Everyone is reading way too much into this. The dynamic at play is actually quite simple and I will give it to you with this analogy. If Domino's Pizza was still charging $15 for a pizza but every other pizza joint was giving them away for free, do you think people would still be buying a Domino's pizza? The answer is an emphatic no, and quality has little to do with it because although Domino's pizza might be a good pizza there are many other alternatives that while not as good quality wise, still taste good enough. And that is the dynamic at play here.
I don't think that's exactly true provided that Domino's pizza was waaaaayyyyy better quality than the free pizza.
there used to be a pizza place around the corner from me called "dial a pizza". I never went there because their name was "dial a pizza". One day I went by I was hungry for pizza and thought "why not". I bought two slices and after tasting them at home I realized it was a waste of money. If dial a pizza was offering free pizza and "the best" pizza place still charged I would still go wtih the best.
Now granted, the above example is an extreme. But let's say there was an ok pizza place and "the best pizza place". So for example, The "Flatbread" company at Davis Square is some of the best pizza I've ever tasted. If they charged for a whole pie but any "insert adequate pizza place here" in the area was free I would STILL buy the pizza for flatbread as it's that good.
My question is whether or not you ever pay for quality. I do.
I'm always willing to pay for quality if that quality is important to me. I'm always willing to pay for convenience as well. I have a subway pass that is automatically paid for every month. I could take the subway home on the weekend and not incur any additional charge or I could take a taxi for anywhere from $15 to $25 (depending on where I am). I will get home either way but the taxi is just better for getting door to door and I gladly pay it.
In addition, there are people who would never pay for a luxury car and who gladly pay for the best economy car because "it just has to get me from point a to point b" but there are people who will not think twice about paying for the best luxury car on the market.
You've basically just assumed something about people based upon your preferences. Something that many on these forums do all to often and why we keep getting the "I don't understand how some people ..." posts.
And you've basically just assumed I was talking to you or any one person in specific when we all know that there are exceptions to every rule. I was speaking in general terms. Of course, there are exceptions. There are people that buy a maserati to get from point A to point B when a a Nissan Versa will get you there just as effectively. That highlighted portion of your post? Yeah, it describes your post to a "T." Think before you rush to type next time.
You made a statement and I addressed it. Since that's hard for you maybe you should think before you type.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Everyone is reading way too much into this. The dynamic at play is actually quite simple and I will give it to you with this analogy. If Domino's Pizza was still charging $15 for a pizza but every other pizza joint was giving them away for free, do you think people would still be buying a Domino's pizza? The answer is an emphatic no, and quality has little to do with it because although Domino's pizza might be a good pizza there are many other alternatives that while not as good quality wise, still taste good enough. And that is the dynamic at play here.
I don't think that's exactly true provided that Domino's pizza was waaaaayyyyy better quality than the free pizza.
there used to be a pizza place around the corner from me called "dial a pizza". I never went there because their name was "dial a pizza". One day I went by I was hungry for pizza and thought "why not". I bought two slices and after tasting them at home I realized it was a waste of money. If dial a pizza was offering free pizza and "the best" pizza place still charged I would still go wtih the best.
Now granted, the above example is an extreme. But let's say there was an ok pizza place and "the best pizza place". So for example, The "Flatbread" company at Davis Square is some of the best pizza I've ever tasted. If they charged for a whole pie but any "insert adequate pizza place here" in the area was free I would STILL buy the pizza for flatbread as it's that good.
My question is whether or not you ever pay for quality. I do.
I'm always willing to pay for quality if that quality is important to me. I'm always willing to pay for convenience as well. I have a subway pass that is automatically paid for every month. I could take the subway home on the weekend and not incur any additional charge or I could take a taxi for anywhere from $15 to $25 (depending on where I am). I will get home either way but the taxi is just better for getting door to door and I gladly pay it.
In addition, there are people who would never pay for a luxury car and who gladly pay for the best economy car because "it just has to get me from point a to point b" but there are people who will not think twice about paying for the best luxury car on the market.
You've basically just assumed something about people based upon your preferences. Something that many on these forums do all to often and why we keep getting the "I don't understand how some people ..." posts.
And you've basically just assumed I was talking to you or any one person in specific when we all know that there are exceptions to every rule. I was speaking in general terms. Of course, there are exceptions. There are people that buy a maserati to get from point A to point B when a a Nissan Versa will get you there just as effectively. That highlighted portion of your post? Yeah, it describes your post to a "T." Think before you rush to type next time.
You made a statement and I addressed it. Since that's hard for you maybe you should think before you type.
Again I did not say Sovrath would? Nor did I mention any one person in specific. I was speaking in general terms.
Again I did not say Sovrath would? Nor did I mention any one person in specific. I was speaking in general terms.
Not to get into a pissing contest with you but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and take it that they "say what they mean and mean what they say".
This was what you said:
"If Domino's Pizza was still charging $15 for a pizza but every other pizza joint was giving them away for free, do you think people would still be buying a Domino's pizza? The answer is an emphatic no"
You also said that quality had nothing to do with it. Had you said something that was actually general I wouldn't have even responded.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Again I did not say Sovrath would? Nor did I mention any one person in specific. I was speaking in general terms.
Not to get into a pissing contest with you but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and take it that they "say what they mean and mean what they say".
This was what you said:
"If Domino's Pizza was still charging $15 for a pizza but every other pizza joint was giving them away for free, do you think people would still be buying a Domino's pizza? The answer is an emphatic no"
You also said that quality had nothing to do with it. Had you said something that was actually general I wouldn't have even responded.
If you feel this post gets you out of this with your dignity in tact, then I'm good with it. I have no need to drag you through the mud to make a point. Enjoy your day..
Again I did not say Sovrath would? Nor did I mention any one person in specific. I was speaking in general terms.
Not to get into a pissing contest with you but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and take it that they "say what they mean and mean what they say".
This was what you said:
"If Domino's Pizza was still charging $15 for a pizza but every other pizza joint was giving them away for free, do you think people would still be buying a Domino's pizza? The answer is an emphatic no"
You also said that quality had nothing to do with it. Had you said something that was actually general I wouldn't have even responded.
If you feel this post gets you out of this with your dignity in tact, then I'm good with it. I have no need to drag you through the mud to make a point. Enjoy your day..
Ok Mr. "Emphatic no".
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
But you don't debate... you derail threads and just repeat the same mantra over and over while ignoring any points other people make. You troll, hence why you got banned for so long.
By "derail", you mean airing opinions that you do not like?
No he meant derail and he is 100% correct. There's a reason why so many members have noticed this about you and pointed it out over the years, and there's also a reason why so many people have you blocked. I have even heard claims that this is not the only website where you behave this way. You call it "forum PVP" and that it is fun for you; well clearly not everyone finds what you do here "fun".
Have your fun but at least own it.
Oh and welcome back.
I'm actually surprised he got banned, because he's the kind of person this website loves. He drives conflict with "debates" no one can win, derailing threads, getting more and more clicks for this site.
because there are plenty of those who cannot stomach different opinions and will complain to the moderators whenever they can?
In fact, the double standard is interesting .. if people who are doing personal attacks are not "derailing" this topic ... i don't know what is. I comment on why i won't sub again ... something CLEARLY this topic is asking ... is "derailing" a topic, and the same people think it is fine to write post after post just for personal attacks.
This might sound simplistic but I think a sub is just fine, provided that the game has enough content to merit one. Thing is, content is pretty subjective...so what do you do? I guess you just have to hit as many nails as possible, even though you'll never hit them all.
You might not like WoW but you can't argue, there is a heck of a lot to do in the game. Same thing with ARR, same thing with Eve, same thing (evidently) for the folks who are still subbing to SWtOR. Heck, there's folks subbing to Allods, I do say. If you don't like somebody's content, you can most likely find what you're looking for elsewhere. Question is, does the game have enough to retain you? You guys know you can't keep everyone. If WoW shut down tomorrow, those ten million players would wind up spread amongst fifty games - those that didn't just quit playing MMOs entirely, and those might be many. Even that one game contains many different types of players; you would find the same thing interspersed amongst the other survivors I mentioned. Their success has been their ability to just plain have enough crap for enough of us nerds to do, to stay interested for more than three weeks.
I would offer that a great many of the hype-bombs and disappointments of the past several years have simply lacked something major, perhaps gated too much, perhaps the end-game became important before the devs were ready, perhaps a great many number of things. Yet they have all been short somewhere, buggy, slow, boring, clunky....wherever they failed I would say it was in some major category. I would guess it's much easier to make games now, maybe some of these things were rushed out the door in hopes they could be patched up but with what gamers' expectations are now, that's a bad idea.
"Why would I want to loose a religion upon my people? Religions wreck from within - Empires and individuals alike! It's all the same." - God Emperor of Dune
The dynamic at play is actually quite simple and I will give it to you with this analogy. If Domino's Pizza was still charging $15 for a pizza but every other pizza joint was giving them away for free, do you think people would still be buying a Domino's pizza? The answer is an emphatic no, and quality has little to do with it because although Domino's pizza might be a good pizza there are many other alternatives that while not as good quality wise, still taste good enough. And that is the dynamic at play here.
I think the answer is it depends. I would buy Uno's pizza any day of the week, but I wouldn't take a Domino's pizza if you gave it away free because it isn't pizza I particularly like.
People will always pay for what they want if what is given away is not to their liking. Since a video game is entertainment I think a better analogy is will people pay to see a movie in a theater when there are many movies you can watch for free online. The answer is, of course they will, if the movie in the theater is one they really want to see. Or how about TV. Will people pay $2 a show to watch a TV show on Amazon when they can get the same thing free on network television. Yes, because for some people the conveinence of getting it commercial free and when they want is worth $2.
This isn't really an MMORPG question, it is more a question of whether people will pay when there are free alternatives and the answer is: yes, people will always pay for things when they think they are worth the price. So yes, I think absolutely there will be subscription based games in the future, because someone will make a game that some audience deems worth paying for.
This isn't really an MMORPG question, it is more a question of whether people will pay when there are free alternatives and the answer is: yes, people will always pay for things when they think they are worth the price. So yes, I think absolutely there will be subscription based games in the future, because someone will make a game that some audience deems worth paying for.
It is a MMORPG question. Peoples' willingness to buy when there are free alternatives are DIFFERENT depending on the product.
Plus, playing for a one-time movie is not the same as paying for a sub.
I am more than happy to play $18 to see Age of Ultron on IMAX 3D ... but i am not willing to pay a sub for any games (or at least any games on the market right now).
But you don't debate... you derail threads and just repeat the same mantra over and over while ignoring any points other people make. You troll, hence why you got banned for so long.
By "derail", you mean airing opinions that you do not like?
No he meant derail and he is 100% correct. There's a reason why so many members have noticed this about you and pointed it out over the years, and there's also a reason why so many people have you blocked. I have even heard claims that this is not the only website where you behave this way. You call it "forum PVP" and that it is fun for you; well clearly not everyone finds what you do here "fun".
Have your fun but at least own it.
Oh and welcome back.
I'm actually surprised he got banned, because he's the kind of person this website loves. He drives conflict with "debates" no one can win, derailing threads, getting more and more clicks for this site.
because there are plenty of those who cannot stomach different opinions and will complain to the moderators whenever they can?
In fact, the double standard is interesting .. if people who are doing personal attacks are not "derailing" this topic ... i don't know what is. I comment on why i won't sub again ... something CLEARLY this topic is asking ... is "derailing" a topic, and the same people think it is fine to write post after post just for personal attacks.
Here's an idea, try a new approach, instead of saying why you won't sub again (because believe me, we all know you won't and why you won't, as I told you before, get some new material) why don't you try saying what might actually get you to sub one day?
Virtual reality, beer, hookers and blow, or whatever might convince you to actually sub for a game again one day? There must be something that you are looking for?
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Here's an idea, try a new approach, instead of saying why you won't sub again (because believe me, we all know you won't and why you won't, as I told you before, get some new material) why don't you try saying what might actually get you to sub one day?
Virtual reality, beer, hookers and blow, or whatever might convince you to actually sub for a game again one day? There must be something that you are looking for?
I can't think of a scenario.
I suppose in an imaginary world where all my entertainment is taken away (novels, tv, netflix, single player games ....), and the only entertainment left is to sub to a mmo (or any game), then I will do it.
In today's world, i don't see a reason. In fact, as you know, i love Diablo 3 ... but i doubt i will play it if it requires a sub. There are just too many alternatives. Right now, the best (for me, since "best" is obviously subjective) games for me are all non-sub based (D3, marvel heroes, portal 2, .....). Some are buy to play, some are f2p with cash shops.
And even if there is a better game coming out that requires a sub ... i have enough entertainment so I can wait for it to go f2p.
Disclaimer: I do sub to netflix and some cable tv ... so it is not like i won't sub to anything, but just not a single computer game.
Here's an idea, try a new approach, instead of saying why you won't sub again (because believe me, we all know you won't and why you won't, as I told you before, get some new material) why don't you try saying what might actually get you to sub one day?
Virtual reality, beer, hookers and blow, or whatever might convince you to actually sub for a game again one day? There must be something that you are looking for?
I can't think of a scenario.
I suppose in an imaginary world where all my entertainment is taken away (novels, tv, netflix, single player games ....), and the only entertainment left is to sub to a mmo (or any game), then I will do it.
In today's world, i don't see a reason. In fact, as you know, i love Diablo 3 ... but i doubt i will play it if it requires a sub. There are just too many alternatives. Right now, the best (for me, since "best" is obviously subjective) games for me are all non-sub based (D3, marvel heroes, portal 2, .....). Some are buy to play, some are f2p with cash shops.
And even if there is a better game coming out that requires a sub ... i have enough entertainment so I can wait for it to go f2p.
Disclaimer: I do sub to netflix and some cable tv ... so it is not like i won't sub to anything, but just not a single computer game.
Fair enough. I'm a bit more finicky in my gaming, so very few offer anything I'm interested in, and the one I like the best has a sub, so I pay it, 5 of them in fact. But if it went F2P tomorrow I'd likely still keep playing it, I don't really play games based on their payment models.
As for you paying subs to netflix and cable TV, and in your movie example, each is offering you a solid value that you are willing to pay for that you can't really find a better, acceptable substitute for.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Subscription MMOs can Survive when publishers and investors sink $100+ Million into an MMO. Its just too much dam money you will never get the investment out of an MMO unless you have a Cash shop. Once you go F2P/B2P you have to figure out what players are willing to spend endlessly on in a cash shop so they make money.
Actually... not even that seems to do it.
SWTOR, ESO and Wildstar are all in that budget range, yet staying sub only games didn't cut it for them.
Of the recent big budget games only FFXIV is still holding the sub only flag high. So yeah, you're right - if that one decides to convert then sub only games are pretty much completely done for.
FFXIV needed a cash shop to help out, so its not sub only.
How did they NEED one? IMO it's no different from the typical member services that existed BEFORE cash shops. All it does is offer race/name changes, and character transfers. The small amount of cosmetic things are just fluff and I rarely see anyone who use those items. They didn't NEED to offer head/earring items at all.
The only subscription I accept is one that either has no cash shop or one that is optional.
FFXIV has a pay to win cash shop so I'm an completely against that one.
LMAO what?!? In what way is it's cash shop pay to win? All it offers are dyes, character makeovers, 1 mount, a couple minions, and a marriage license (one of which is free, BTW)... in what way do those give a person an advantage????
What merits a subscription? Updates? Level of content? Fun of the game? It is a matter of perspective. Most games fail in their promised to provide frequent and adequate updates. If that is the sole reasoning behind a subscription, then the answer you be none; there are currently no games that warrant a subscription.
How do you deny that FFXIV doesn't warrant a subscription? If there is any way to squeeze out bigger patches or more volume on a similarly frequent and constant basis, please let me know. Your bar has been set so high we need help from a higher life force to reach it.
FFXIV is doing it right, from a content update standpoint. They are releasing new content every 3-4 months. However, to be fair, small content updates like this typically last less than 1 month. The locusts destroy it. Besides, most of their updates involve quests, quests, more quests, and a dungeon or two. They've release 1 raid as far as I can tell (I'm not much of a raid anymore anyways, so I don't pay attention)
Relaunched 8/2013
2.1 update was 12/2013
2.2 update was 3/2014
2.3 update was 7/2014
2.4 update was 10/2014
2.5 update was 1/2015
You forget the incremental updates that ALSO brought new content. It's not just the .x updates that bring stuff, it's also the .xx updates as well.
2.15 brought some quests, more housing items, and a bunch of fixes and changes to combat.
2.25 brought some pvp changes/items, a quest, and materia stuff
2.28 brought the next quest line in the relic zodiac weapons and the sightseeing log
2.35 brought beast tribes (dailies/reputation factions) and chocobo dying.
2.38 further extended the zodiac relic quest line, personal housing (previously only for grand companies), bunch of UI changes
2.45 further extended the zodiac relic quest line, weddings
2.51 brought the Gold Saucer (lots of content)
2.55 another trial and story line advancement
All of these also brought some additional content like quests and stuff.
The only subscription I accept is one that either has no cash shop or one that is optional.
FFXIV has a pay to win cash shop so I'm an completely against that one.
Okay, what the hell is pay to win in FFXIV's cash shop?
They have items players sell for large amounts of gil, pretty much the company partaking in RMT. I posted this in another thread but I'll put it here too. A lot of us quit over this p2w cash shop practice.
All items on the cash shop are not tradeable, except wedding rings (which are really overpriced).
The only way to get these wedding rings is by paying real money for them or trading gil to someone else that will.
Weddings are really popular on FFXIV due to the kind of players the game attracts.
Having lots of gil means merc groups will clear whatever you want and let you lot whatever you want.
So if you're rich irl you can just buy anything you want in FFXIV, when a pay to play title lets you pay your way to the top that is pay to win.
Here is another thread about how p2w FFXIV is form it's own players.
For a player that just got to level 50 it was a pretty big jump to go from i50->i110(HQ) in just a few minutes. I asked them how they did it, guess what they did.
Bought $40.00 Platinum Plan, and sold the Promise of Devotion for about 5mil each.
Its not mandatory but if you have the money to spend it can get you a huge boost.
Think of it as an "Optional" Power boost.
Also again, as I said before. Lots of cash bought gil means the games large merc population will get you whatever you want.
Players stopped complaining or quit over this after a while because Square don't care and love the extra $$
Gil does not get you that far in FFXIV - I sincerely doubt anyone got carried through FCoB.
That's not even going into the fact that it's not SE's fault that people are selling items for a high premium price and people are dumb enough to buy it. Bots sell good and RMT spam happens, and people actually buy gil and their goods. They can only do so much about this.
Also, I seriously doubt more than a small handful do this anyway. Constantly paying more money on top of a subscribtion just to get some gil and then use it to get through hard stuff? Yeah, no, not many people would choose to do this. Hell, you want to get to the nitty gritty, what are they winning? They aren't going to be world firsts, they aren't getting anything you can't get yourself, and they aren't taking anything from you either.
Why would it even bother you that some dope is spending more money to get far in a game he won't even be able to play? FFXIV is very mechanically driven game with lots of movement and dodging and in many cases, knowing how to play your job properly. They aren't winning anything because they won't be even on the same radar as the "best" due to how few things can allow you to be carried when they come out fresh.
It honestly just sounds like you're jealous.
Sadly as I showed it does, not only can you get buy higher Ilevel gear but you can pay mercs to get anything you want.
That is way above as p2w as a sub based mmo should ever be, some... as you appear to be are fine with a p2w cash shop. I am not, especially not on a subscription mmo.
A subscription, box fee, expensive expansion fee and a p2w cash shop is too much for me.
Clearly you know nothing about the game. ilvl 110 crafted gear is WAY overpriced and the only thing it's good for is for glamour/cosmetics. These items won't get you anywhere in the game when ilvl 120/130 gear is EASIER, yes EASIER, to obtain. I laugh at people that actually wear that crap and spend even more putting materia into it.
Here's an idea, try a new approach, instead of saying why you won't sub again (because believe me, we all know you won't and why you won't, as I told you before, get some new material) why don't you try saying what might actually get you to sub one day?
Virtual reality, beer, hookers and blow, or whatever might convince you to actually sub for a game again one day? There must be something that you are looking for?
I can't think of a scenario.
I suppose in an imaginary world where all my entertainment is taken away (novels, tv, netflix, single player games ....), and the only entertainment left is to sub to a mmo (or any game), then I will do it.
In today's world, i don't see a reason. In fact, as you know, i love Diablo 3 ... but i doubt i will play it if it requires a sub. There are just too many alternatives. Right now, the best (for me, since "best" is obviously subjective) games for me are all non-sub based (D3, marvel heroes, portal 2, .....). Some are buy to play, some are f2p with cash shops.
And even if there is a better game coming out that requires a sub ... i have enough entertainment so I can wait for it to go f2p.
Disclaimer: I do sub to netflix and some cable tv ... so it is not like i won't sub to anything, but just not a single computer game.
People will always pay for things when they think are worth it. You're desire to only go F2P won't change that. All you are really saying is you can't envision wanting to play a game enough to pay for it. How can anyone argue with that. I can say with absolute certainty that some big new game will eventually come out, and become a cultural phenomena, and the overwhelming majority of players will pay a sub for it without batting an eye. It's a simple rule: people will always pay for things they deem worth it, and missing out on the next big thing will certainly make people pay.
Just a whole comment in the idea of anything being free... The bottom line reality is that except for charity, nothing is free, someone pays for it in one form or another. People need to eat, they need shelter over their heads, they need clothing, and these things are not free, people must earn a living to afford them, and so what they produce is not free. Free television is not free, advertisers pay for television ads and pass the cost on to people who buy their products in the form of you paying more for stuff you buy. Same thing for ads on web sites. Google is making money hand over fist from companies wanting to be high in search engine results, so who pays for that: you when you buy stuff from those companies paying google. If cash shops didn't make more money no game would go F2P, so logically, in one form or another, people must be paying more for F2P than they paid for a subscription or not one company would do it. It's not whether you pay for a "free" game it is always a matter of figuring out how you are paying.
People will always pay for things when they think are worth it. You're desire to only go F2P won't change that. All you are really saying is you can't envision wanting to play a game enough to pay for it. How can anyone argue with that. I can say with absolute certainty that some big new game will eventually come out, and become a cultural phenomena, and the overwhelming majority of players will pay a sub for it without batting an eye. It's a simple rule: people will always pay for things they deem worth it, and missing out on the next big thing will certainly make people pay.
Just a whole comment in the idea of anything being free... The bottom line reality is that except for charity, nothing is free, someone pays for it in one form or another. People need to eat, they need shelter over their heads, they need clothing, and these things are not free, people must earn a living to afford them, and so what they produce is not free. Free television is not free, advertisers pay for television ads and pass the cost on to people who buy their products in the form of you paying more for stuff you buy. Same thing for ads on web sites. Google is making money hand over fist from companies wanting to be high in search engine results, so who pays for that: you when you buy stuff from those companies paying google. If cash shops didn't make more money no game would go F2P, so logically, in one form or another, people must be paying more for F2P than they paid for a subscription or not one company would do it. It's not whether you pay for a "free" game it is always a matter of figuring out how you are paying.
a) Yes, no one can argue with that ... because it is a personal opinion. I am merely stating so, and expect the intelligent people to take it as such, and not try to "change my opinion".
b) You are confused between "free for all" and "free for some". Certainly someone is paying for waframe ... but certainly that person is not me .. and hence warframe is "free for me".
Disclaimer .. i just pay $45 for the Age of Ultron catch-up pack for Marvel Heroes.
now .. that is consistent with the fact that if something is compeling enough, people will pay. But note that I never dispute that .. and this is not even inconsistent with my post here. I am merely saying there is no scenario i can envision that i will SUB any game, and that probably includes marvel heroes.
Not willing to sub .. is not the same as not willing to pay anything .. i trust you can tell the difference. (OTOH, warframe, star conflict, and many other games are 100% free ... for me).
Honestly, there are plenty of games I think deserve good money, but to me, subscriptions sound more like rented software licenses. You don't exactly get to keep access to them if you stop paying, and there could come a day when that publisher could suddenly go under or (be forced to) shut the game down, maybe permanently; then all the money/time you sank into it was for nothing--maybe long-term enjoyment, but nothing to show for it. With F2P models (borrowed licenses), all you lose is time, and very little, if any, money if you bought stuff from that game's cash shop.
Meh, just saying as a guy who never really had much green to begin with.
Added ()'s because that's been the case for a few games.
*KABOOOOOM* ...Whoops, was that how I was supposed to do that?
As someone who loves his games. I run two subscriptions. One for Dark Age of Camelot, the other for my two EVE accounts. Both by my view are completely worth the sub. Although in EVE one of my accounts is paid by other means.
So the answer to your question is YES. With my one EVE account I would gladly pay double what I am paying now!
Subscription MMOs can Survive when publishers and investors sink $100+ Million into an MMO. Its just too much dam money you will never get the investment out of an MMO unless you have a Cash shop. Once you go F2P/B2P you have to figure out what players are willing to spend endlessly on in a cash shop so they make money.
Actually... not even that seems to do it.
SWTOR, ESO and Wildstar are all in that budget range, yet staying sub only games didn't cut it for them.
Of the recent big budget games only FFXIV is still holding the sub only flag high. So yeah, you're right - if that one decides to convert then sub only games are pretty much completely done for.
FFXIV needed a cash shop to help out, so its not sub only.
Actually this is not true at all.
The people on the forums were asking for phantasia to be sold in a cash shop. Players actually opened the door to the cash shop. Square Enix did not have plans for a cash shop but since the players were asking for it they got it.
Comments
You made a statement and I addressed it. Since that's hard for you maybe you should think before you type.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Again I did not say Sovrath would? Nor did I mention any one person in specific. I was speaking in general terms.
Not to get into a pissing contest with you but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and take it that they "say what they mean and mean what they say".
This was what you said:
"If Domino's Pizza was still charging $15 for a pizza but every other pizza joint was giving them away for free, do you think people would still be buying a Domino's pizza? The answer is an emphatic no"
You also said that quality had nothing to do with it. Had you said something that was actually general I wouldn't have even responded.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
If you feel this post gets you out of this with your dignity in tact, then I'm good with it. I have no need to drag you through the mud to make a point. Enjoy your day..
Ok Mr. "Emphatic no".
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Not just this one .. also the one about long vs short gaming session. But you already know that
Yeah I see you're making up for lost time lol
Glad to have you back.
because there are plenty of those who cannot stomach different opinions and will complain to the moderators whenever they can?
In fact, the double standard is interesting .. if people who are doing personal attacks are not "derailing" this topic ... i don't know what is. I comment on why i won't sub again ... something CLEARLY this topic is asking ... is "derailing" a topic, and the same people think it is fine to write post after post just for personal attacks.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
This might sound simplistic but I think a sub is just fine, provided that the game has enough content to merit one. Thing is, content is pretty subjective...so what do you do? I guess you just have to hit as many nails as possible, even though you'll never hit them all.
You might not like WoW but you can't argue, there is a heck of a lot to do in the game. Same thing with ARR, same thing with Eve, same thing (evidently) for the folks who are still subbing to SWtOR. Heck, there's folks subbing to Allods, I do say. If you don't like somebody's content, you can most likely find what you're looking for elsewhere. Question is, does the game have enough to retain you? You guys know you can't keep everyone. If WoW shut down tomorrow, those ten million players would wind up spread amongst fifty games - those that didn't just quit playing MMOs entirely, and those might be many. Even that one game contains many different types of players; you would find the same thing interspersed amongst the other survivors I mentioned. Their success has been their ability to just plain have enough crap for enough of us nerds to do, to stay interested for more than three weeks.
I would offer that a great many of the hype-bombs and disappointments of the past several years have simply lacked something major, perhaps gated too much, perhaps the end-game became important before the devs were ready, perhaps a great many number of things. Yet they have all been short somewhere, buggy, slow, boring, clunky....wherever they failed I would say it was in some major category. I would guess it's much easier to make games now, maybe some of these things were rushed out the door in hopes they could be patched up but with what gamers' expectations are now, that's a bad idea.
"Why would I want to loose a religion upon my people? Religions wreck from within - Empires and individuals alike! It's all the same." - God Emperor of Dune
I think the answer is it depends. I would buy Uno's pizza any day of the week, but I wouldn't take a Domino's pizza if you gave it away free because it isn't pizza I particularly like.
People will always pay for what they want if what is given away is not to their liking. Since a video game is entertainment I think a better analogy is will people pay to see a movie in a theater when there are many movies you can watch for free online. The answer is, of course they will, if the movie in the theater is one they really want to see. Or how about TV. Will people pay $2 a show to watch a TV show on Amazon when they can get the same thing free on network television. Yes, because for some people the conveinence of getting it commercial free and when they want is worth $2.
This isn't really an MMORPG question, it is more a question of whether people will pay when there are free alternatives and the answer is: yes, people will always pay for things when they think they are worth the price. So yes, I think absolutely there will be subscription based games in the future, because someone will make a game that some audience deems worth paying for.
It is a MMORPG question. Peoples' willingness to buy when there are free alternatives are DIFFERENT depending on the product.
Plus, playing for a one-time movie is not the same as paying for a sub.
I am more than happy to play $18 to see Age of Ultron on IMAX 3D ... but i am not willing to pay a sub for any games (or at least any games on the market right now).
Here's an idea, try a new approach, instead of saying why you won't sub again (because believe me, we all know you won't and why you won't, as I told you before, get some new material) why don't you try saying what might actually get you to sub one day?
Virtual reality, beer, hookers and blow, or whatever might convince you to actually sub for a game again one day? There must be something that you are looking for?
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I can't think of a scenario.
I suppose in an imaginary world where all my entertainment is taken away (novels, tv, netflix, single player games ....), and the only entertainment left is to sub to a mmo (or any game), then I will do it.
In today's world, i don't see a reason. In fact, as you know, i love Diablo 3 ... but i doubt i will play it if it requires a sub. There are just too many alternatives. Right now, the best (for me, since "best" is obviously subjective) games for me are all non-sub based (D3, marvel heroes, portal 2, .....). Some are buy to play, some are f2p with cash shops.
And even if there is a better game coming out that requires a sub ... i have enough entertainment so I can wait for it to go f2p.
Disclaimer: I do sub to netflix and some cable tv ... so it is not like i won't sub to anything, but just not a single computer game.
Fair enough. I'm a bit more finicky in my gaming, so very few offer anything I'm interested in, and the one I like the best has a sub, so I pay it, 5 of them in fact. But if it went F2P tomorrow I'd likely still keep playing it, I don't really play games based on their payment models.
As for you paying subs to netflix and cable TV, and in your movie example, each is offering you a solid value that you are willing to pay for that you can't really find a better, acceptable substitute for.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
How did they NEED one? IMO it's no different from the typical member services that existed BEFORE cash shops. All it does is offer race/name changes, and character transfers. The small amount of cosmetic things are just fluff and I rarely see anyone who use those items. They didn't NEED to offer head/earring items at all.
LMAO what?!? In what way is it's cash shop pay to win? All it offers are dyes, character makeovers, 1 mount, a couple minions, and a marriage license (one of which is free, BTW)... in what way do those give a person an advantage????
You forget the incremental updates that ALSO brought new content. It's not just the .x updates that bring stuff, it's also the .xx updates as well.
2.15 brought some quests, more housing items, and a bunch of fixes and changes to combat.
2.25 brought some pvp changes/items, a quest, and materia stuff
2.28 brought the next quest line in the relic zodiac weapons and the sightseeing log
2.35 brought beast tribes (dailies/reputation factions) and chocobo dying.
2.38 further extended the zodiac relic quest line, personal housing (previously only for grand companies), bunch of UI changes
2.45 further extended the zodiac relic quest line, weddings
2.51 brought the Gold Saucer (lots of content)
2.55 another trial and story line advancement
All of these also brought some additional content like quests and stuff.
Clearly you know nothing about the game. ilvl 110 crafted gear is WAY overpriced and the only thing it's good for is for glamour/cosmetics. These items won't get you anywhere in the game when ilvl 120/130 gear is EASIER, yes EASIER, to obtain. I laugh at people that actually wear that crap and spend even more putting materia into it.
I have to say that too many developers/ publishers(and players for that matter) don't seem to give a crap about 'fairest'.
People will always pay for things when they think are worth it. You're desire to only go F2P won't change that. All you are really saying is you can't envision wanting to play a game enough to pay for it. How can anyone argue with that. I can say with absolute certainty that some big new game will eventually come out, and become a cultural phenomena, and the overwhelming majority of players will pay a sub for it without batting an eye. It's a simple rule: people will always pay for things they deem worth it, and missing out on the next big thing will certainly make people pay.
Just a whole comment in the idea of anything being free... The bottom line reality is that except for charity, nothing is free, someone pays for it in one form or another. People need to eat, they need shelter over their heads, they need clothing, and these things are not free, people must earn a living to afford them, and so what they produce is not free. Free television is not free, advertisers pay for television ads and pass the cost on to people who buy their products in the form of you paying more for stuff you buy. Same thing for ads on web sites. Google is making money hand over fist from companies wanting to be high in search engine results, so who pays for that: you when you buy stuff from those companies paying google. If cash shops didn't make more money no game would go F2P, so logically, in one form or another, people must be paying more for F2P than they paid for a subscription or not one company would do it. It's not whether you pay for a "free" game it is always a matter of figuring out how you are paying.
a) Yes, no one can argue with that ... because it is a personal opinion. I am merely stating so, and expect the intelligent people to take it as such, and not try to "change my opinion".
b) You are confused between "free for all" and "free for some". Certainly someone is paying for waframe ... but certainly that person is not me .. and hence warframe is "free for me".
Disclaimer .. i just pay $45 for the Age of Ultron catch-up pack for Marvel Heroes.
now .. that is consistent with the fact that if something is compeling enough, people will pay. But note that I never dispute that .. and this is not even inconsistent with my post here. I am merely saying there is no scenario i can envision that i will SUB any game, and that probably includes marvel heroes.
Not willing to sub .. is not the same as not willing to pay anything .. i trust you can tell the difference. (OTOH, warframe, star conflict, and many other games are 100% free ... for me).
Honestly, there are plenty of games I think deserve good money, but to me, subscriptions sound more like rented software licenses. You don't exactly get to keep access to them if you stop paying, and there could come a day when that publisher could suddenly go under or (be forced to) shut the game down, maybe permanently; then all the money/time you sank into it was for nothing--maybe long-term enjoyment, but nothing to show for it. With F2P models (borrowed licenses), all you lose is time, and very little, if any, money if you bought stuff from that game's cash shop.
Meh, just saying as a guy who never really had much green to begin with.
Added ()'s because that's been the case for a few games.
*KABOOOOOM*
...Whoops, was that how I was supposed to do that?
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
As someone who loves his games. I run two subscriptions. One for Dark Age of Camelot, the other for my two EVE accounts. Both by my view are completely worth the sub. Although in EVE one of my accounts is paid by other means.
So the answer to your question is YES. With my one EVE account I would gladly pay double what I am paying now!
Actually this is not true at all.
The people on the forums were asking for phantasia to be sold in a cash shop. Players actually opened the door to the cash shop. Square Enix did not have plans for a cash shop but since the players were asking for it they got it.