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

[RoninaThorstone]

I think Eve and World of Warcraft offer fairly deep and diverse content for their sub
Now I recognize that it might be the $15/mo is not "worth it" to some players as to others. But one can potentially get a lot of value out of those two games for their monthly fee. If you are interested in those modes of play, natch.

Eh.

For 0 dollars I can get hack and shoot gameplay of warframe, the space fighter gameplay of starconflict, the hack and slash of vindictus, the shoot and craft of firefall, and the raiding of rift. Those games mainly sell cosmetics too.

WoW is only one game. They've done a lot with it and I applaud their efforts with pet battles, brawlers guild, arena, raiding, ect but it's just not enough if they are going to charge me for logging in. Some people, obviously, are fine with it and that's great for them.

[The One Percent]

I think it's time for games to decide which they are going to be (ie not having a subscription fee AND an ingame shop that has vanity items that can only be obtained through said shop).

[Lilly32]

hasnt that model already gone away?

I dont pay a sub for Rift
I dont pay a sub for Everquest
I dont pay a sub for Tera
I dont pay a sub for SW:ToR
I dont pay a sub for Guild Wars 2
I dont pay a sub for Aion

seriously who pays a sub fee anymore?

[Fencers]

Yep Fencers. It's all a personal thing. Those two specific examples of games don't offer me what I want out of an mmo so of course they aren't worth it for me.

A fair objection. But also I think this touches on why the subscription model can still be viable in the market place. Becasue it may be "worth it" to more than a few players out there.

Where we have seen sub models fail overtly, the case was compounded partly by scale. MMOs like Secret World were out of proportion in sales projections to the type of [niche] product they were introducing to the market. Or Tera. Or Rift.

Whereas Eve offers something relatively niche in the genre and does so with aplomb. Such that players willing and seeking a game of that stripe are likely to pay their $15 fee. CCP in the past keeping their projections and operations in line with their product goals and sales potential.

Then we have stuff like SWTOR which costs far too much, took far too long to develop, offered too similar gaming modes, etc. vs. the needed costs of operation and development. It was a issue of scale.

For example, I just resubbed to SWTOR after more than a year. And the game is quite spiffy for that $15/mo and provides a lot of personal enjoyment as I dilly around the planets enjoying the stories at an easy pace. Was that worth it at launch? Mayhaps.

Was the totality of SWTOR worth that $15/mo two, three.. six months from launch? I reasoned no at the time and it seems that assessment was accurate till 2 expansions later.

Your idea of Ala-cart sub modle is not good IMO. It creates pay walls and segregates the player base.

This isn't any result of ala carte purchases.

There are examples of games that are totally F2P, allowing all content access w/o paywalls or stratified player bases.

The reverse is actually true though. The biggest hindrances to sub models is that they are expressly a paywall and inequitable. MMOs such as World of Warcraft or Everquest [in it's time] literally can not work otherwise. They have to be inequitable and have to have a paywall. It's critical to their operation from an actual gameplay standpoint. Like they work(ed) as they do because of inequity/pay barrier.

[Archaeon]

Subscriptions pretty much guarantee that developers can keep working on the game and release content. It might not be ideal for the player, but it's still one of the cheapest forms of entertainment.

[Fencers]

Eh.

For 0 dollars I can get hack and shoot gameplay of warframe, the space fighter gameplay of starconflict, the hack and slash of vindictus, the shoot and craft of firefall, and the raiding of rift. Those games mainly sell cosmetics too.

WoW is only one game. They've done a lot with it and I applaud their efforts with pet battles, brawlers guild, arena, raiding, ect but it's just not enough if they are going to charge me for logging in. Some people, obviously, are fine with it and that's great for them.

That's not really fair or smart as contrast though. It's even a little absurd, to be frank.

One can say that about anything, "I can get racing in game X, shooting in game Y, jumping in game C, hack & slash in game K", etc.

I am talking about, I hope you are too, the totality of gameplay within a given title. Sure, I can get aspects of various sub genres among other games. But it's unlikely I will ever get all in one game for $0 or 15 dollars monthly.

World of Warcraft does offer a lot diverse gameplay modes for the $15/mo. Even if it is not occasionally a first person shooter.

Subscriptions pretty much guarantee that developers can keep working on the game and release content.

No, they don't.

[Dilbon]

Your idea of Ala-cart sub modle is not good IMO. It creates pay walls and segregates the player base.

A pay wall is better than a gameplay wall.

[Halicia]

Your idea of Ala-cart sub modle is not good IMO. It creates pay walls and segregates the player base.

there are ways of doing it that don't segregate the player base. personally, i think the recipe to success for any mmo is attracting and retaining as many players as possible, and then get the active players paying.

light-to-no client, and no cost barriers to entry for new players seems like the best path to success for me.

and for 'quality' content, subscription fees seem counterproductive... you're buying a pig in a poke, and they only have to keep you happy enough to not quit...

whereas box & expansion sales are more readily rated based on what they deliver NOW... and not in the future.

i'm cool with a-la-carte, if its segregated by regions and not by content type. problem is, an mmo pretty much has to be designed with this sort of thing in mind.

[StationaryHawk]

It should be used where it's more profitable and discarded when it's not. At least, that's my opinion on this long-discussed matter.

[Clockwork Pinkie]

No, it usually works in it's own little way. I just wish that a b2p/f2p game could be just that and have no "but wait, if you pay monthly you get all this shit!" I mean I get you have to make money somehow but, essh, TSW does the B2P really well, and Rift does f2p really well too, some games just really really suck at it.

[zito]

Subscriptions pretty much guarantee that developers can keep working on the game and release content. It might not be ideal for the player, but it's still one of the cheapest forms of entertainment.

Not even remotely true.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Cash shop isn't a recent development. It being accessed directly in the game is though.

It still hasn't been in the game for that long.. as far as I remember.

[valliant13]

I sure hope not. I'm very pleased to pay a sub fee for the game I play, I much prefer it to the option which I've seen in for example GW2.

I do however wish they'd reconsider taking such horrible fees for the character services. They are expensive, even I see that, when we're also paying the sub fee AND there's a store. They could easily cut the character service costs in half, and make some sort of packages for different scenarios. If someone with 10 toons feels the need to move server/convert to the other faction, the cost would land at way too much and they are more likely to stop playing once the frustration grows big enough.

This so much, to faction/realm transfer it's $55. It's too expensive. If this was their only source of income I wouldn't argue it but they have a store, monthly sub AND transfer services. The services should be cut in half at a minimum. more like cut down to 75% of what the current price is. making it about 11 bucks to transfer and faction swap. Realistically though 10 for a faction swap and 5 for a realm swap would generate a ton of revenue to increased usage of the system. However they should change the transfer window to a month or two to compensate the cheap price so people don't abuse the shit out of it by ninja'ing and whatnot.

[Ebonheart]

What people fail to understand and often seem to simply overlook or ignore is that F2P games are simply more expensive and cost a lot lot more and adds up to quite a bit compared to a monthly sub payment model. All those little "micro" transactions don't really seem that big but by the end of the month they all add up to a lot so regardless if you are saying I'd rather pay $5 for something I know I'll enjoy, you keep paying those little $5 for access to different content and unlocks and before you know it it will be $60 in 30 days.

That is the fundamental thing a F2P model has going against it. A F2P game is not what it says and to even call it that should be labelled "false advertising". When you don't have access to the game in its entirety without any restrictions it cannot be called a F2P game.

Regardless how good a game maybe with probably the most compelling story EVER and with a dynamic and engaging combat system (which is something we have yet to see) and is F2P I will still not play it if I find that what I'll have to be putting in the game is more than the current sub monthly going rate in the MMO market regardless if its next year, 5 years or 10 years from now.

P.S Anyone here talking about which model is more profitable for the company is a complete idiot and shouldn't be considered a gamer at all. Its not about the company we are worried about. Pretty sure they fill their pockets.

[Sesshou]

I think the subscription model has its place in the MMO genre, specifically with large, high quality MMOs like WoW. There are so many people willing to pay that it just makes sense. Other smaller MMOs should probably opt for the microtransaction option because it has the potential to draw in a larger audience. It's just my opinion, but I feel that using the free-to-play method cheapens the game and turns me off to wanting to play it.

Exactly. I don't see any of the free to play games getting the large amounts of content continuously coming in like WoW has, and I personally prefer to pay whatever flat amount up front as opposed to feeling like the game is trying to nickel and dime me to death. Free to play seems to only be for low budget games and for a place that large budget mmo's can go and die off.

[Sunnydee]

You get what you pay for. speaks for itself.

[Dilbon]

All those little "micro" transactions don't really seem that big but by the end of the month they all add up to a lot so regardless if you are saying I'd rather pay $5 for something I know I'll enjoy, you keep paying those little $5 for access to different content and unlocks and before you know it it will be $60 in 30 days.

Perhaps, but after that it can be $60 in 60 days, then maybe $70 in 90 days, $100 in 180 days and $150 in a year. Then $250 in two years. What's 24 months of $15 per month? $360. And you still need to pay more if you want to continue playing.

[zito]

It still hasn't been in the game for that long.. as far as I remember.

It started in Wrath I believe which was how many years ago? 5?

- - - Updated - - -

snip

That is a bold accusation. Care to elaborate specificly instead of being... so... accusational?

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

It started in Wrath I believe which was how many years ago? 5?

- - - Updated - - -



That is a bold accusation. Care to elaborate specificly instead of being... so... accusational?

I think it was the end of 09, maybe 2010. I doubt it padded their pockets that much back then.

[Deleted]

Subfee, p2p as only option is honestly on the edge of going down.
Sure, we got skyrim mmo and wildstar that will try to launch as p2p... and why is that? Only answer is lack of competition. Wildstar and elder scrolls are pretty much the only somewhat big titles in mmo business next upcoming year and three (EQN, sure, but what is it... even in alpha yet?).
So with no serious competition, why not try go on a milking spree while possible?
There are quite a bunch mmo players out there, noticing the stale market and that will throw whatev money they got for something new to play. And that means a lot of people will pay and play.. some for just a few weeks and some for a bit longer. It will bring big bucks to the company anyhow.
But we all know the story, we all watched wow during cata, and several other sub based games. In order to keep players subscribed content needs to be provided,updates, bugfixes and all that. Demands are high and most fail to deliver and that, my friends, == loss in playerbase. It has also shown several transitions either into f2p or b2p.
That's where most games head in the end, but it doesn't mean they can milk for money before and for as long as possible.

F2p however isnt bad, they can have subfee of choice as well providing few good but none-gamebreaking bonuses. I pretty much only play f2p games now, and this past year only f2p: planetside2, dota2, warframe, rift. Sure I spent a little money in planetside2 and warframe but not more than the cost of a game and it gave me some fun. Good f2p-models are the way to go, and I will continue to support it. I dont play games like star wars and aion eu because they got crappy f2p-model, noone should support that behavious. If a company fail to deliver decent f2p-model they would be better off p2p, at least to ensure somewhat credibility of the game. P2win smells cheap and like outside a paper factory.

I wont play wildstar or elder scrolls until they go f2p, if they do. So far neither of them provide anything exciting enough to be worth subfee, wildstar got graphics like wow, elder scrolls... well, I just doubt the whole game tbh =) But they are new, but we all know that p2p will be hard for them to keep. Mark my words.

- - - Updated - - -

What people fail to understand and often seem to simply overlook or ignore is that F2P games are simply more expensive and cost a lot lot more and adds up to quite a bit compared to a monthly sub payment model. All those little "micro" transactions don't really seem that big but by the end of the month they all add up to a lot so regardless if you are saying I'd rather pay $5 for something I know I'll enjoy, you keep paying those little $5 for access to different content and unlocks and before you know it it will be $60 in 30 days.

That is the fundamental thing a F2P model has going against it. A F2P game is not what it says and to even call it that should be labelled "false advertising". When you don't have access to the game in its entirety without any restrictions it cannot be called a F2P game.

Regardless how good a game maybe with probably the most compelling story EVER and with a dynamic and engaging combat system (which is something we have yet to see) and is F2P I will still not play it if I find that what I'll have to be putting in the game is more than the current sub monthly going rate in the MMO market regardless if its next year, 5 years or 10 years from now.

P.S Anyone here talking about which model is more profitable for the company is a complete idiot and shouldn't be considered a gamer at all. Its not about the company we are worried about. Pretty sure they fill their pockets.

Not true, I dont know how much money I spent in wow, but not only subfee but several faction changes, server changes etc.... they ate my money for lunch.
So far has no f2p game claimed even close to 15 dollars a month, sure I might buy for more at one point, but it's closer to cost of a game or half a game than a subfee cost. But if you believe that all f2p-players will buy everything available in the store, well then they will spend money but I hate to break it to you but not many people do that.