Used to be people bought games because they thought they might be fun. They didn't care about the financial stability of the developer or what payment model was being used.
The moment we all got caught up with spreadsheets and earnings statements was the day games shifted from being fun to tactical investments. The fun has long left the building.
The only reason P2P is dying is because the quality of MMO's has taken a nose dive in the last decade. Of course less people are willing to pay monthly if every option is garbage.
Make a few more games with as much quality as WoW and we will gladly pay for it as the millions in WoW still do.
+1
There has not been a "real" MMORPG released in many years (with the possible exception of AA, and the business model and poor management have wrecked that game).
So if people don't value the "Single player game in shared space" MMOs, or the "Arena FPS shooter" MMOs or the shallow "console cross-over " MMOs, what does that say?
That they are not willing to pay a sub for "MMORPG-lite". That's all. Put out a game worth the price and people will pay it.
When one or more real, good quality, full featured MMORPGs come around again (Not Korean re-releases, sorry AA, and they will sooner or later) we can have this discussion again.
The only reason P2P is dying is because the quality of MMO's has taken a nose dive in the last decade. Of course less people are willing to pay monthly if every option is garbage.
Make a few more games with as much quality as WoW and we will gladly pay for it as the millions in WoW still do.
+1
There has not been a "real" MMORPG released in many years (with the possible exception of AA, and the business model and poor management have wrecked that game).
So if people don't value the "Single player game in shared space" MMOs, or the "Arena FPS shooter" MMOs or the shallow "console cross-over " MMOs, what does that say?
That they are not willing to pay a sub for "MMORPG-lite". That's all. Put out a game worth the price and people will pay it.
When one or more real, good quality, full featured MMORPGs come around again (Not Korean re-releases, sorry AA, and they will sooner or later) we can have this discussion again.
Wrong!
People do value them. That's why there are so many of them out there.
Amazing how you people don't get that fact. They want their MMO's fast and easy. Even if they say otherwise.
Keep blaming the games, but it is the players that are the unchangeable constant here.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Article got it backwards. Cash shop model is already proven to be more profitable than a sub. So really it's the p2p customer which has been devalued by the game companies.
Article got it backwards. Cash shop model is already proven to be more profitable than a sub. So really it's the p2p customer which has been devalued by the game companies.
Also wrong.
The company is responding to the players. If the players don't feel the game is worth box price plus $180 dollars per year, then the game goes to F2P in order to bring in more players and to keep the game profitable enough to maintain service.
The players are devaluing the game, hence the change.
But lets blame the big bad suits. It makes us feel better.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Originally posted by Boneserino Originally posted by FoomerangArticle got it backwards. Cash shop model is already proven to be more profitable than a sub. So really it's the p2p customer which has been devalued by the game companies.
Also wrong.
The company is responding to the players. If the players don't feel the game is worth box price plus $180 dollars per year, then the game goes to F2P in order to bring in more players and to keep the game profitable enough to maintain service.
The players are devaluing the game, hence the change.
But lets blame the big bad suits. It makes us feel better.
Not wrong. And not blaming anyone lol. I think you may be projecting some unnecessary aggression. It's just a byproduct of the monetization of every little thing in a video game. Yes cash shops bring in higher revenue than a subscription. And as a result, customers willing to pay a subscription are devalued from a business standpoint. There's no nay finger pointing agenda here lol weirdo
The only reason P2P is dying is because the quality of MMO's has taken a nose dive in the last decade. Of course less people are willing to pay monthly if every option is garbage.
Make a few more games with as much quality as WoW and we will gladly pay for it as the millions in WoW still do.
+1
There has not been a "real" MMORPG released in many years (with the possible exception of AA, and the business model and poor management have wrecked that game).
So if people don't value the "Single player game in shared space" MMOs, or the "Arena FPS shooter" MMOs or the shallow "console cross-over " MMOs, what does that say?
That they are not willing to pay a sub for "MMORPG-lite". That's all. Put out a game worth the price and people will pay it.
When one or more real, good quality, full featured MMORPGs come around again (Not Korean re-releases, sorry AA, and they will sooner or later) we can have this discussion again.
Wrong!
People do value them. That's why there are so many of them out there.
Amazing how you people don't get that fact. They want their MMO's fast and easy. Even if they say otherwise.
Keep blaming the games, but it is the players that are the unchangeable constant here.
Additionally, where MMOs used to be the only major multiplayer show in town. Now nearly every single game has some form of online multiplay. Online gaming is the major driving force behind ALL gaming now. If a game doesn't have some form of online play it's considered a bit odd.
Why should someone pay for access to a mmo when they can do all things a mmo can do for the box price or free and from multiple genres that do things better?
Originally posted by FoomerangArticle got it backwards. Cash shop model is already proven to be more profitable than a sub. So really it's the p2p customer which has been devalued by the game companies.
Also wrong.
The company is responding to the players. If the players don't feel the game is worth box price plus $180 dollars per year, then the game goes to F2P in order to bring in more players and to keep the game profitable enough to maintain service.
The players are devaluing the game, hence the change.
But lets blame the big bad suits. It makes us feel better.
Not wrong. And not blaming anyone lol. I think you may be projecting some unnecessary aggression. It's just a byproduct of the monetization of every little thing in a video game. Yes cash shops bring in higher revenue than a subscription. And as a result, customers willing to pay a subscription are devalued from a business standpoint. There's no nay finger pointing agenda here lol weirdo
So a game company should prove their love to players that devalue their game, because they don't want to pay for it, by letting it die with the few players that remain?
Is that what you are implying? Hey we don't want to devalue you people that won't pay for our game so we will just let it die.
Ok that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Originally posted by Boneserino Originally posted by FoomerangOriginally posted by BoneserinoOriginally posted by FoomerangArticle got it backwards. Cash shop model is already proven to be more profitable than a sub. So really it's the p2p customer which has been devalued by the game companies.
Also wrong.The company is responding to the players. If the players don't feel the game is worth box price plus $180 dollars per year, then the game goes to F2P in order to bring in more players and to keep the game profitable enough to maintain service.The players are devaluing the game, hence the change.But lets blame the big bad suits. It makes us feel better.Not wrong. And not blaming anyone lol. I think you may be projecting some unnecessary aggression. It's just a byproduct of the monetization of every little thing in a video game. Yes cash shops bring in higher revenue than a subscription. And as a result, customers willing to pay a subscription are devalued from a business standpoint. There's no nay finger pointing agenda here lol weirdoSo a game company should prove their love to players that devalue their game, because they don't want to pay for it, by letting it die with the few players that remain?
Is that what you are implying? Hey we don't want to devalue you people that won't pay for our game so we will just let it die.
Ok that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.
Nope. You're trippin. Just take what I said at face value and leave the emotionally charged back story out of it lol
I can understand why game-hoppers complain about subscription games. If you're playing 4 different MMO's simultaneously (1 week per month for each MMO), then a $15 sub can start to get a bit pricey I suppose.
It's never been an issue for me, because I never play more than 1 MMO at a time. And hte decision to play that MMO is not made purely on a "cost-to-play" basis. If I enjoy a game enough to spend significant time on it, then it's irrelevant to me whether it's B2P, F2P or monthly sub.
However, if the game design is such that I need to spend $50+ each month in the Cash Shop to achieve a level of play that I find enjoyable, then I walk away, because that inevitably means that the game is exploiting my preferred play style.
Originally posted by FoomerangArticle got it backwards. Cash shop model is already proven to be more profitable than a sub. So really it's the p2p customer which has been devalued by the game companies.
Also wrong.The company is responding to the players. If the players don't feel the game is worth box price plus $180 dollars per year, then the game goes to F2P in order to bring in more players and to keep the game profitable enough to maintain service.The players are devaluing the game, hence the change.But lets blame the big bad suits. It makes us feel better.
Not wrong. And not blaming anyone lol. I think you may be projecting some unnecessary aggression. It's just a byproduct of the monetization of every little thing in a video game. Yes cash shops bring in higher revenue than a subscription. And as a result, customers willing to pay a subscription are devalued from a business standpoint. There's no nay finger pointing agenda here lol weirdo
So a game company should prove their love to players that devalue their game, because they don't want to pay for it, by letting it die with the few players that remain?
Is that what you are implying? Hey we don't want to devalue you people that won't pay for our game so we will just let it die.
Ok that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.
Nope. You're trippin. Just take what I said at face value and leave the emotionally charged back story out of it lol
Ok well pardon me if I refuse to do so.
I disagree.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
The only reason P2P is dying is because the quality of MMO's has taken a nose dive in the last decade. Of course less people are willing to pay monthly if every option is garbage.
Make a few more games with as much quality as WoW and we will gladly pay for it as the millions in WoW still do.
+1
There has not been a "real" MMORPG released in many years (with the possible exception of AA, and the business model and poor management have wrecked that game).
So if people don't value the "Single player game in shared space" MMOs, or the "Arena FPS shooter" MMOs or the shallow "console cross-over " MMOs, what does that say?
That they are not willing to pay a sub for "MMORPG-lite". That's all. Put out a game worth the price and people will pay it.
When one or more real, good quality, full featured MMORPGs come around again (Not Korean re-releases, sorry AA, and they will sooner or later) we can have this discussion again.
Wrong!
People do value them. That's why there are so many of them out there.
Amazing how you people don't get that fact. They want their MMO's fast and easy. Even if they say otherwise.
Keep blaming the games, but it is the players that are the unchangeable constant here.
Then please explain to me how/why every single MMO has had severe population declines since WoW launched and the age of "easy gaming" started.
Prior to the release of WoW, game populations actually INCREASED after launch, in good games, and now it is the exact opposite. (A radical concept, I know!)
So if players are the same, as you contend, why is the observed and documentable behavior of these players exactly the reverse of the prior behavior?
What is different?
It is the easy mode games that are not WORTH playing beyond the first month.
MMORPGs, as originally designed (UO, DAOC, EvE, SWG), could not be "played through" in a month, these day, they are designed to be.
People are too emotional about this rather than letting it be plain logic. Renting vs Owning. Most people on the planet rather own what they have from their TV to their cars. The Problem is that some things (water, electricity, internet) are not thing you can just buy and own you need to rent them. Its not that the provider can't figure out how much you'll probably use in a month and give you a life time rate to pay down. They simply know that as of this moment you can not go with out it.
Here lies the problem with mmos. At a time it was suggested that WoW was as addictive as crack cocaine. If Any mmo could reach that addiction level then sure you would give what you have until the cost of the addiction out weighed the means you have to give to it. Right now an item mall and "premium" lets you weed out the true addicts from the social users. If you charged everyone that wanted your product the same price you would price some people out and undercharge the others.
This is getting too long. Look up price discrimination and it should give you a better idea of how some parts of this system works. If you feel you need them taking 15 dollars out your pocket every month just to play then sadly your an actual fool. If you realize your willing to pay that much for a quality product but would gladly take it for free then you have some sense in you.
That was so well written Suilebhain. Your experience in your MMO was just like mine in POTCO (Pirates of the Caribbean online). That game had a great community and you didn't have to commit to a certain server, you could travel to any server and on any island, you could friend a player and teleport to them even if they were on a different server. Levels didn't matter, you could play with guild members who were level 50 and level 1. I miss that game and so do 1,000's of other POTCO players. MMO's still have a place in the gaming world if done right. POTCO was done right but unfortunately it lacked new content during it's last 2 years of existence which is why it lost so many players and was cancelled. I miss the community feel of it, it was fun because of the fellow players. I can't imagine playing a single player game, sounds lonely.
Originally posted by Suilebhain
I had a little difficulty following some of the article as it needed a little more editing before publication, but I agree with the sentiment. As a gamer coming from paper and dice to this whole new world of online gaming, where people could log in from anywhere around the world instead of having to come to your living room, I placed great value on my gaming experience. It wasn't just the game itself - the graphics, music, and mechanics of it - it was the community.
That is what I find lacking in recent MMOs, and that is not the fault of the developers. It's us.
Back when I started gaming, DAOC was the big thing. SWG hadn't come out yet, and people were flocking from EQ and UO to this new game where realm unity was an essential part of gameplay. Roleplayers would congregate on specific servers designated as RP-friendly, and in some cases you could spend a whole day and never kill anything other than the random creature that wandered into your "area of control". My wife used to stage poetry readings, where audiences would gather and people would volunteer to recite a poem, give a speech, "sing" a song, tell jokes, etc. People from other servers would create a character on our server just to come to the Log and participate.
Also, there was the adventuring aspect that kept us coming back. Loot was either found or crafted, and nothing was that much better than anything else (until the raid quests started entering the system through expansions) but we all strove to make sure people would increase their power by hunting more dangerous creatures in more threatening regions. We did it out of a sense of community.
Finally, the Realm War was something that was a shared experience. No enemy was going to occupy a keep on OUR lands. Enemy assassins were hunted and sent home after a beatdown. Real borders were guarded. Keeps were held or retaken. This was all pretty much business as usual, and it was what kept people coming back, placing high value on their gaming experience.
Guilds would actively seek new recruits (and being a RP server, would do so in character). In fact, there was a stiff competition for new recruits because strong guilds increased the superstructure of the community. In some cases, entire guilds would migrate to our server to set up their own particular brand of roleplay, and also participate in all of the other aspects, as well. Many are the times that our guild group welcomed visitors to our hunting party to battle wind demons in a particularly remote section of the wilderness, and they would seek us out repeatedly. The expectation was that we were "in it together".
Ironically, someone stated that people return to WoW when they become disenchanted with their new games. It was WoW and all games that followed that model that diminished the strenth of community built in games like EQ, UO, and DAOC (and later, SWG), as most content could be played through solo, and guilds and communities were secondary at best, or just away to participate in raid content, or to blab in chat. For people who like to play this way, this is all fine, but many seek a richer experience, and when they do not find it during the free 30-day period, do find that the game and the experience it offers has less value. Personally I hate WoW. I hate the look of it, and the community leaves much to be desired, so going "back to WoW" is never an option.
I think there has been too great of a paradigm shift with the influx of video gamers who think that RP either means gaining levels and playing a skill set or think it is all a bunch of weird people saying "thee" and "forsooth". Seeing the in-game avatar of someone as more than a "toon", but as a virtual representation of the person as they choose to be in that particular setting for the purpose of the game, goes a long way toward taking your environment a bit more seriously, of having more value.
The only reason P2P is dying is because the quality of MMO's has taken a nose dive in the last decade. Of course less people are willing to pay monthly if every option is garbage.
Make a few more games with as much quality as WoW and we will gladly pay for it as the millions in WoW still do.
+1
There has not been a "real" MMORPG released in many years (with the possible exception of AA, and the business model and poor management have wrecked that game).
So if people don't value the "Single player game in shared space" MMOs, or the "Arena FPS shooter" MMOs or the shallow "console cross-over " MMOs, what does that say?
That they are not willing to pay a sub for "MMORPG-lite". That's all. Put out a game worth the price and people will pay it.
When one or more real, good quality, full featured MMORPGs come around again (Not Korean re-releases, sorry AA, and they will sooner or later) we can have this discussion again.
Wrong!
People do value them. That's why there are so many of them out there.
Amazing how you people don't get that fact. They want their MMO's fast and easy. Even if they say otherwise.
Keep blaming the games, but it is the players that are the unchangeable constant here.
Then please explain to me how/why every single MMO has had severe population declines since WoW launched and the age of "easy gaming" started.
Well if you think about it WoW was a bit of an anomaly. An absurdly popular game done well by Blizzard. It gave the masses what they wanted. Plus all their friends were playing. Anything coming out directly after WoW was already fighting an uphill battle for popularity. The fact that most were similar in gameplay only meant that people returned to WoW, not that the other games were necessarily worse.
Prior to the release of WoW, game populations actually INCREASED after launch, in good games, and now it is the exact opposite. (A radical concept, I know!)
Hmm I will take your word for this, however I did play Earth and beyond before WoW and in fact I did cancel my sub after 6 months. I just didn't feel I was getting my moneys worth after the initial rush wore off. I eventually did resub and played until sunset. Point is I don't think what you are saying truly happened after WoW. It was going to happen with MMO's inevitably anyway, IMO.
So if players are the same, as you contend, why is the observed and documentable behavior of these players exactly the reverse of the prior behavior?
What is different?
Again I don't think the change was as drastic as you make it out to be nor do I believe that players were responding in the exact manner you are stating.Also comparing the mature MMO industry of today versus the early years is a bit of an unfair comparison I think. Something that was new and exciting at the time was bound to keep players interested for longer periods. Eventually that wore off until here we are today, all bitter and burnt vets.
It is the easy mode games that are not WORTH playing beyond the first month.
Yea I wasn't implying that easy mode games are a good thing. But there does seem to be a larger group of people looking for the casual experience or even semi casual if you want, versus those looking for more of and EvE or Darkfall experience. The reason these games are out there as I said is because gamers have spoken. They want to hop in a game and have fun right away. They don't want high learning curves and heavy grinding etc. They want entertainment and themeparks give them that. The rest of you want something else but in those cases it seems nobody can agree what that is. So naturally there are far fewer games out there for that group. and most haven't done well either.
MMORPGs, as originally designed (UO, DAOC, EvE, SWG), could not be "played through" in a month, these day, they are designed to be.
Well keep an eye on the Repop. It is very similar to SWG. EvE is still going and you can see it is popular but not hugely so. Perhaps Crowfall will be the next Ultima. In any case it will be all about how we as gamers accept these games that determines where the genre moves from here. Not the game companies. They are simply trying to make games they think people will like.And if people continue to play them and pay money then they must be doing something right from their pespective.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
I'm not very comfortable with Cash Shops and MT because of how poorly they often impact the games quality. I'm can be fairly certain the game will be abusive when it has those features, even if it "could" be done right.
I've long preferred a lower subscription, or better still, a retail installment model, or subscription only model with no retail cost.
The dilemma with having both is buying a product that you lose if you don't continue paying for it. Most of the time there are several expansions meaning $100-$200 of retail product can be forfeit if you stop paying a lofty subscription. Meanwhile the total cost is staggering. If it's installment only than you keep what you buy and continue to buy for more content. If its subscription only than you can access the game as long as you want to play, and not feel cheated when you stop for losing access to something you spent so much on installment and expansion cost.
Most of all, it feels like many of these combo sales models are exploiting players with huge profit margins they could easily discount. But they don't have enough value in their consumer to offer better content for a competitive cost.
I'm fully willing to pay for a satisfying product, but the classic retail+subscription combo never produced games that really satisfied me to begin with, I feel the successful MMO titles thrived on the manipulation of human desire more than genuine performance. As gaming society has matured and learned more about entertainment, their less willing to tolerate such high demands for such unsatisfying product...
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry, they'll be a mile away... and barefoot.
Currently, in my humble opinion, there is only 1 MMO, FF14, that gets what people expect from a sub based games, in today's market mind you, and that is more content, released quickly and of higher quality, then their B2p and F2P competition.
P.S So many comma interrupts and comma splices. . .
You might have a point. A game is not going to appeal to everyone. I think more creativity and diversity can still ensure the genre grows, but there will be something for everyone
Comments
To the OP,
Used to be people bought games because they thought they might be fun. They didn't care about the financial stability of the developer or what payment model was being used.
The moment we all got caught up with spreadsheets and earnings statements was the day games shifted from being fun to tactical investments. The fun has long left the building.
+1
There has not been a "real" MMORPG released in many years (with the possible exception of AA, and the business model and poor management have wrecked that game).
So if people don't value the "Single player game in shared space" MMOs, or the "Arena FPS shooter" MMOs or the shallow "console cross-over " MMOs, what does that say?
That they are not willing to pay a sub for "MMORPG-lite". That's all. Put out a game worth the price and people will pay it.
When one or more real, good quality, full featured MMORPGs come around again (Not Korean re-releases, sorry AA, and they will sooner or later) we can have this discussion again.
Wrong!
People do value them. That's why there are so many of them out there.
Amazing how you people don't get that fact. They want their MMO's fast and easy. Even if they say otherwise.
Keep blaming the games, but it is the players that are the unchangeable constant here.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Article got it backwards. Cash shop model is already proven to be more profitable than a sub. So really it's the p2p customer which has been devalued by the game companies.
Also wrong.
The company is responding to the players. If the players don't feel the game is worth box price plus $180 dollars per year, then the game goes to F2P in order to bring in more players and to keep the game profitable enough to maintain service.
The players are devaluing the game, hence the change.
But lets blame the big bad suits. It makes us feel better.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
The company is responding to the players. If the players don't feel the game is worth box price plus $180 dollars per year, then the game goes to F2P in order to bring in more players and to keep the game profitable enough to maintain service.
The players are devaluing the game, hence the change.
But lets blame the big bad suits. It makes us feel better.
Not wrong. And not blaming anyone lol. I think you may be projecting some unnecessary aggression. It's just a byproduct of the monetization of every little thing in a video game. Yes cash shops bring in higher revenue than a subscription. And as a result, customers willing to pay a subscription are devalued from a business standpoint. There's no nay finger pointing agenda here lol weirdo
Additionally, where MMOs used to be the only major multiplayer show in town. Now nearly every single game has some form of online multiplay. Online gaming is the major driving force behind ALL gaming now. If a game doesn't have some form of online play it's considered a bit odd.
Why should someone pay for access to a mmo when they can do all things a mmo can do for the box price or free and from multiple genres that do things better?
So a game company should prove their love to players that devalue their game, because they don't want to pay for it, by letting it die with the few players that remain?
Is that what you are implying? Hey we don't want to devalue you people that won't pay for our game so we will just let it die.
Ok that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Not wrong. And not blaming anyone lol. I think you may be projecting some unnecessary aggression. It's just a byproduct of the monetization of every little thing in a video game. Yes cash shops bring in higher revenue than a subscription. And as a result, customers willing to pay a subscription are devalued from a business standpoint. There's no nay finger pointing agenda here lol weirdo
So a game company should prove their love to players that devalue their game, because they don't want to pay for it, by letting it die with the few players that remain?
Is that what you are implying? Hey we don't want to devalue you people that won't pay for our game so we will just let it die.
Ok that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.
Nope. You're trippin. Just take what I said at face value and leave the emotionally charged back story out of it lol
I can understand why game-hoppers complain about subscription games. If you're playing 4 different MMO's simultaneously (1 week per month for each MMO), then a $15 sub can start to get a bit pricey I suppose.
It's never been an issue for me, because I never play more than 1 MMO at a time. And hte decision to play that MMO is not made purely on a "cost-to-play" basis. If I enjoy a game enough to spend significant time on it, then it's irrelevant to me whether it's B2P, F2P or monthly sub.
However, if the game design is such that I need to spend $50+ each month in the Cash Shop to achieve a level of play that I find enjoyable, then I walk away, because that inevitably means that the game is exploiting my preferred play style.
Ok well pardon me if I refuse to do so.
I disagree.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Then please explain to me how/why every single MMO has had severe population declines since WoW launched and the age of "easy gaming" started.
Prior to the release of WoW, game populations actually INCREASED after launch, in good games, and now it is the exact opposite. (A radical concept, I know!)
So if players are the same, as you contend, why is the observed and documentable behavior of these players exactly the reverse of the prior behavior?
What is different?
It is the easy mode games that are not WORTH playing beyond the first month.
MMORPGs, as originally designed (UO, DAOC, EvE, SWG), could not be "played through" in a month, these day, they are designed to be.
People are too emotional about this rather than letting it be plain logic. Renting vs Owning. Most people on the planet rather own what they have from their TV to their cars. The Problem is that some things (water, electricity, internet) are not thing you can just buy and own you need to rent them. Its not that the provider can't figure out how much you'll probably use in a month and give you a life time rate to pay down. They simply know that as of this moment you can not go with out it.
Here lies the problem with mmos. At a time it was suggested that WoW was as addictive as crack cocaine. If Any mmo could reach that addiction level then sure you would give what you have until the cost of the addiction out weighed the means you have to give to it. Right now an item mall and "premium" lets you weed out the true addicts from the social users. If you charged everyone that wanted your product the same price you would price some people out and undercharge the others.
This is getting too long. Look up price discrimination and it should give you a better idea of how some parts of this system works. If you feel you need them taking 15 dollars out your pocket every month just to play then sadly your an actual fool. If you realize your willing to pay that much for a quality product but would gladly take it for free then you have some sense in you.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
I've long preferred a lower subscription, or better still, a retail installment model, or subscription only model with no retail cost.
The dilemma with having both is buying a product that you lose if you don't continue paying for it. Most of the time there are several expansions meaning $100-$200 of retail product can be forfeit if you stop paying a lofty subscription. Meanwhile the total cost is staggering. If it's installment only than you keep what you buy and continue to buy for more content. If its subscription only than you can access the game as long as you want to play, and not feel cheated when you stop for losing access to something you spent so much on installment and expansion cost.
Most of all, it feels like many of these combo sales models are exploiting players with huge profit margins they could easily discount. But they don't have enough value in their consumer to offer better content for a competitive cost.
I'm fully willing to pay for a satisfying product, but the classic retail+subscription combo never produced games that really satisfied me to begin with, I feel the successful MMO titles thrived on the manipulation of human desire more than genuine performance. As gaming society has matured and learned more about entertainment, their less willing to tolerate such high demands for such unsatisfying product...
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, if they get angry, they'll be a mile away... and barefoot.
A reply written in the style of this article.
Currently, in my humble opinion, there is only 1 MMO, FF14, that gets what people expect from a sub based games, in today's market mind you, and that is more content, released quickly and of higher quality, then their B2p and F2P competition.
P.S So many comma interrupts and comma splices. . .