Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Payment Model and Opportunity Cost
Yes, many people are not happy with AA's payment model, and the clear separation between monthly subscribers and F2P accounts. I get that, and I wouldn't plan to play this game if it wasn't worth subscribing - it doesn't seem complete for F2P players. To me, it's a monthly sub game with an elaborate F2P demo. Some questions/propositions:
1. A monthly sub is incredibly cheap entertainment. If you play just one hour a day (30 hrs/mo) that's 50 cents an hour at $15/mo. (Many of us would play far more than that, bringing the per hour cost even lower.) Going to a movie theatre and buying a snack could easily be $15, which is approximately $7.50/hr for the entertainment. A cable television bill could be $100/mo - watching 2 hours/day = $1.66/hr. A $1 candy bar that you eat in 10 minutes is $6/hr. This could go on and on, but I'm trying to think of anything that gives an interesting daily experience that costs so little.
2. I'd pay $30/mo for an MMO that blew my mind on a regular basis, maybe more. To keep premium content coming, the developers need a constant revenue stream, wherever from - cash shop, subs, expansions. I know this is obvious, but it seems people's expectations with software are getting skewed. If you buy a car one year, the dealer doesn't come back next year and outfit you with the latest upgrades for free - you pay, somehow.
3. Has the player culture shifted, to the point that more people expect F2P regardless of the quality of the game? Or are we really talking about whether a particular game is "worth it", and people will happily sub when the right game comes along? Big difference.
4. Principle vs actual cost: I think many are objecting to AA's model due to the perceived P2W, not necessarily because they can't afford to sub. I think AA shoots itself in the foot because people now feel like - "I can play for free, but they are trying to force me to buy all this stuff or sub to win..." When they should present it as a sub game with a free lite version. The facts are exactly the same. My perspective is I'm just doing the cost analysis in my head (Is this game entertaining enough to sub or use the shop?) and I'll play if it is. The short of it is it will still be incredibly cheap entertainment, comparable to what I've paid for other sub mmos, even if I'm paying more than those on the slow boat.
Comments
You can actually play AA without subscribing,you can get the best gear,you can unlock the same contect,all maps area are availble,same pvp.....
People who subscribe just have an easier time making money and the uxery of owning a house... wow.. not that much a deal breaker.
The FTP community is a bunch of whiny kids (mostly) and we should treat them like that,ignore them.
Basically clicking away text windows ruins every MMO, try to have fun instead of rushing things. Without story and lore all there is left is a bunch of mechanics.
Reply
Add Multi-Quote
I can say with absolute certainty that if AA launched as a sub-only game it would revert to F2p within 6 months. It's why it's launching as F2P with subscription as an option. Pay your subscription. Be happy. The model is set in stone, isn't going to change. Debate it until your head explodes. It's a done deal.
Judging by the amount of complaining and protesting about the F2P model, I'd say AA is shaping-up to do rather well in the NA/EU market !
People generally don't put so much effort into a game they don't really care about. I'm willing to bet that a healthy slice of the loudest and most persistent protesters will be patrons at launch...
For the neurotic achiever-types among us, it's hard to stomach that you can't do something substantial that other players can do - mainly having a house. It's true a house doesn't help you in a pvp fight (unless you run hide in it), but the way I most like to play an mmo is to try everything, all classes, pvp, raids, guild, all crafts, etc. But you're very correct - you can play the game with depth without the sub. And the family idea is a pretty interesting way to link sub and non-sub players to give access to housing to everyone.
The only reason I'm even on the forums is because AA isn't up right now. Otherwise I'd be playing (as a sub/patron). I love the game and can't wait for launch. Just curious about people's opinions of mmo pay models - AA makes a good test case.
that depends on your definition of depth. PvP and questing doesnt mean depth to many people. Crafting on the other hand is. not sure if its true or not but based on what other people say, you cant have a farm or a house unless you subscribe. That is silly. That to me personally have more depth than pvp or questing. WIll i play AA? regardless of payment model ill play if i have fun. The limited time beta is not eough for me to decide that.
One thing is certain, free players are potential payers. Locking housing and farming behind the sub only rip off the cash shop users that prefer not to subscribe and still support the game. Sure there are freeloaders, but not every free player rejects the cash shop.
I dont have issue with the actual cost as much. I have issue with needing calculus to figure out how much I am paying.
Oh and the fact that crafting costs but combat does not really pisses me off
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Would the reversion to F2P be because people weren't satisfied with the quality of the game (enough to keep subbing), or because they just don't want to pay for any sub game and the sub model is dying? (Or maybe because a bunch resubbed to WoW for the expac and don't want multiple subs).
One non-sub concept: create a guild to role-play the lowly, unlanded rebels. Take over a remote spot for rogue farming and tag-team protecting it from other players. (You can create farms pretty much anywhere but people can steal the crops unless they're on your official farm that requires patron status.) Creating a family lets you share a house, so your scrubby little band could have one sub between the 10 of you to maintain a house and family farms. Surviving unsubbed could be as deep as subbing, and possibly more creative.
and why should i do that? if thats how you like to play that is cool, but that doesnt mean i have to play a game the way you do.
For you it's silly not to have an house, i'll tell why it would break the game to give f2p a house.
Tons of accounts that claim tons of already very limited land. No thanks.
If you want Trion's reply about it:
"The open-world housing in ArcheAge is a compelling sandbox feature that we’re very glad to have in the game. Because the housing is non-instanced, there needs to be a balance between available land and players who wish to place farms and houses. ArcheAge will be free-to-play and, as such, will have a variety of players who are in direct competition for land.
As a protective measure against infinite free placeholder accounts claiming precious land, ownership of limited real estate is reserved for paid players at launch. Free players are encouraged to participate in the crafting and farming aspects of this game, and will also be able to both use public land and share farms and houses with friends who give them access. Remember, not all the housing areas are marked on the map, so explore a bit to find the best places for your farm and house!"
As a fan of the game, I fully agree.
But I also think free client, robust trial, and an ongoing sub is the very best revenue model for this genre.
So, yeah, No one should expect to play for free forever. The age of entitlement needs to end and those that feed off it need to just leave.
I'm just trying to think of alternatives to the concept that you have to be able to do everything to have fun. It wasn't meant as an order. But maybe we could role-play that as free accounts: I offer you some ideas, you interpret them as a command and say you don't take orders from cat people, and I go cry in my litter box.
Fair point, and gets at my question of whether people can't pay (not enough money) or just won't (unsatisfied with quality or on principle).
You actually raise a very interesting question, of whether mmos will eventually mirror the inequality of the real world (those with less money will be an underclass to those with large disposable income). One of the beauties of mmos has been that all people go in equal (if they were able to get in to begin with). But as computers/internet have become so widespread, cheap, and accessible, those with fewer resources can get access to mmos, but without the ability to reach the top of the pay options. I can see that a developer would want to tap the lower income people and squeeze something out of them, so there's an incentive to offer cheaper options in addition to the "standard" full-pay version.
0.00-1:30 - Enjoy wrapper, read contents, feel the weight in your hand, contemplate plight of cocoa farmers, factory conditions, and the miracle of world distribution systems
1:30-3:00 - Slowly open wrapper, examine the sculptural form and color, inhale deeply, compare to prior candy bar experiences
3:00-3:20 - Take first bite, observe texture and consistency, feel the movement of the substance from the front to the back of your mouth and tongue receptors, appreciate the nuances
3:20-7:00 - Mindfully repeat prior step until candy is gone
7:00-10:00 - Call a loved one and recount steps 1-4 above in vibrant detail, then explain that you need a raise at your job because the AA payment model is too expensive.
You actually raise a very interesting question, of whether mmos will eventually mirror the inequality of the real world (those with less money will be an underclass to those with large disposable income). One of the beauties of mmos has been that all people go in equal (if they were able to get in to begin with). But as computers/internet have become so widespread, cheap, and accessible, those with fewer resources can get access to mmos, but without the ability to reach the top of the pay options. I can see that a developer would want to tap the lower income people and squeeze something out of them, so there's an incentive to offer cheaper options in addition to the "standard" full-pay version.
It already happens. Not so much by the devs and games but by the players, who project their real world experience and opinion about it onto the game situation (imo, obviously).
One of the most interesting aspects of a level playing field (sub model) is that people who do something exceptional with the same things everyone has really show up as exceptional. When the level playing field is removed and monetary options become available, the exceptional is much more likely to be directly related to how much money was spent.
Just my observation so far.
Someone has been reading to many GoT novels
Even if they unlocked the housing and farms, most F2P people still wouldn't own one. The housing is open world, there are limited spots, so unless they roll on an unpopulated server they will still not have any land to place on.
and that would bring up another issue of people actually supporting your game with a sub and not having land available to place farm / house
Agreed. Of course another resource is free time, and people with much more of it often stand out as exceptional even though they didn't do anything particularly amazing, just the usual stuff x1000. I guess to some degree it's a mirror of real life. If you invest loads of money or time into something, often you're rewarded. And often you can pay your way out of the time investment to get the benefit (hire someone to build you a house instead of building it yourself). But if we were looking for "real life rules" we probably wouldn't be logged into an mmo for hours and hours. We want an idealized world of absolute equality, where we live or die by our own merit.
Yeah this is what I hate about these cash shop systems. A meritocracy where everyone who can afford the nominal fee to get in the door is rewarded for their effort is far better than one where your position in the game is dictated by disposable income in real life.
Very few F2P games would actually give a good experience to someone from one of those poor countries. Sure they can play but who wants to log into a game just to be constantly reminded how poor they are and how many nice things they can't afford? Getting a good experience in F2P games is often more expensive than just subbing will be and if the game has P2W tendencies on top of it those poor people will never be able to compete with the big spenders anyway.
Someday more people may wake up to the real economics of (most) cash shops. It's not some charity to let more people enjoy the game, it's just a clever marketing ploy to try to get you to spend more than you would on a flat sub.
It makes me sick when people try to break down the cost of renting MMO game time to watching a movie etc. A movie provides seating and air conditioning and bathrooms etc for the cost. A game does not. A game requires you to buy 1000usd+ worth of hardware plus an internet subscription on top of that. This comparison is just wrong. The only way paying monthly for a game you already bought is acceptable is if they're continuously adding more story and expanding the universe to provide more depth to the game. Most of these MMOs do not do that. They simply add more timesinks and regurgitate textures and assets into "new" spaces to do the same thing you've already been doing. They're trying to coast on cruise control for as long as they can make easy money. In short, they're doing it all wrong but they can't stop because people/kids are so naive they'll pay for it. They've got you all by the throat. The simple fact is the MMO genre is degenerated into garbage and it's not going to change till people demand it changes.
The game doesn't force you do do any of that. If you paid 1000 dollars for your pc that on you, and you use it for more then the one game i.e you on a website.
You think its easy money but its a job like everything else. if its such easy money why do so many of them get fired. When you go to work you try to make as much as you can. or at least most of us do.
You spend your 15 a month until you no longer enjoy what your spending it on then you stop. i dont see where the evil gaming company took your for every penny you had
It's a simple invitation to consider the relative cost of various forms of entertainment. And you're doing the kind of cost/benefit analysis I'm suggesting - deciding if the entertainment is worth the expense. Just because you decide it's not sufficient value to warrant the expense doesn't invalidate the method of analysis.
We're all free to vote for what we perceive as quality with our dollars, and decline to buy what's not. No other "demand for change" will accomplish anything in a profit-driven world. Truth is, as much as people like to complain about the slide of mmos, many are still fun, so people will pay to play them, even if they're not DAoC or whatever else someone idealizes.