The thing is the more subscription cost the less player would be. So in the end the game company won't necessary make more money.
There's a reason why almost all the game on the market are f2p. So people that are willing to pay the high money can do so.
F2P players who spend nothing on the game are simply there to provide content to people who do pay.
Again, if you are happy with current games and monetization that's great. I don't want to stop F2P games. I'd simply like a choice for a premium game at a premium price.
Me too but in the end no company believe it'll work. The reality is why stop there charge 100$ per month or 500$ per month.
Many people are already paying that in f2p games. So why charge 25-50 when they can charge people more in f2p games.
Because.. as I (and others above) have stated a few times... I think there is a market of people that will pay $25 or even $49 a month for a premium game without the F2P/cash shop/pay for advantage stuff. I'd happily pay $49 a month for a premium game but you know how much I have spent on cash shop/F2P games? ZERO. Not a cent. Do i think I'm in the majority? No, but I do believe there are more of us than you may think. So a developer can aim to be number 1298 F2P game, or aim to stand out from the competition by delivering something different.
Again though, it's not just paying a sub that magically makes the game better. I want a premium product to match that. Maybe much more active GMs, some live events... something that makes it a premium product.
Right but you are assuming the game will be better if companies charge more. But the more companies charge, the less players there will be. So they won't necessary money.
So what justification is that the game should be better just because they charge 25 or 50$.
The thing is the more subscription cost the less player would be. So in the end the game company won't necessary make more money.
There's a reason why almost all the game on the market are f2p. So people that are willing to pay the high money can do so.
F2P players who spend nothing on the game are simply there to provide content to people who do pay.
Again, if you are happy with current games and monetization that's great. I don't want to stop F2P games. I'd simply like a choice for a premium game at a premium price.
Me too but in the end no company believe it'll work. The reality is why stop there charge 100$ per month or 500$ per month.
Many people are already paying that in f2p games. So why charge 25-50 when they can charge people more in f2p games.
Because.. as I (and others above) have stated a few times... I think there is a market of people that will pay $25 or even $49 a month for a premium game without the F2P/cash shop/pay for advantage stuff. I'd happily pay $49 a month for a premium game but you know how much I have spent on cash shop/F2P games? ZERO. Not a cent. Do i think I'm in the majority? No, but I do believe there are more of us than you may think. So a developer can aim to be number 1298 F2P game, or aim to stand out from the competition by delivering something different.
Again though, it's not just paying a sub that magically makes the game better. I want a premium product to match that. Maybe much more active GMs, some live events... something that makes it a premium product.
Right but you are assuming the game will be better if companies charge more. But the more companies charge, the less players there will be. So they won't necessary money.
So what justification is that the game should be better just because they charge 25 or 50$.
its not quite that simple.
People GROSSLY underestimate the power of marketing in this equation. People WILL spend more for less if the game is marketed strategically
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The thing is the more subscription cost the less player would be. So in the end the game company won't necessary make more money.
There's a reason why almost all the game on the market are f2p. So people that are willing to pay the high money can do so.
F2P players who spend nothing on the game are simply there to provide content to people who do pay.
Again, if you are happy with current games and monetization that's great. I don't want to stop F2P games. I'd simply like a choice for a premium game at a premium price.
Me too but in the end no company believe it'll work. The reality is why stop there charge 100$ per month or 500$ per month.
Many people are already paying that in f2p games. So why charge 25-50 when they can charge people more in f2p games.
Because.. as I (and others above) have stated a few times... I think there is a market of people that will pay $25 or even $49 a month for a premium game without the F2P/cash shop/pay for advantage stuff. I'd happily pay $49 a month for a premium game but you know how much I have spent on cash shop/F2P games? ZERO. Not a cent. Do i think I'm in the majority? No, but I do believe there are more of us than you may think. So a developer can aim to be number 1298 F2P game, or aim to stand out from the competition by delivering something different.
Again though, it's not just paying a sub that magically makes the game better. I want a premium product to match that. Maybe much more active GMs, some live events... something that makes it a premium product.
Right but you are assuming the game will be better if companies charge more. But the more companies charge, the less players there will be. So they won't necessary money.
So what justification is that the game should be better just because they charge 25 or 50$.
its not quite that simple.
People GROSSLY underestimate the power of marketing in this equation. People WILL spend more for less if the game is marketed strategically
the thing is with the current mmorpg on the market right now. The cost to make those 15$ subscription or f2p mmorpg are already ridiculously expensive.
I don't think companies can make a mmorpg better by magically charging more.
At least no companies believe it'll work, that's why no one try it yet.
The thing is the more subscription cost the less player would be. So in the end the game company won't necessary make more money.
There's a reason why almost all the game on the market are f2p. So people that are willing to pay the high money can do so.
F2P players who spend nothing on the game are simply there to provide content to people who do pay.
Again, if you are happy with current games and monetization that's great. I don't want to stop F2P games. I'd simply like a choice for a premium game at a premium price.
Me too but in the end no company believe it'll work. The reality is why stop there charge 100$ per month or 500$ per month.
Many people are already paying that in f2p games. So why charge 25-50 when they can charge people more in f2p games.
Because.. as I (and others above) have stated a few times... I think there is a market of people that will pay $25 or even $49 a month for a premium game without the F2P/cash shop/pay for advantage stuff. I'd happily pay $49 a month for a premium game but you know how much I have spent on cash shop/F2P games? ZERO. Not a cent. Do i think I'm in the majority? No, but I do believe there are more of us than you may think. So a developer can aim to be number 1298 F2P game, or aim to stand out from the competition by delivering something different.
Again though, it's not just paying a sub that magically makes the game better. I want a premium product to match that. Maybe much more active GMs, some live events... something that makes it a premium product.
Right but you are assuming the game will be better if companies charge more. But the more companies charge, the less players there will be. So they won't necessary money.
So what justification is that the game should be better just because they charge 25 or 50$.
I'm clearly not assuming that at all and even gave examples in the very post you quoted...
Also keep in mind that "less players" is not necessarily a negative. Dropping people who pay nothing does not affect revenue at all and actually helps cut costs of servers and bandwidth as well as stopping the dilution of CS and GM resources.
Plot out monthly content patches. Add weekly large scale live events. Now that GMs don't have to spend time on issues for the non-paying folks they should have time to actually GM and randomly create content for folks.
I don't need to have all the answers as I'm not selling a product. I'm just saying there IS a market for a premium game that charges a premium price and Id like to see a company stand out from the crowd and attempt to break the F2P stranglehold which I feel has stifled innovation. I don't want all games to switch. I don't even want a bunch... I'd just like the ability to have a choice.
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
The thing is the more subscription cost the less player would be. So in the end the game company won't necessary make more money.
There's a reason why almost all the game on the market are f2p. So people that are willing to pay the high money can do so.
F2P players who spend nothing on the game are simply there to provide content to people who do pay.
Again, if you are happy with current games and monetization that's great. I don't want to stop F2P games. I'd simply like a choice for a premium game at a premium price.
Me too but in the end no company believe it'll work. The reality is why stop there charge 100$ per month or 500$ per month.
Many people are already paying that in f2p games. So why charge 25-50 when they can charge people more in f2p games.
Because.. as I (and others above) have stated a few times... I think there is a market of people that will pay $25 or even $49 a month for a premium game without the F2P/cash shop/pay for advantage stuff. I'd happily pay $49 a month for a premium game but you know how much I have spent on cash shop/F2P games? ZERO. Not a cent. Do i think I'm in the majority? No, but I do believe there are more of us than you may think. So a developer can aim to be number 1298 F2P game, or aim to stand out from the competition by delivering something different.
Again though, it's not just paying a sub that magically makes the game better. I want a premium product to match that. Maybe much more active GMs, some live events... something that makes it a premium product.
Right but you are assuming the game will be better if companies charge more. But the more companies charge, the less players there will be. So they won't necessary money.
So what justification is that the game should be better just because they charge 25 or 50$.
The worst part about such, what I'd call fantasies. Is that ESO, SWTOR, and so many others started off as P2P with no cash shop, in ESO's case it had a lot of as well as diverse range in terms of content. Still many decried it as not enough to justify the monthly price tag. As it's not a matter of what any individual game offers, as much as it's about what the entire market does. When the going price for lot's of content, is Zero.... results like ESO's are what you get. B2P or F2P.
You need a shelf life like WOW's to get most to pay a sub in this day and age (or a powerful IP guiding it's fandom), and no new game is going to match that breadth of content.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The thing is the more subscription cost the less player would be. So in the end the game company won't necessary make more money.
There's a reason why almost all the game on the market are f2p. So people that are willing to pay the high money can do so.
F2P players who spend nothing on the game are simply there to provide content to people who do pay.
Again, if you are happy with current games and monetization that's great. I don't want to stop F2P games. I'd simply like a choice for a premium game at a premium price.
Me too but in the end no company believe it'll work. The reality is why stop there charge 100$ per month or 500$ per month.
Many people are already paying that in f2p games. So why charge 25-50 when they can charge people more in f2p games.
Because.. as I (and others above) have stated a few times... I think there is a market of people that will pay $25 or even $49 a month for a premium game without the F2P/cash shop/pay for advantage stuff. I'd happily pay $49 a month for a premium game but you know how much I have spent on cash shop/F2P games? ZERO. Not a cent. Do i think I'm in the majority? No, but I do believe there are more of us than you may think. So a developer can aim to be number 1298 F2P game, or aim to stand out from the competition by delivering something different.
Again though, it's not just paying a sub that magically makes the game better. I want a premium product to match that. Maybe much more active GMs, some live events... something that makes it a premium product.
Right but you are assuming the game will be better if companies charge more. But the more companies charge, the less players there will be. So they won't necessary money.
So what justification is that the game should be better just because they charge 25 or 50$.
its not quite that simple.
People GROSSLY underestimate the power of marketing in this equation. People WILL spend more for less if the game is marketed strategically
the thing is with the current mmorpg on the market right now. The cost to make those 15$ subscription or f2p mmorpg are already ridiculously expensive.
I don't think companies can make a mmorpg better by magically charging more.
At least no companies believe it'll work, that's why no one try it yet.
however, the cost is basically a lie.
because: 1. they wrap up the marketing costs into those figures 2. they are over weighted by people making decisions who have no intrest in games themselves anyway.
number 1 clearly being more exact and less abstract.
I can not encourage people enough to check out games outside of the traditional mainstream with an open mind and I dont mean rimworld.
there are games out there that are considerably better than mainstream games made by like a team of 5 or less
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The thing is the more subscription cost the less player would be. So in the end the game company won't necessary make more money.
There's a reason why almost all the game on the market are f2p. So people that are willing to pay the high money can do so.
F2P players who spend nothing on the game are simply there to provide content to people who do pay.
Again, if you are happy with current games and monetization that's great. I don't want to stop F2P games. I'd simply like a choice for a premium game at a premium price.
Me too but in the end no company believe it'll work. The reality is why stop there charge 100$ per month or 500$ per month.
Many people are already paying that in f2p games. So why charge 25-50 when they can charge people more in f2p games.
Because.. as I (and others above) have stated a few times... I think there is a market of people that will pay $25 or even $49 a month for a premium game without the F2P/cash shop/pay for advantage stuff. I'd happily pay $49 a month for a premium game but you know how much I have spent on cash shop/F2P games? ZERO. Not a cent. Do i think I'm in the majority? No, but I do believe there are more of us than you may think. So a developer can aim to be number 1298 F2P game, or aim to stand out from the competition by delivering something different.
Again though, it's not just paying a sub that magically makes the game better. I want a premium product to match that. Maybe much more active GMs, some live events... something that makes it a premium product.
Right but you are assuming the game will be better if companies charge more. But the more companies charge, the less players there will be. So they won't necessary money.
So what justification is that the game should be better just because they charge 25 or 50$.
The worst part about such, what I'd call fantasies. Is that ESO, SWTOR, and so many others started off as P2P with no cash shop, in ESO's case it had a lot of as well as diverse range in terms of content. Still many decried it as not enough to justify the monthly price tag. As it's not a matter of what any individual game offers, as much as it's about what the entire market does. When the going price for lot's of content, is Zero.... results like ESO's are what you get. B2P or F2P.
You need a shelf life like WOW's to get most to pay a sub in this day and age (or a powerful IP guiding it's fandom), and no new game is going to match that breadth of content.
What I would call a fantasy is the belief that you can get a premium product for nothing. You get what you pay for. I stopped playing ESO because I thought the RvRvR portion of the game was horrendous, not because I thought $15 was too much.
If you like whats out there.. that's fantastic! Enjoy! There will likely always be F2P games.
Some of us would pay a premium for a premium game. ESO was not a premium game at all. It was the same as every other game.
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
What I would call a fantasy is the belief that you can get a premium product for nothing. You get what you pay for. I stopped playing ESO because I thought the RvRvR portion of the game was horrendous, not because I thought $15 was too much.
If you like whats out there.. that's fantastic! Enjoy! There will likely always be F2P games.
Some of us would pay a premium for a premium game. ESO was not a premium game at all. It was the same as every other game.
in gaming this is less true then it should be.
Trust me, I have paid $20-30 for games a LOT better then ones I have paid $60-70 for.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I too thought those games could be good on paper but realistically the writing was on the wall.Relying on gamer funding is just bad management but they have nothing to lose,heck in case of SOE they actually were able to scam another business into buying their studio. Soe did not NEED that studio,it continues on in partnerships and it's console and will continue to make money there instead of losing on the studio.
I'm looking for a game to have the balls to go with a $25 or even $49 sub. No cash shop cheese. No sanctioned RMT. Just a straight sub at a fair price.
Yes i of course would love to see that as well but the game has to be real solid as well.Like NOTHING on the market right now would entice me to pay any sub fee.
I am only currently playing Gorgon but that game has some serious flaws and a VERY restricting linear combat structure that is nothing more than power over dmg ratios.It does at least offer some free game play and is somewhat interesting.I am not even sure if i would play ANY of these other games even if for free which is why i play Gorgon because in reality,it is not the money that keeps me out,it is the premise/value that keeps me away from other games.
I still hold Pantheon as the ONLY possibility but even then i saw too many flaws in past Brad games to hold my breathe thinking something really amazing is incoming.
The mmorpg genre is in sad shape and likely because too many low budget/mobile/cheaply made games are stealing a massive part of the market leaving too small a market left for devs to aim for triple A quality.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
The thing is the more subscription cost the less player would be. So in the end the game company won't necessary make more money.
There's a reason why almost all the game on the market are f2p. So people that are willing to pay the high money can do so.
F2P players who spend nothing on the game are simply there to provide content to people who do pay.
Again, if you are happy with current games and monetization that's great. I don't want to stop F2P games. I'd simply like a choice for a premium game at a premium price.
Me too but in the end no company believe it'll work. The reality is why stop there charge 100$ per month or 500$ per month.
Many people are already paying that in f2p games. So why charge 25-50 when they can charge people more in f2p games.
Because.. as I (and others above) have stated a few times... I think there is a market of people that will pay $25 or even $49 a month for a premium game without the F2P/cash shop/pay for advantage stuff. I'd happily pay $49 a month for a premium game but you know how much I have spent on cash shop/F2P games? ZERO. Not a cent. Do i think I'm in the majority? No, but I do believe there are more of us than you may think. So a developer can aim to be number 1298 F2P game, or aim to stand out from the competition by delivering something different.
Again though, it's not just paying a sub that magically makes the game better. I want a premium product to match that. Maybe much more active GMs, some live events... something that makes it a premium product.
Right but you are assuming the game will be better if companies charge more. But the more companies charge, the less players there will be. So they won't necessary money.
So what justification is that the game should be better just because they charge 25 or 50$.
The worst part about such, what I'd call fantasies. Is that ESO, SWTOR, and so many others started off as P2P with no cash shop, in ESO's case it had a lot of as well as diverse range in terms of content. Still many decried it as not enough to justify the monthly price tag. As it's not a matter of what any individual game offers, as much as it's about what the entire market does. When the going price for lot's of content, is Zero.... results like ESO's are what you get. B2P or F2P.
You need a shelf life like WOW's to get most to pay a sub in this day and age (or a powerful IP guiding it's fandom), and no new game is going to match that breadth of content.
What I would call a fantasy is the belief that you can get a premium product for nothing. You get what you pay for. I stopped playing ESO because I thought the RvRvR portion of the game was horrendous, not because I thought $15 was too much.
If you like whats out there.. that's fantastic! Enjoy! There will likely always be F2P games.
Some of us would pay a premium for a premium game. ESO was not a premium game at all. It was the same as every other game.
Well Eso is a really expensive game to deveop right?
Pretty much debunk the myth more budget eqauls better game.
The mmorpg genre is in sad shape and likely because too many low budget/mobile/cheaply made games are stealing a massive part of the market leaving too small a market left for devs to aim for triple A quality.
You can thank early access trash from no-talent indie developers for that./
The thing is the more subscription cost the less player would be. So in the end the game company won't necessary make more money.
There's a reason why almost all the game on the market are f2p. So people that are willing to pay the high money can do so.
F2P players who spend nothing on the game are simply there to provide content to people who do pay.
Again, if you are happy with current games and monetization that's great. I don't want to stop F2P games. I'd simply like a choice for a premium game at a premium price.
Me too but in the end no company believe it'll work. The reality is why stop there charge 100$ per month or 500$ per month.
Many people are already paying that in f2p games. So why charge 25-50 when they can charge people more in f2p games.
Because.. as I (and others above) have stated a few times... I think there is a market of people that will pay $25 or even $49 a month for a premium game without the F2P/cash shop/pay for advantage stuff. I'd happily pay $49 a month for a premium game but you know how much I have spent on cash shop/F2P games? ZERO. Not a cent. Do i think I'm in the majority? No, but I do believe there are more of us than you may think. So a developer can aim to be number 1298 F2P game, or aim to stand out from the competition by delivering something different.
Again though, it's not just paying a sub that magically makes the game better. I want a premium product to match that. Maybe much more active GMs, some live events... something that makes it a premium product.
Right but you are assuming the game will be better if companies charge more. But the more companies charge, the less players there will be. So they won't necessary money.
So what justification is that the game should be better just because they charge 25 or 50$.
its not quite that simple.
People GROSSLY underestimate the power of marketing in this equation. People WILL spend more for less if the game is marketed strategically
the thing is with the current mmorpg on the market right now. The cost to make those 15$ subscription or f2p mmorpg are already ridiculously expensive.
I don't think companies can make a mmorpg better by magically charging more.
At least no companies believe it'll work, that's why no one try it yet.
however, the cost is basically a lie.
because: 1. they wrap up the marketing costs into those figures 2. they are over weighted by people making decisions who have no intrest in games themselves anyway.
number 1 clearly being more exact and less abstract.
I can not encourage people enough to check out games outside of the traditional mainstream with an open mind and I dont mean rimworld.
there are games out there that are considerably better than mainstream games made by like a team of 5 or less
People often do check out those games, if they are any good, then they buy them etc. i don't know why you think players are generally so closed minded that they aren't willing to look games just because they aren't published by the big name companies. Good games sell, thats always been the case, i don't think all that many care who made it as long as it plays well, although there is a degree of expectation from certain developers who have had prior sucesses to repeat those successes, and unfortuantely the more popular developers do have more and better resources when it comes to game developement. Although that doesn't guarantee success, take Mass Effect:Andromeda, thats something that unfortunately Bioware will have hung round their neck like a lodestone when it comes to their next game, whatever it is. But the small developers are not better either, the more recent debacle from Hello Games springs to mind as a game that was over hyped, over priced, and unfortunately under delivered, their promises were broken, indeed the game is unlikely to ever have the features that were promised. While it might be possible for a really small dev team of 5 to make a 'decent' game, realistically, its not going to be that great, and will likely not be comparable to AAA rated games that have much larger development teams, and the scope of those games is inevitably much smaller.
The thing is the more subscription cost the less player would be. So in the end the game company won't necessary make more money.
There's a reason why almost all the game on the market are f2p. So people that are willing to pay the high money can do so.
F2P players who spend nothing on the game are simply there to provide content to people who do pay.
Again, if you are happy with current games and monetization that's great. I don't want to stop F2P games. I'd simply like a choice for a premium game at a premium price.
Me too but in the end no company believe it'll work. The reality is why stop there charge 100$ per month or 500$ per month.
Many people are already paying that in f2p games. So why charge 25-50 when they can charge people more in f2p games.
Because.. as I (and others above) have stated a few times... I think there is a market of people that will pay $25 or even $49 a month for a premium game without the F2P/cash shop/pay for advantage stuff. I'd happily pay $49 a month for a premium game but you know how much I have spent on cash shop/F2P games? ZERO. Not a cent. Do i think I'm in the majority? No, but I do believe there are more of us than you may think. So a developer can aim to be number 1298 F2P game, or aim to stand out from the competition by delivering something different.
Again though, it's not just paying a sub that magically makes the game better. I want a premium product to match that. Maybe much more active GMs, some live events... something that makes it a premium product.
Right but you are assuming the game will be better if companies charge more. But the more companies charge, the less players there will be. So they won't necessary money.
So what justification is that the game should be better just because they charge 25 or 50$.
The worst part about such, what I'd call fantasies. Is that ESO, SWTOR, and so many others started off as P2P with no cash shop, in ESO's case it had a lot of as well as diverse range in terms of content. Still many decried it as not enough to justify the monthly price tag. As it's not a matter of what any individual game offers, as much as it's about what the entire market does. When the going price for lot's of content, is Zero.... results like ESO's are what you get. B2P or F2P.
You need a shelf life like WOW's to get most to pay a sub in this day and age (or a powerful IP guiding it's fandom), and no new game is going to match that breadth of content.
What I would call a fantasy is the belief that you can get a premium product for nothing. You get what you pay for. I stopped playing ESO because I thought the RvRvR portion of the game was horrendous, not because I thought $15 was too much.
If you like whats out there.. that's fantastic! Enjoy! There will likely always be F2P games.
Some of us would pay a premium for a premium game. ESO was not a premium game at all. It was the same as every other game.
Well Eso is a really expensive game to deveop right?
Pretty much debunk the myth more budget eqauls better game.
Where did I ever say that "more budget eqauls better game"? It's obviously not a guarantee of anything, but if you invest in quality ingredients (strong development team, good hardware, top notch IP) you have a better chance.
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
People often do check out those games, if they are any good, then they buy them etc. i don't know why you think players are generally so closed minded that they aren't willing to look games just because they aren't published by the big name companies.
Because I know I am not some special snowflake in which only I notice a RADICAL difference between the two areas of gaming of which I have played both.
I say 'radical' intently.
It defys logic to be given a game that controls the players choices to a very limited number, restricts what the gamer can do to about 1 thing (combat), has zero crafting, zero building and it filled with cut scenes nobody cares about THEN when a player say they want more options, be able to explore, craft and build and are given those things in another game they say 'meh' and then consider the highly restrictive option better. I find that implausible to believe.
I am not a special snowflake who when I became introduced to the games I am talking about the effect was radical down to my DNA. I am sure many other gamers would have the same experience.
that is why
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I am but one of many that was let down by the EQNext debacle. I found a renewed hope in Pantheon back in 2016 though. If you guys haven't checked out Pantheon, I would definitely recommend taking a look. Check out the tenets that shape the vision of the game. The phrase I have coined for this game is ... "Relive the years in the platinum age."
I pretty much won't touch F2P games, so would happily pay a subscription for a "good" MMORPG. My limit would probably be £20 pm, maybe up to £25pm for a really good one.
By "good", a standard example from me would be vanilla lotro. It was a good base game, but for my £8.99 a month I got:
New zones - Evendim, Forochel, Goblin Town, Tal Bruienen, Annuminas
New 6man Dungeons - 3x Annuminas
New 12 man raid - Rift of Nurz Ghashu
Crafting overhaul
Numerous class balancing
New PvP Area - Delving of Fror
New Monster Class - Defiler
7 new epic books (roughly 50 quests following the main story line)
It doesn't sound like much, especially as this covers nearly 2 years of the game, yet this is more content than any other game I've played, regardless of F2P or P2P. It still wasn't enough to keep me in the game - as an endgame focused player, I did get bored and took a 6 month break to play WAR - but it was still more than enough for most people.
If a new game released today with the same depth and immersion as LotRO, but was charging a subscription in order to avoid F2P crap, I'd definitely be interested.
Conversely, I also like Mark Jacobs approach. Instead of raising the cost, he is going to try lowering the cost of a subscription, the aim being to guarantee income and thus avoid F2P, but not to punish people if they aren't playing that much. For example, if he aims for £5pm, that is nothing (about 15 minutes of paid work for me) so even if a month went by where I couldn't play, I'm really not gonna be upset about missing £5.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
I am not a special snowflake who when I became introduced to the games I am talking about the effect was radical down to my DNA. I am sure many other gamers would have the same experience.
that is why
How would you possibly know that? You ran a survey? Talking to 10 friends does not count as statistical evidence.
I am not a special snowflake who when I became introduced to the games I am talking about the effect was radical down to my DNA. I am sure many other gamers would have the same experience.
that is why
How would you possibly know that? You ran a survey? Talking to 10 friends does not count as statistical evidence.
how would I possibly know that I am not a special snowflake?
because its statistically not possible and that statistical impossibility becomes even more so when the emotional response is significantly different between two subjects rather than subtle.
I know a lot of people here believe in the special snowflake model but they need to learn more about statistics
also, 1. I never stated that it was a fact. thus when moving forward on a conversation one has to pick the more statistically plausible option which I feel I have done.
Post edited by SEANMCAD on
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
One MMO (WoW) had a shot to go the more than $15 a month route and even they wouldnt go there...They had the player base and the quality of game to attempt it and they passed.... Obviously they have done their research and the risk was too great to go more expensive.... I just dont see any possible video game that can command that kind of money, especially a MMO.
One MMO (WoW) had a shot to go the more than $15 a month route and even they wouldnt go there...They had the player base and the quality of game to attempt it and they passed.... Obviously they have done their research and the risk was too great to go more expensive.... I just dont see any possible video game that can command that kind of money, especially a MMO.
Apparently people call wow an outdated game, or games like Eso not premium game. So a game better than those sure warranted more than 15$ a month.
Easier said than done. Making a game good enough to worth 25$ subscription to the mass is the hard part.
One MMO (WoW) had a shot to go the more than $15 a month route and even they wouldnt go there...They had the player base and the quality of game to attempt it and they passed.... Obviously they have done their research and the risk was too great to go more expensive.... I just dont see any possible video game that can command that kind of money, especially a MMO.
Most video games "command that"... Folks pay $60 for a console game that they play for a few weeks...
Games like The Order sold millions of copies.. and that game had a documented 5 hour walkthough of the whole game...
Many MMO players will do that in one sitting...
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
One MMO (WoW) had a shot to go the more than $15 a month route and even they wouldnt go there...They had the player base and the quality of game to attempt it and they passed.... Obviously they have done their research and the risk was too great to go more expensive.... I just dont see any possible video game that can command that kind of money, especially a MMO.
Most video games "command that"... Folks pay $60 for a console game that they play for a few weeks...
Games like The Order sold millions of copies.. and that game had a documented 5 hour walkthough of the whole game...
Many MMO players will do that in one sitting...
They already are playing pay to win games.
For you, that's not the problem. The problem for you is most likely no game is good enough.
And let us be realistic here. You are expecting a game far better than any 15$ subscription games or any f2p games currently on the market. Easier said than done.
One MMO (WoW) had a shot to go the more than $15 a month route and even they wouldnt go there...They had the player base and the quality of game to attempt it and they passed.... Obviously they have done their research and the risk was too great to go more expensive.... I just dont see any possible video game that can command that kind of money, especially a MMO.
Most video games "command that"... Folks pay $60 for a console game that they play for a few weeks...
Games like The Order sold millions of copies.. and that game had a documented 5 hour walkthough of the whole game...
Many MMO players will do that in one sitting...
They already are playing pay to win games.
For you, that's not the problem. The problem for you is most likely no game is good enough.
And let us be realistic here. You are expecting a game far better than any 15$ subscription games or any f2p games currently on the market. Easier said than done.
No, again you misstate things to try to re-cast the argument.
Again I contend that there is a base of players who are willing to pay more than a measly $15 a month for a game was has no cash shop/RMT/F2P cheese and instituted some premium features such as more active GMs. This is not a really hard or revolutionary concept. It's actually a throwback to how things used to be.
For the record.. $15 in 1995 is equal to about $25 today ($24.19 but close enough).
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Comments
So what justification is that the game should be better just because they charge 25 or 50$.
People GROSSLY underestimate the power of marketing in this equation. People WILL spend more for less if the game is marketed strategically
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I don't think companies can make a mmorpg better by magically charging more.
At least no companies believe it'll work, that's why no one try it yet.
Also keep in mind that "less players" is not necessarily a negative. Dropping people who pay nothing does not affect revenue at all and actually helps cut costs of servers and bandwidth as well as stopping the dilution of CS and GM resources.
Plot out monthly content patches. Add weekly large scale live events. Now that GMs don't have to spend time on issues for the non-paying folks they should have time to actually GM and randomly create content for folks.
I don't need to have all the answers as I'm not selling a product. I'm just saying there IS a market for a premium game that charges a premium price and Id like to see a company stand out from the crowd and attempt to break the F2P stranglehold which I feel has stifled innovation. I don't want all games to switch. I don't even want a bunch... I'd just like the ability to have a choice.
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
You need a shelf life like WOW's to get most to pay a sub in this day and age (or a powerful IP guiding it's fandom), and no new game is going to match that breadth of content.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
because:
1. they wrap up the marketing costs into those figures
2. they are over weighted by people making decisions who have no intrest in games themselves anyway.
number 1 clearly being more exact and less abstract.
I can not encourage people enough to check out games outside of the traditional mainstream with an open mind and I dont mean rimworld.
there are games out there that are considerably better than mainstream games made by like a team of 5 or less
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
If you like whats out there.. that's fantastic! Enjoy! There will likely always be F2P games.
Some of us would pay a premium for a premium game. ESO was not a premium game at all. It was the same as every other game.
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
Trust me, I have paid $20-30 for games a LOT better then ones I have paid $60-70 for.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Soe did not NEED that studio,it continues on in partnerships and it's console and will continue to make money there instead of losing on the studio.
Yes i of course would love to see that as well but the game has to be real solid as well.Like NOTHING on the market right now would entice me to pay any sub fee.
I am only currently playing Gorgon but that game has some serious flaws and a VERY restricting linear combat structure that is nothing more than power over dmg ratios.It does at least offer some free game play and is somewhat interesting.I am not even sure if i would play ANY of these other games even if for free which is why i play Gorgon because in reality,it is not the money that keeps me out,it is the premise/value that keeps me away from other games.
I still hold Pantheon as the ONLY possibility but even then i saw too many flaws in past Brad games to hold my breathe thinking something really amazing is incoming.
The mmorpg genre is in sad shape and likely because too many low budget/mobile/cheaply made games are stealing a massive part of the market leaving too small a market left for devs to aim for triple A quality.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Pretty much debunk the myth more budget eqauls better game.
~~ postlarval ~~
Good games sell, thats always been the case, i don't think all that many care who made it as long as it plays well, although there is a degree of expectation from certain developers who have had prior sucesses to repeat those successes, and unfortuantely the more popular developers do have more and better resources when it comes to game developement.
Although that doesn't guarantee success, take Mass Effect:Andromeda, thats something that unfortunately Bioware will have hung round their neck like a lodestone when it comes to their next game, whatever it is.
But the small developers are not better either, the more recent debacle from Hello Games springs to mind as a game that was over hyped, over priced, and unfortunately under delivered, their promises were broken, indeed the game is unlikely to ever have the features that were promised.
While it might be possible for a really small dev team of 5 to make a 'decent' game, realistically, its not going to be that great, and will likely not be comparable to AAA rated games that have much larger development teams, and the scope of those games is inevitably much smaller.
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
Because I know I am not some special snowflake in which only I notice a RADICAL difference between the two areas of gaming of which I have played both.
I say 'radical' intently. It defys logic to be given a game that controls the players choices to a very limited number, restricts what the gamer can do to about 1 thing (combat), has zero crafting, zero building and it filled with cut scenes nobody cares about THEN when a player say they want more options, be able to explore, craft and build and are given those things in another game they say 'meh' and then consider the highly restrictive option better. I find that implausible to believe.
I am not a special snowflake who when I became introduced to the games I am talking about the effect was radical down to my DNA. I am sure many other gamers would have the same experience. that is why
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
By "good", a standard example from me would be vanilla lotro. It was a good base game, but for my £8.99 a month I got:
- New zones - Evendim, Forochel, Goblin Town, Tal Bruienen, Annuminas
- New 6man Dungeons - 3x Annuminas
- New 12 man raid - Rift of Nurz Ghashu
- Crafting overhaul
- Numerous class balancing
- New PvP Area - Delving of Fror
- New Monster Class - Defiler
- 7 new epic books (roughly 50 quests following the main story line)
It doesn't sound like much, especially as this covers nearly 2 years of the game, yet this is more content than any other game I've played, regardless of F2P or P2P. It still wasn't enough to keep me in the game - as an endgame focused player, I did get bored and took a 6 month break to play WAR - but it was still more than enough for most people.If a new game released today with the same depth and immersion as LotRO, but was charging a subscription in order to avoid F2P crap, I'd definitely be interested.
Conversely, I also like Mark Jacobs approach. Instead of raising the cost, he is going to try lowering the cost of a subscription, the aim being to guarantee income and thus avoid F2P, but not to punish people if they aren't playing that much. For example, if he aims for £5pm, that is nothing (about 15 minutes of paid work for me) so even if a month went by where I couldn't play, I'm really not gonna be upset about missing £5.
because its statistically not possible and that statistical impossibility becomes even more so when the emotional response is significantly different between two subjects rather than subtle.
I know a lot of people here believe in the special snowflake model but they need to learn more about statistics
also, 1. I never stated that it was a fact. thus when moving forward on a conversation one has to pick the more statistically plausible option which I feel I have done.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Easier said than done. Making a game good enough to worth 25$ subscription to the mass is the hard part.
Games like The Order sold millions of copies.. and that game had a documented 5 hour walkthough of the whole game...
Many MMO players will do that in one sitting...
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
For you, that's not the problem. The problem for you is most likely no game is good enough.
And let us be realistic here. You are expecting a game far better than any 15$ subscription games or any f2p games currently on the market. Easier said than done.
Again I contend that there is a base of players who are willing to pay more than a measly $15 a month for a game was has no cash shop/RMT/F2P cheese and instituted some premium features such as more active GMs. This is not a really hard or revolutionary concept. It's actually a throwback to how things used to be.
For the record.. $15 in 1995 is equal to about $25 today ($24.19 but close enough).
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