Sub only model?

[Sharuko]

For games, my general philosophy is that whatever you get in game should be earned in game. So if there is no cash shop, I would like this model the best. It is a model that is risky for game developers that have $100+ million dollar development costs. But it probably is the best model for players.

[RoninaThorstone]

For games, my general philosophy is that whatever you get in game should be earned in game. So if there is no cash shop, I would like this model the best. It is a model that is risky for game developers that have $100+ million dollar development costs. But it probably is the best model for players.

Eh.

The way I view it, if other players want to buy panda mounts for 20 USD we should let them. It funds the development of my dungeons and raids.

[Deleted]

Generally, no. It can make you feel obligated to play the game as to not to waste any of the money you spent on it, by playing as much as you can. Whereas a sub-free game can be enjoyed at your own leisure.

I have cable TV : I must watch tv at all times.
I'm paying for unlimited phone and 3G : I must call, text and go on internet all day long.
I'm paying for DSL : I must always be on internet and download things during night.

Nope... you pay for it to be available at any time. And for the quality of the content / service provided.

[zito]

How would you feel about an MMO that had no box-price, or initial buy in. Just a flat $14.99 a month, and no cost for expansions?

That is how subs should work imo

[Dezerte]

I know, I'm just trying to understand the logic behind it. Also, to understand why the logic extends only to subscriptions. Does a B2P game like Guild Wars 2 also inspire the same, "I must play past the point of enjoyment to justify the $60 cost!" thought process?

Logic has little to do with it. Perceived value is just subjective, and differs from person to person and can be influenced by a myriad of reasons (such as upbringing, financial situation, culture, etc).

A B2P game I judge roughly on a 1 hour per 1€ basis, so I'd have to play GW2 for more than 60 hours to consider it a good purchase (which I did buy and I have spent a lot more than 60 hours on). Again, entirely subjective.

[Sharuko]

Eh.

The way I view it, if other players want to buy panda mounts for 20 USD we should let them. It funds the development of my dungeons and raids.

Yeah I don't mind it. But in my perfect ideal system. Anything you get in game will be earned in game. From vanity to power. It was how MMOs were for a while but now the way the industry is moving it will never happen again.

[Fencers]

I have cable TV : I must watch tv at all times.
I'm paying for unlimited phone and 3G : I must call, text and go on internet all day long.
I'm paying for DSL : I must always be on internet and download things during night.

Nope... you pay for it to be available at any time. And for the quality of the content / service provided.

Heh, well put. I can't even imagine applying such logic to other recurring fee services.

One would be doing some kind of harm to themselves or dead/dying if people did this routinely.

[Sharuko]

Yea, that's like saying I have an obligation to drink every bottle of wine from our club W subscription or watch every stream-able film on Netflix.

It seems like personal mania that drives one to "play as much as possible" due to sub fee.

There is probably truth to it though. It might be extremely subtle but you feel like you are wasting something if you don't play with a sub fee. I have a gym membership and if I don't go for 2 months, in my head I am thinking I need to go to the gym. Not because I want to work out, because I feel like I am throwing away the money.

But to me that element of "I need to play" is good for MMOs.

[Dezerte]

I have cable TV : I must watch tv at all times.
I'm paying for unlimited phone and 3G : I must call, text and go on internet all day long.
I'm paying for DSL : I must always be on internet and download things during night.

Nope... you pay for it to be available at any time. And for the quality of the content / service provided.

I don't have cable/digital TV, costs far too much for what I'm getting.
I have the cheapest phone plan available for my phone, which has caps on calls, texts and data.

But you do have a point, a subscription can be justified if I feel that I'm getting my money's worth, such as my Internet connection. I get so much content through Internet that's it's easily justifiable for me, again subjectively speaking.

Can the same apply to a game subscription? Absolutely, but again, it has to be justified & worth it in my view. If I take a look at the games I play & enjoy now it's primarily B2P and F2P titles, and there is no subscription out there that feels worth it to me.

[Sharuko]

Well sure, but if you don't play AT ALL then you'd just turn off the subscription I would think. Unless the idea of having it available at any time is somehow a comfort for you even if you're not playing, but then it's hardly an issue since you're not playing anyway so there's clearly no compulsion to "play all the time".

I guess I've just never thought of things that way.

I don't think the question is "play all the time", it is "I need to get my money's worth". If I watch TV about 5 hours a month which I do, I start questioning if I even need to pay for Cable TV.

[Dezerte]

Heh, well put. I can't even imagine applying such logic to other recurring fee services.

One would be doing some kind of harm to themselves or dead/dying if people did this routinely.

As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, "generally, no" and "it can" doesn't mean that I never will find a subscription model that feels worth it to me.

[Fencers]

There is probably truth to it though.

Yes, I believe there is truth to it being a personal mania that is illogical. And maybe unhealthy if applied strictly- I like video games, but not so much that I would ever feel I had to play them at risk of losing out on my "investment" to like... doing other things in life.

I understand the reasoning, natch. I simply find it somewhat dangerous and distasteful.

As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, "generally, no" and "it can" doesn't mean that I never will find a subscription model that feels worth it to me.

I was commenting on that poster's application of similar logic to those type of activities as possibly unhealthy.

Not your own value judgement in this case. I am sorry the conversation got all rolled up into one thing.

But yes, sub fees. As long as it's "worth it", sure.

[Lochton]

So much incorrect about swtors F2P in your post... so much.

Maybe, last I was on was very long ago. Only had permission for 2 characters at a time, couldn't use my raid gear, x amount of warzones and such. Half bank access. Haven't been on since then.

- - - Updated - - -

Erm, what? You have at least 4 character slots if you bought the game or subscribed at some point, and you also have access to your bank. Your gear is restricted to anything below epic, but you can easily purchase the unlock for it off the GTN if you have a few hundred thousand credits laying about.

I was talking about the F2P model. Last I used SWTOR, you only had minimal access. Though, yes. I hear that the little tag of "I paid once" does so.. but didn't do until later

[RoninaThorstone]

Maybe, last I was on was very long ago. Only had permission for 2 characters at a time, couldn't use my raid gear, x amount of warzones and such. Half bank access. Haven't been on since then.

See, that part isn't accurate.

If you had raid gear, then you would have been able to put it on, even without the unlock. Same with the bank slots.

[Edge-]

I was talking about the F2P model. Last I used SWTOR, you only had minimal access. Though, yes. I hear that the little tag of "I paid once" does so.. but didn't do until later

I'm aware of that. If you had ever previously played before the F2P transition (i.e. if you bought the game) your account was bumped up to a preferred account. That meant that you retained access to your bank and had 4 global character slots. They've loosened things up more, but even at launch the experience you mention is what true F2P players had, not preferred players.

[Dezerte]

I was commenting on that poster's application of similar logic to those type of activities as possibly unhealthy.

Not your own value judgement in this case. I am sorry the conversation got all rolled up into one thing.

But yes, sub fees. As long as it's "worth it", sure.

Oh I understand now, apologies.

[Jtbrig7390]

How would you feel about an MMO that had no box-price, or initial buy in. Just a flat $14.99 a month, and no cost for expansions?

I would be ok with that depend the amount of content that comes out.

Also I perfer B2p/F2p but would accept the 15$. Maybe even a 1 time box price+15. Not like what wow has where you but many box's or a battlechest and the new xpac.

[bbr]

No, cos I prefer the f2p model. Play when you want.

Guildwars 2 has a box only cost,. works better than WoW imho.
I dont like paying per month at all.

[Vankrys]

the first few month, MMO are worth the subscription. Everything is new and exciting. How long does that last depends on which MMO.

Then you enter a routine of repeating the same Daily/dungeon/raid/leveling zone over and over again, and it becomes less worth the sub fee (unless you're really into cutting edge content progression)

then a new patch comes in, and suddenly, well worth the subcription again.


So my ideal model, some sort of hybrid that let you go sub with full access or free with limited access.

[Edge-]

So my ideal model, some sort of hybrid that let you go sub with full access or free with limited access.

That's kinda like, the core of many of the existing F2P models out there : P