MMOs: Is it time for the subscription-based model to go away?

[Manabomb]

As a result, 6 months into SWTOR's life, they dropped the B2P/Sub fee model, made everything up to level 50 free to play, and introduced a cash shop with optional sub fee. SWTOR is STILL less popular than it was at launch, though it's recovered some of it's lost subscribers. Conversely, Wow has had the same business model since launch. They have have a very paltry free to play system that removes all but the most basic features, but overall, Wow costs the same as it did at launch. 9 years later, it is STILL the most successful MMO on the market. Wow has lost more subs than any other MMO has ever had (probably more than all of them combined).

This contrast in success speaks volumes about irrelevance of business model type. B2P + sub fee can work just as well as F2P or P2W. It just depends on how well you produce a game.

You do realize that Blizzard's early onset success was due to a "right place at the right time" mechanic, which has nothing to do with what models they used or how they marketed the game, right?

Wow's success was almost perfectly timed with an era that had a lot of ex-mmo players looking for a new one to play and also introduced the more casual game players into an online alternative that worked well and was "seamless". Their largest sub climb, in TBC, was due to the game still being fresh and new to so many players and it took a long time for them to level.

However, as you can tell by the 24 month spiral of subscription losses posted at almost every quarter, the wow model is not the perfect model, nor is it a model that will help retain old players or attract new players, simply because the conditions for their mmo to shine have all but faded, and many, many other high quality mmo's have hit the market.

[Edge-]

um.. i've played every f2p game (aside from EQ, which i'm now downloading so i can see it's fail f2p model) that is current, and all i've seen is buy this and you'll be able to unlock that quest, or buy that and you'll have this legendary armor, and the good ole buy these and you'll be able to do these mundane dailies, or be able to go to these zones, or buy these and you'll be able to craft faster.

The only games I know of that sell quest based content (that's not directly tied to expansions) are LOTRO and Defiance. At least selling quest based content as a core component of whateve ryou're buying.

I can't think of a single MMO that sells legendary armor in-game or anything, except as part of an expansions content. Which is exactly what P2P MMO's do. The same goes for dailies/zones, in general.

As for faster crafting, totally. But then again, does being able to level your crafting faster inherently make a game bad or something? Because WoW included the super-fast crafting leveling in MoP by allowing harvesters to level up in MoP content, and having that one village that let you basically speed-level all crafting professions.

fact of the matter is, the f2p design always ends up becoming a p2w, and will never be on par with subscription models.

Please site examples for every major F2P MMO out there if you are going to make this claim. This is a preposterous claim that needs to be validated by evidence if you are going to make it.

like someone jsf already pointed out in this very thread, that unless one of the companies are billionaires, wanting to dump a good heaping of their money into the game, their devs will never come out with quality content that subs produce.

Subscription based games don't inherently generate more revenue than F2P games. There is literally zero evidence to support this claim, and a significant amount of evidence to contradict this claim. Content quality is, as I mentioned earlier, determined by the quality of the dev team and the revenue stream for the game. If you can provide conclusive evidence that a subscription only model always generates more revenue than a F2P model, I'll happily agree with you. However all the current available data contradicts that assertion, so I strongly disagree with you.

[lakhesis]

And you can consider that P2W, but you'd be incorrect by the traditional definition. You are no more powerful than someone who spent a bit more time grinding out the honor to get the gear. There is no actual in-game advantage.

There is absolutely an in-game advantage.

If you were just stopping playing after you got the item, it wouldn't be an in-game advantage. But players continue playing. Therefore while someone who didn't buy the boost is still wasting time getting the first item, the player who did buy the boost is already off to work on getting their second item.

In a game where gearing up is a major part of the reward system, selling the capacity to gear up faster is the very definition of pay-to-win.

If you want non-pay-to-win, you need to stick to stuff like Rift's Dimension Items, TSW's clothing or WoW's mounts. Very few F2P games do that.

[Sharuko]

You do realize that Blizzard's early onset success was do to a "right place at the right time" mechanic, which has nothing to do with what models they used or how they marketed the game, right?

WoW's success is not solely based on right place at the right time. It was a great game that was released at the right place at the right time. If the game was bad, the "right place at the right time" wouldn't have mattered.

[Edge-]

You do realize that Blizzard's early onset success was due to a "right place at the right time" mechanic, which has nothing to do with what models they used or how they marketed the game, right?

Partially. This was a huge boon for them, no doubt. But they still did create a very solid game that stood up on its own and would have achieved success (if not to the level it currently has) had it launched outside of its "right place at the right time" window.

[Trix]

You do realize that Blizzard's early onset success was due to a "right place at the right time" mechanic, which has nothing to do with what models they used or how they marketed the game, right?

I partly agree with this.

It was the right place at the right time.

One thing they hold over every other MMO is gameplay, none come close, the game is fluid, smooth and just feels right. When you click a button, you feel that move being made, this is a mistake every other MMO cannot get. Some come close.

Addons are also a big deal.

[Edge-]

There is absolutely an in-game advantage.

If you were just stopping playing after you got the item, it wouldn't be an in-game advantage. But players continue playing. Therefore while someone who didn't buy the boost is still wasting time getting the first item, the player who did buy the boost is already off to work on getting their second item.

Ok, they're getting an item faster. But someone who plays for 20 hours a day gets PvP items faster than someone who plays for 2. However at a certain point, they'll both have the exact same gear, and will have had to work towards it.

In a game where gearing up is a major part of the reward system, selling the capacity to gear up faster is the very definition of pay-to-win.

I disagree, but this is one of those things where neither one of us will be able to convince the other, so I won't pursue it.

If you want non-pay-to-win, you need to stick to stuff like Rift's Dimension Items, TSW's clothing or WoW's mounts. Very few F2P games do that.

Because cosmetics alone is a very limited revenue stream for a MMO. MMO's in general, but moreso F2P MMO's, need to have multiple avenues for revenue generation. Even WoW sells (wildly overpriced) account services that let you transfer realms, factions, races, genders, ect. alongside its cosmetic pets and mounts.

[zito]

This discussion is pointless. It is nothing but a merry-go-round at this point.

[Sharuko]

There are absolutely glory/prestige boosts. There have been since the 6 month anniversary of the game when they handed a bunch of them out to all current subscribers. That was before the game had any form of cash shop.

That doesn't change the fact that all the gear acquired with those boost can be easily acquired without it simply by investing a bit more time into PvP.

You are really misrepresenting what is happening. You can buy 160% glory and prestige boosts. Not 10% not 20% but 160%. The top tier gear requires high level of Prestige, works pretty much exactly like Vanilla WoW. If you don't think that is an advantage, your definition is really loose. This more than crosses the line. XP boosts are one thing. Even 10% to 20% is another. But this is as high as 160%. Even SWTOR doesn't stoop that low.

[Mnevis]

I don't think it's time for it to go away entirely, but I think it'd be cooler if WoW wasn't binary, all or nothing. I've paid Blizzard over a thousand dollars over the years, and if I don't want to pay a hundred bucks or so to stay subbed until the next expansion, a time period I know I'll play sparsely, I'm entirely locked out of Azeroth.

I've always wished I could buy a game-time token with in-game currency, now I wish I could log into my characters and putz around in the world regardless of subscription status (like SW:TOR, which I'm currently finally playing). $15/month is not a lot for the hours of entertainment WoW provides, but at the same time, $200-250/year is kind of a lot for one game, once you're in the mindset that there are a lot of games out there.

[Edge-]

The top tier gear requires high level of Prestige, works pretty much exactly like Vanilla WoW.

There is no decay, so stopping PvP for a week will not drop you multiple ranks. So it does not work like Vanilla WoW in any way other than that you need a certain rank to purchase certain PvP gear.

[zito]

You are really misrepresenting what is happening. You can buy 160% glory and prestige boosts. Not 10% not 20% but 160%. The top tier gear requires high level of Prestige, works pretty much exactly like Vanilla WoW. If you don't think that is an advantage, your definition is really loose. This more than crosses the line. XP boosts are one thing. Even 10% to 20% is another. But this is as high as 160%. Even SWTOR doesn't stoop that low.

If you think saving time is a pay to win advantage then we need to have a serious sit down in general about what pay to win is.

Key words here are Pay. To. Win.

Not Pay. To. Save. Time. Farming.

[Sharuko]

There is no decay, so stopping PvP for a week will not drop you multiple ranks. So it does not work like Vanilla WoW in any way other than that you need a certain rank to purchase certain PvP gear.

I don't see how the decay mechanic changes the fact it is P2W or not. Still significantly faster to get the best gear in the game by paying for it. If my friend pays while I don't, I have a significant disadvantage.

Best F2P system is Path of Exile, when MMOs do something like that, I will start becoming a believer.

- - - Updated - - -

If you think saving time is a pay to win advantage then we need to have a serious sit down in general about what pay to win is.

Key words here are Pay. To. Win.

Not Pay. To. Save. Time. Farming.

Off course you would take things to the utmost levels of literal. What do you "win" with BiS raid gear in the game exactly?

[Sting]

I'm fine with WoW having a subscription, if I added up all my ingame time and divide it by the amount I've paid I'm pretty sure it would be the best scoring ratio I'd have of any game I've ever played, so to speak.

What I like about the subscription fee is that it basically says "Hey, it's up to you now, get out there and start playing. Do whatever you want to justify your expense on this game, it's all there, the only limit in this game is you." Which is also why the Blizzard Store needs to fuck off and die. Ever since they implemented TRH the floodgates have been opened for a new mount or pet every few months. It is not fair to have paid content in a game that is already offering a subscription.

Sorry for going slightly offtopic there.

[zito]

I don't see how the decay mechanic changes the fact it is P2W or not. Still significantly faster to get the best gear in the game by paying for it. If my friend pays while I don't, I have a significant disadvantage.

Best F2P system is Path of Exile, when MMOs do something like that, I will start becoming a believer.

You are not paying for the best gear, you are paying to play the game less. It doesn't particularly matter anyway since players are segregated by their prestige ranks in Rift so you will be playing against others like you.

And even if it didn't it wouldn't fix Rifts PvP imbalance problem, even if people couldn't get boosters to save time some people will have max rank gear and then some people won't and they will still fight them. This is hardly P2W

- - - Updated - - -

Off course you would take things to the utmost levels or literal. What do you "win" with BiS raid gear in the game exactly?

I was actually not talking literal, so don't get cynical. Pay to win is paying real money to gain a "winning" advantage over another player who can not access the same without paying money. Such as buying a distinct power advantage.

Buying time saving material (which is available in game but you don't play it so you wouldn't know) is not pay to win.

[Sharuko]

Pay to win is paying real money to gain a "winning" advantage over another player who can not access the same without paying money. Such as buying power.

That is the new definition that players got suckered into. Originally P2W was buying an in-game advantage period. As I said, the only game I can think of that actually follows that is PoE, and that is it.

[zito]

Originally P2W was buying an in-game advantage period.

It wasn't originally anything. Why do you think its called pay to win? Secondly you can get boosters in the game without the shop so enough of this nonsense.

[lakhesis]

I disagree, but this is one of those things where neither one of us will be able to convince the other, so I won't pursue it.

...

Because cosmetics alone is a very limited revenue stream for a MMO. MMO's in general, but moreso F2P MMO's, need to have multiple avenues for revenue generation. Even WoW sells (wildly overpriced) account services that let you transfer realms, factions, races, genders, ect. alongside its cosmetic pets and mounts.

Yeah, I view it as a time-money continuum. Selling the capacity to get something power-altering 2/3/4/50/500 times faster falls under pay-to-win, but I concur that neither of us is likely to agree on this.

I also agree that cosmetic services alone are unlikely to provide much of a revenue stream. To my mind that's the whole failing of the F2P system. If you want a decent revenue stream, you invariably end up tiptoeing down (what I regard as) the pay-to-win path.

So the choices become pay-to-win, inferior revenue, or subscription.

One thing I'd be curious to see one of the larger companies try is subcontracting servers. I don't believe any of the major game companies has been prepared to loosen their grip on the servers so far(?)

e.g. WoW has no South African servers. If a South African ISP could lease the capacity to run a locally based WoW server on their network, I could see this potentially being a significant draw-card for them to get customers for their ISP business. Bliz makes money via renting server software. ISP makes money via increased customer base for their other products.

It's possible to sell more than just in-game products via MMOs. If a company really wanted to maximise revenue without affecting the in-game play, it's time a few of them got more creative than just selling virtual hats & xp boost potions.

[LilSaihah]

What I like about the subscription fee is that it basically says "Hey, it's up to you now, get out there and start playing. Do whatever you want to justify your expense on this game, it's all there, the only limit in this game is you." Which is also why the Blizzard Store needs to fuck off and die. Ever since they implemented TRH the floodgates have been opened for a new mount or pet every few months. It is not fair to have paid content in a game that is already offering a subscription.

Sorry for going slightly offtopic there.

That's pretty fair, honestly, and it's a big portion of the reason why I don't think WoW's model is very fair. You spend $15 for the base game, and $40 for MoP, and $15 a month, and then they want you to spend money on top of that for dicky pets (some of which are the best in the minigame), mounts, or experience potions. It's ridiculous.

On topic, a non-sub game will actually have to reach WoW's quality for it to be able to push the sub model out and instate a new status quo. GW2 almost had this; I would say that GW2 at release could take WoW pound-for-pound in a fistfight, but post-launch development turned into a gigantic turd at around the new year's mark. I think that some of the new contenders, particularly EQN and possibly Wildstar, have a real chance to take the cake.

[Krommm]

B2P is my favorite model, expansions being a bonus. Subs are good for the developers financially, but in no way guarantees content will come out (and come out well).

Free to Play as described in many posts often has a very obvious pay to win element where you can bypass many challenges and time sinks with your credit card.

While not always best, I think B2P is by far the best model because it doesn't lead you in any ways. I would argue F2P has a lot of disgusting people in the games, but this is also true of subscription games as well. (Just before someone claims subs keeps the dregs out.) The timeframes blizzard offers content, I would very much prefer paying for the new content (without a sub).

If they ever did release content faster, then the sub model is much more appealing, just my take on it. (I'm also well aware most developers are going to attempt to do the least work for the most financial gain, this is very basic business.)

More OT: Yes, but for some games (primarily WoW) it is still way too profitable to change... yet.