post max level in stores for real currency.
No currency conversion for the purpose of updating the character either through stats on items or on the character or the items that enhance performance in game.
No pets that give unfair advantage in combat or rewards.
These would be the most important things that should never be in the stores of mmo's.
No items in stores that help with the leveling process.
No items in stores that upgrade the sets in game to max level.
No advancement post max level in stores for real currency.
No currency conversion for the purpose of updating the character either through stats on items or on the character or the items that enhance performance in game.
No pets that give unfair advantage in combat or rewards.
These would be the most important things that should never be in the stores of mmo's.
Can't see why I would buy anything in said store, you've removed anything of value to me.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
One can readily tell which side of those divides you're on from your replies.
1) Do you really think that people who aren't in a rush to play a game get upset if those who are have to pay extra? It's pretty well established by now that games get a surge of incoming players when they go "free to play". Do you think all those people who waited months or years after launch are hopping mad that people paid more to get into the beta than if they had waited until launch? Only people who want to get in first get upset about having to pay more for the privilege.
2) Casuals who don't play much tend not to be especially vocal. But in most games, an overwhelming majority of the people who play the game don't play it very much. The reason that the rise of "free to play" brought so many more players into MMORPGs is precisely because of people who weren't willing to pay a subscription fee, sometimes because they couldn't justify it with how little they play.
3) Do you really think that people who know that they'll never meaningfully participate in a game's endgame really get upset if that endgame that they'll never take part in is pay to win? Most people tend to focus more on the experience that they'll have in a game than on things they know full well they'll never see. The recent Black Desert incident is a good example: volcanic rage from some small portion of the playerbase and a shrug from the rest.
4) Part of why people so commonly say that games should charge for cosmetic stuff is precisely because so few people care about it. But do you think that people who do like having a lot of costumes appreciate being treated like whales and expected to heavily subsidize everyone else? There are games that give you a lot of costumes for free, you know.
Speaking from my own point of view (obviously):
2) As Slapshot (I think) mentioned... 1 hour a week is $3.75 per hour for the normal sub.. I think what you're saying has merit, but it's really as much a perception problem for the subscription model as it is a prohibitively expensive model. Folks don't like that they're paying the same as the power leveler who plays exponentially more... Without realizing that for even the most casual of players, the subscription is stupid cheap in terms of cost per hours of entertainment. We're talking unprecedentedly cheap in the entertainment business before services like Netflix came along (that, ironically enough, use subs).
3) Absolutely; what the developers do within the game, even if it isn't specifically with content I'm experiencing at the moment, speaks loads to their overall vision of the game (and, more recently, their overall vision of monetization).. No, it doesn't affect me NOW, but it will dissuade me from putting large amounts of time or effort into the game when it's obvious the direction of the game and/or its monetization is distasteful to me. To act as if that vision won't, many more times than not, permeate itself throughout the game is wishful thinking at best. Gamers that defend developer missteps with "well it's not MY class/level/zone/what-have-you they're changing for the worse!" are like ostriches with their heads in the sand, oblivious to the oncoming sandstorm because it isn't right in front of their faces at that moment.
There's an enormous difference between:
a) Changing content that you're not playing yet but expect that you someday will, and b) Changing content that you know you'll never participate in.
A lot of people would care about (a) if they recognize that it is happening, but far fewer can be bothered to care about (b).
Not sure there will ever be a 'fair' system... even before WoW had a cosmetics shop / account services the $15 a month didn't seem fair as a non-raider (a lot of the updates were raid-only content). And the problem with anything but a pure sub is that you start to negatively affect gameplay / in-game content.
I don't know... maybe a sub model (i.e. $15 a month) but you can 'refund' certain content (like the latest raid instance you have no interest in). Also, I really think expansions (e.g. WoW style major content update expansions) should come with a month of game time.
Are you kidding me? Divide $15 by the number of hours you played WoW in an average month. That is somewhere between a low and ridiculously low cost per hour of entertainment. And you want some kind of refund system for any content you don't like?
Not saying I didn't enjoy it for the time that I played, but the main reason I finally quit was because $15 a month was simply too much for the privilege of being able to login occasionally... if the cost was lower (refund for 'dead on arrival' content was just an idea off the top of my head) then I would have hung around a bit longer, helped friends (of which I had quite a few IRL friends still playing), leveled an alt past 30, etc.
A mere one hour playtime a week is $3.75 an hour.
A mere 4 hours a week is $0.94 an hour.
If either scenario is "simply too much", you are in the wrong hobby.
If there's nothing wrong with paying $3.75/hour to play games, then someone who plays 3 hours per day should have no problem with paying $300/month. Which is to say, hard-core gamers should have no problem with being expected to be whales to compete. Surely that can't be right.
An attitude of "if you don't like what I like, you should leave the genre" is poisonous. Bringing in players who weren't willing to pay a subscription is precisely what expanded MMORPGs to the point where there are a lot of games available now, as opposed to only a few per year and on small budgets like it was 15 years ago.
I think fairness is completely subjective - so IMO you find a game that is "fair for you" and you play that.
Adapt to reality of now, don't expect the world to change for you.
If you can't find anything to suit you - move on.
There is fairness and there is equality. Someone can say "Hey! That's not fair!" to anything they want. But equality can be measured. I want to play a game where I pay to gain entry. What I pay is equal to what everyone else pays to gain entry. From there, the only thing everybody gets for the fee, is the same amount of time.
Traditionally, we'd all pay $15.00 in exchange for 30 days access. That's what EVERYONE pays, that's what EVERYONE gets. 30 day. How people choose to use that time is on them.
Subjective: "It's not fair! That person spends 12hrs a day in the game, and I can only spend 4!"
Equality: You both paid for 30 days access, you both recieved 30 days access.
The arrangements one makes in their own life in order to use what they were given is entirely on them and should not be foisted on the rest of the player base in the form of "Convenience Items". Otherwise known as "Fairness", which it seems can be bought.
People who play 4 hours per day aren't the ones upset about a subscription. People who play 4 hours per month are the ones who don't like that. And they don't have to put up with a subscription model because there are plenty of games that don't require a subscription. Such as nearly all of them.
The best monetization offer convenience or expansion. GW2 is one of the best, storage xpansions, inventory, unlimited tools etc. Even high price cosmetics like BDO are not a big deal, they help fund the game and are not mandatory by any means. If you play a particular char a lot than it is justifiable to spend the money otherwise no point. A few things I do not like: Subscription only like WoW as it creates a situation where it is only worth it to play for a month during a new content expansion and then quit until the next, which then even buying that expansion is questionable(I might not bother with this expansion for the first time since wow launched). Then there is SWTOR a game designed to push and prod the player every minute of play, and most unforgivable of all is the credit cap which is one of the most game breaking things in MMO's, so screw SWTOR and bioware they will never get my time or money again. I would of said ESO had the best model up until they tied crafting bags to the sub, the game is brutal with inventory and after promising the crafting bags for years you need to sub, so what is the point of paying for all that DLC and buy to play if the game makes you sub for its most important feature?
Pay to win is one of the things blown way out of proportion. In the modern mainstream games it has minimal effect on most players. The way I see it these games need money to go forward and if whales blowing hundreds on miniscule advantages takes some of the pressure off the rest of us all the better.
ESO was my last hope for the genre but with the incoming Gambling Boxes that offer unique cosmetics only attainable via the Gambling Box I'm pretty much keen to give up on MMO's altogether. I'm tired of the constant disappointment.
I play MMO's for numerous reasons, constant development, character progression essentially never ending, collecting cool things.
But with the downright horrid treatment of gamers (consumers). I no longer believe developer's have any respect for the gamer base as consumers. It is no longer truly a fair exchange.
MMO's are just becoming thinly disguised slot machines.
Not sure there will ever be a 'fair' system... even before WoW had a cosmetics shop / account services the $15 a month didn't seem fair as a non-raider (a lot of the updates were raid-only content). And the problem with anything but a pure sub is that you start to negatively affect gameplay / in-game content.
I don't know... maybe a sub model (i.e. $15 a month) but you can 'refund' certain content (like the latest raid instance you have no interest in). Also, I really think expansions (e.g. WoW style major content update expansions) should come with a month of game time.
Are you kidding me? Divide $15 by the number of hours you played WoW in an average month. That is somewhere between a low and ridiculously low cost per hour of entertainment. And you want some kind of refund system for any content you don't like?
Not saying I didn't enjoy it for the time that I played, but the main reason I finally quit was because $15 a month was simply too much for the privilege of being able to login occasionally... if the cost was lower (refund for 'dead on arrival' content was just an idea off the top of my head) then I would have hung around a bit longer, helped friends (of which I had quite a few IRL friends still playing), leveled an alt past 30, etc.
A mere one hour playtime a week is $3.75 an hour.
A mere 4 hours a week is $0.94 an hour.
If either scenario is "simply too much", you are in the wrong hobby.
If there's nothing wrong with paying $3.75/hour to play games, then someone who plays 3 hours per day should have no problem with paying $300/month. Which is to say, hard-core gamers should have no problem with being expected to be whales to compete. Surely that can't be right.
An attitude of "if you don't like what I like, you should leave the genre" is poisonous. Bringing in players who weren't willing to pay a subscription is precisely what expanded MMORPGs to the point where there are a lot of games available now, as opposed to only a few per year and on small budgets like it was 15 years ago.
Personally I feel the genre has changed for the worse since F2P was introduced. Sure more people play... For a month or two. Communities are far weaker now than they used to be. And for me personally, the reason I play MMORPGs is for the community. Otherwise I'll just keep playing GrimDawn with a few friends...
If you like today's games and communities more than s decade ago then what you say is correct. Personally I do not.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
It being worthy is decided by it being fun. In theory not having a sub but a different monetization scheme shouldnt be a problem. Practice is different however.
Yes, practice is different because your theory is false - proof right there.
Something I was telling you - pricing DOES matter. We do not accept any pricing/business model just because it is "fun".
What is your argument in this discussion? Because the best I can make out its something like: 'if they kept raising the sub price of an MMO, theres a point at which you wouldnt play it because it would be too expensive for you, even if the game was the best MMO ever made'. Well, sure. Duh. What does this have to do with anything though??? In reality MMO monthly subs are $10-15, not $300-500 so... ?
People began scoffing at subscriptions because the companies doing it mostly ask for a premium box price, premium monthly rate and couldn't keep up a content release schedule that warranted it. They also wouldn't have a sense of urgency for in-game issues.
F2P model was a great option in theory, but it requires a company that has integrity to manage it, not low brow slumlord publishers with dragon/gold sickness.
Companies like Trion will turn leave the heat on during the summer and price gouge to turn the AC on. All bad.
Can you provide an actual example of price gauging by Trion?
It's not about the price gouging Friend of Somebody From Trino Guy, it's about purposely manufacturing uncomfortable situations to make profit off of the solution. You missed that part. Do you need examples of that or naw?
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
I don't know why people still argue over subscriptions,i thought the industry was SUPPOSE to implement CHOICE?
Naturally nothing in life is perfect so a 50-50 split is not reasonable but imo we SHOUDL be seeing at least a 30-70 split but we do NOT.It seems we have almost NO CHOICE because developers are banding together to rip us off with cash shops. Yes i can use the phrase "rip us off" because we are seeing cheaper less in depth games,instead really fast cost effective,low risk game development,so they can afford cash shops over subs.
Point being,the COST part of gaming has ONLY been to aid the developer and NEVER the gamer,although they will tell you otherwise.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
One can readily tell which side of those divides you're on from your replies.
1) Do you really think that people who aren't in a rush to play a game get upset if those who are have to pay extra? It's pretty well established by now that games get a surge of incoming players when they go "free to play". Do you think all those people who waited months or years after launch are hopping mad that people paid more to get into the beta than if they had waited until launch? Only people who want to get in first get upset about having to pay more for the privilege.
2) Casuals who don't play much tend not to be especially vocal. But in most games, an overwhelming majority of the people who play the game don't play it very much. The reason that the rise of "free to play" brought so many more players into MMORPGs is precisely because of people who weren't willing to pay a subscription fee, sometimes because they couldn't justify it with how little they play.
3) Do you really think that people who know that they'll never meaningfully participate in a game's endgame really get upset if that endgame that they'll never take part in is pay to win? Most people tend to focus more on the experience that they'll have in a game than on things they know full well they'll never see. The recent Black Desert incident is a good example: volcanic rage from some small portion of the playerbase and a shrug from the rest.
4) Part of why people so commonly say that games should charge for cosmetic stuff is precisely because so few people care about it. But do you think that people who do like having a lot of costumes appreciate being treated like whales and expected to heavily subsidize everyone else? There are games that give you a lot of costumes for free, you know.
Speaking from my own point of view (obviously):
2) As Slapshot (I think) mentioned... 1 hour a week is $3.75 per hour for the normal sub.. I think what you're saying has merit, but it's really as much a perception problem for the subscription model as it is a prohibitively expensive model. Folks don't like that they're paying the same as the power leveler who plays exponentially more... Without realizing that for even the most casual of players, the subscription is stupid cheap in terms of cost per hours of entertainment. We're talking unprecedentedly cheap in the entertainment business before services like Netflix came along (that, ironically enough, use subs).
3) Absolutely; what the developers do within the game, even if it isn't specifically with content I'm experiencing at the moment, speaks loads to their overall vision of the game (and, more recently, their overall vision of monetization).. No, it doesn't affect me NOW, but it will dissuade me from putting large amounts of time or effort into the game when it's obvious the direction of the game and/or its monetization is distasteful to me. To act as if that vision won't, many more times than not, permeate itself throughout the game is wishful thinking at best. Gamers that defend developer missteps with "well it's not MY class/level/zone/what-have-you they're changing for the worse!" are like ostriches with their heads in the sand, oblivious to the oncoming sandstorm because it isn't right in front of their faces at that moment.
There's an enormous difference between:
a) Changing content that you're not playing yet but expect that you someday will, and b) Changing content that you know you'll never participate in.
A lot of people would care about (a) if they recognize that it is happening, but far fewer can be bothered to care about (b).
That doesn't really speak to my point (my example wasn't clear, I admit). Developers generally permeate their design decisions throughout a game; in very rare instances do you hit level cap and all of a sudden you have to relearn because the mechanics have been swapped out. Monetization is very rarely so specifically targeted; I wouldn't trust that a developer implementing such a system for another level range won't eventually affect me even if I never plan on hitting THAT specific range. I would, more than likely, consider that first iteration as a test base for weaving it throughout the game as a whole.
Here is my idea for a payment model that is fair and take into account people time, which is valuable.
4 Hours per day estimated an average player would play. 7 Days 30 Hours Sub Fee: $5 a month 14 Days 60 Hours Sub Fee: $10 a month 30 Days 120 Hours Sub Fee: $15 a month Sub Fee: $1 Maint Fee (not required). This is per month. Has to pay full price for Xpac's. Sub Fee: $5 This is per month. Unused hours roll over. Has to pay full price for Xpac's. Sub Fee: $10 This is per month. Unused hours roll over. Has to pay half price for Xpac's(Have this sub for 6 continuous months prior to purchase). Sub Fee: $15 This is per month. Unlimited time, but the user gets 120 hours, if they go over, no charge, it will however, consume roll over hours. What doesn’t get used, rolls over to next month. Xpac's free(Have this sub for 6 continuous months prior to purchase). $1 monthly maint fee option is for when a player cancels the sub but wants to save the time accrued and the character information. Example: Player canceled sub, has 200 hours saved. As long as the player pays the $1 fee, the player can keep playing till the hours are used up. Example: Player is leaving town for 6 months, putting thier sub on the $1 monthly maint fee will ensure all the hours accrued and character info is saved. If a player has used up all their hours prior to the next billing date, they can purchase hours. Same rate and hours as the subs. Players are free to give time saved (rollover hours), up to 120 hours, to another player within a single billing cycle. The player giving the hours can only perform this action 1 time per billing cycle. Players purchase hours for another player(can perform this action as much as the player wishes), same rates and hours as the subs. A player that has received hours from another player, will not be allowed to trade any hours. This freeze ends when the hours received from other players are used up. Changing sub plans prior to the new billing cycle will not go into effect until start of new billing cycle.
Ridiculously overly complicated.
How would you simplify it? I tried to think if it as a cellular plan, pay for what you want to use. The more one pays, the more they get, simple.
Roses are red Violets are blue The reviewer has a mishapen head Which means his opinion is skewed ...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley
Here is my idea for a payment model that is fair and take into account people time, which is valuable.
4 Hours per day estimated an average player would play. 7 Days 30 Hours Sub Fee: $5 a month 14 Days 60 Hours Sub Fee: $10 a month 30 Days 120 Hours Sub Fee: $15 a month Sub Fee: $1 Maint Fee (not required). This is per month. Has to pay full price for Xpac's. Sub Fee: $5 This is per month. Unused hours roll over. Has to pay full price for Xpac's. Sub Fee: $10 This is per month. Unused hours roll over. Has to pay half price for Xpac's(Have this sub for 6 continuous months prior to purchase). Sub Fee: $15 This is per month. Unlimited time, but the user gets 120 hours, if they go over, no charge, it will however, consume roll over hours. What doesn’t get used, rolls over to next month. Xpac's free(Have this sub for 6 continuous months prior to purchase). $1 monthly maint fee option is for when a player cancels the sub but wants to save the time accrued and the character information. Example: Player canceled sub, has 200 hours saved. As long as the player pays the $1 fee, the player can keep playing till the hours are used up. Example: Player is leaving town for 6 months, putting thier sub on the $1 monthly maint fee will ensure all the hours accrued and character info is saved. If a player has used up all their hours prior to the next billing date, they can purchase hours. Same rate and hours as the subs. Players are free to give time saved (rollover hours), up to 120 hours, to another player within a single billing cycle. The player giving the hours can only perform this action 1 time per billing cycle. Players purchase hours for another player(can perform this action as much as the player wishes), same rates and hours as the subs. A player that has received hours from another player, will not be allowed to trade any hours. This freeze ends when the hours received from other players are used up. Changing sub plans prior to the new billing cycle will not go into effect until start of new billing cycle.
Ridiculously overly complicated.
How would you simplify it? I tried to think if it as a cellular plan, pay for what you want to use. The more one pays, the more they get, simple.
Pay sub. Have access for month. Simple.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
R3d.Gallows said: In reality MMO monthly subs are $10-15, not $300-500 so... ?
In reality there are MMOs that have no sub, so why should I pay one...?
Some(many) won't pay a sub just like you wouldn't pay $500 sub.
Price is a factor and you might dance around it as much as you want.
If price wasn't a factor, we wouldn't have this "P2W" rage in the first place.
Price is surely a factor and it's perfectly fine to not want to pay a sub. But paying less has implications. You will get different products.
Products that have to run with a low ARPU will ofcourse be designed differently and target a different market (they have to focus more on the mass market and get a huge playerbase to counter the low earnings per user) than ones that can get away with a $12 to 15 sub (and thus can go more niche, be profitable with a smaller audience and provide focussed experiences). One isn't better than the other, they are just targeting different audiences.
It's a matter of taste just as much as it is a matter of money spent. If you enjoy the lower price products and how they are designed, there is nothing wrong with preferring them and saving some money in the process. But some folks have a different taste and that's perfectly fine too.
Gaendric said: But paying less has implications. You will get different products.
Products that have to run with a low ARPU will ofcourse be designed differently and target a different market (they have to focus more on the mass market and get a huge playerbase to counter the low earnings per user) than ones that can get away with a $12 to 15 sub (and thus can go more niche, be profitable with a smaller audience and provide focussed experiences).
This is false.
DVD rentals and Netflix comes to my mind as one very obvious example. Same goes for MMOs.
You are approaching it from wrong angle. Products do not exist in some vacuum, independent of each other. The drop of sub happened due market competition and player behavior - players have more titles to chose from so they will tend to hop from game to game.
Under such environment, subscription became unsustainable payment model.
This applies to projects no matter of size. Going with subscription today is a business suicide, unless there is a really high demand for your product(launch of high profile titles).
It's a matter of taste just as much as it is a matter of money spent. If you enjoy the lower price products and how they are designed, there is nothing wrong with preferring them and saving some money in the process. But some folks have a different taste and that's perfectly fine too.
But when the free alternatives are of a better quality why pay for a lesser experience?
I've mentioned it in another post but no MMO has justified a mandatory subscription fee compared to other forms of free multiplayer gaming. Whether that be the 90s or today.
Gaendric said: But paying less has implications. You will get different products.
Products that have to run with a low ARPU will ofcourse be designed differently and target a different market (they have to focus more on the mass market and get a huge playerbase to counter the low earnings per user) than ones that can get away with a $12 to 15 sub (and thus can go more niche, be profitable with a smaller audience and provide focussed experiences).
This is false.
DVD rentals and Netflix comes to my mind as one very obvious example. Same goes for MMOs.
You are approaching it from wrong angle. Products do not exist in some vacuum, independent of each other. The drop of sub happened due market competition and player behavior - players have more titles to chose from so they will tend to hop from game to game.
Under such environment, subscription became unsustainable payment model.
This applies to projects no matter of size. Going with subscription today is a business suicide, unless there is a really high demand for your product(launch of high profile titles).
So the real trick is to make a product so awesome players will be dissuaded from hopping around right?
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Comments
What, me worry?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
All joking aside, it's quite interesting to read his arguments and refer back to the Wiki see how many, and which ones, he's using.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Something I was telling you - pricing DOES matter. We do not accept any pricing/business model just because it is "fun".
No connection to progression in stores.
No items in stores that help with the leveling process.
No items in stores that upgrade the sets in game to max level.
No advancement post max level in stores for real currency.
No currency conversion for the purpose of updating the character either through stats on items or on the character or the items that enhance performance in game.
No pets that give unfair advantage in combat or rewards.
These would be the most important things that should never be in the stores of mmo's.
Think I'll just stick with a sub.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
a) Changing content that you're not playing yet but expect that you someday will, and
b) Changing content that you know you'll never participate in.
A lot of people would care about (a) if they recognize that it is happening, but far fewer can be bothered to care about (b).
An attitude of "if you don't like what I like, you should leave the genre" is poisonous. Bringing in players who weren't willing to pay a subscription is precisely what expanded MMORPGs to the point where there are a lot of games available now, as opposed to only a few per year and on small budgets like it was 15 years ago.
Pay to win is one of the things blown way out of proportion. In the modern mainstream games it has minimal effect on most players. The way I see it these games need money to go forward and if whales blowing hundreds on miniscule advantages takes some of the pressure off the rest of us all the better.
I play MMO's for numerous reasons, constant development, character progression essentially never ending, collecting cool things.
But with the downright horrid treatment of gamers (consumers). I no longer believe developer's have any respect for the gamer base as consumers. It is no longer truly a fair exchange.
MMO's are just becoming thinly disguised slot machines.
If you like today's games and communities more than s decade ago then what you say is correct. Personally I do not.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Naturally nothing in life is perfect so a 50-50 split is not reasonable but imo we SHOUDL be seeing at least a 30-70 split but we do NOT.It seems we have almost NO CHOICE because developers are banding together to rip us off with cash shops.
Yes i can use the phrase "rip us off" because we are seeing cheaper less in depth games,instead really fast cost effective,low risk game development,so they can afford cash shops over subs.
Point being,the COST part of gaming has ONLY been to aid the developer and NEVER the gamer,although they will tell you otherwise.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
The reviewer has a mishapen head
Which means his opinion is skewed
...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley
Simple.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Some(many) won't pay a sub just like you wouldn't pay $500 sub.
Price is a factor and you might dance around it as much as you want. If price wasn't a factor, we wouldn't have this "P2W" rage in the first place.
But paying less has implications. You will get different products.
Products that have to run with a low ARPU will ofcourse be designed differently and target a different market (they have to focus more on the mass market and get a huge playerbase to counter the low earnings per user) than ones that can get away with a $12 to 15 sub (and thus can go more niche, be profitable with a smaller audience and provide focussed experiences). One isn't better than the other, they are just targeting different audiences.
It's a matter of taste just as much as it is a matter of money spent.
If you enjoy the lower price products and how they are designed, there is nothing wrong with preferring them and saving some money in the process. But some folks have a different taste and that's perfectly fine too.
DVD rentals and Netflix comes to my mind as one very obvious example. Same goes for MMOs.
You are approaching it from wrong angle. Products do not exist in some vacuum, independent of each other. The drop of sub happened due market competition and player behavior - players have more titles to chose from so they will tend to hop from game to game.
Under such environment, subscription became unsustainable payment model.
This applies to projects no matter of size. Going with subscription today is a business suicide, unless there is a really high demand for your product(launch of high profile titles).
I've mentioned it in another post but no MMO has justified a mandatory subscription fee compared to other forms of free multiplayer gaming. Whether that be the 90s or today.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon