I don't really hate the sub model, I just hate the mindset people have that a game having a sub automatically means quality content implemented at a good pace, like it's some sort of shield that protects the consumer from bad developing. Cataclysm would beg to differ.
Right, but being f2p comes with its own struggles. Some which, a sub model solves*(ish). Idk, I see this going B2P with cash shop and optional sub fee. My problem with the optional sub fee is, for the company at least, it is hard to make the sub free worth it without making the rewards OP.
However, I am sure we will cross this bridge when it arrives.
It's really not hard at all, just give the subbers rep/xp boosts, increased mount speed, some titles, maybe increased bag space. Nothing game-breaking, but definitely worth it if you're enjoying the game and want to simply support the company.
I pretty much listed the rewards from Rift sub rewards, but TERA also had pretty much the same rewards. It works, it made me want to pay, and that's all I need to know.
yes wow is losing players because its a subscription based mmo..
nothing to do greg street or developers like him.. yes its the payment model.
lol and lead system designer greg street has nothing to do about that?
im not even saying that this is the only reason why WoW is losing subs, its a whole list of things.. but i just find it funny how people list one problem they have with the game and use that as the sole reason for why its "failing"
Last edited by mmoccc0b2dd691; 2013-07-29 at 12:16 PM.
Well its most certainly a combination of the two. While I think it would be a gross over simplification to lay the blame on anyone developer, the direction the development has taken combined with the fact that there are simply so many more quality games with a much more forgiving payment model have certainly been a huge contributor to their decline in subscribers and recent shifts toward cash shops themselves. What makes them worse ( in my opinion ) and people who stomach it a bit gullible is that they allow them to charge a sub fee for content ON TOP of charging them for cash shop items.. which is just crazy. I just don't see how more people dont see that and get irate.yes wow is losing players because its a subscription based mmo..
nothing to do greg street or developers like him.. yes its the payment model.
More quality games? Ummm, no. There hasn't been any good MMOs since WoW. Wildstar seems the most promising (despite the fact that, as I've said, it's copying many mistakes from WoW classic). But on your second point about WoW's double-dipping payment model, I completely agree and I've been arguing that for many years now, ever since that cash shop started. If Wildstar goes with both subscription and microtransactions, like WoW, there is zero chance I will buy it.
and this is completely subjective and not based in fact at all..More quality games? Ummm, no. There hasn't been any good MMOs since WoW.
Money talks. There are a LOT of successful games out there right now with no sub fee what so ever. The fact that some people labor under the illusion that to be successful a game must garner 7 million subs ( next quarter it will require 6.3 million to be successful, if you get what I did there ) is simply skewed perception but not at all grounded in fact.
It is because of the amount of entertainment options out there right now that are pulling that previous 13 million customers to other games thus we see them divided amoungst the marker rather than pooled in one place as they had been in previous years.
Because they want to pay to skip it? Because they may not have time to do all of the 'Kill 12 wolves' filler quests and want to focus on the story?
Why even have levels if people are going to reach the cap eventually? Why even have rep if people are going to max it eventually? I really don't get your point.
It must be harder than you think, because what you listed is not good enough for my $15 or most people's $15.
Rift doesn't have a subscription option anymore. It's very clear they want to rebrand the entire notion of subscription, which is why they call it patron status and let it work on any number of days instead of flat $$/month. That's pretty much the best evidence that subscription models are going the way of the dodo. A company that hinged on raising a subscription as the pinnacle of service, which almost tried to brainwash people into believing subscriptions were the only valid way to have an MMO (it helped that they walked the walk with their content too), threw the subscription out the window as an afterthought as soon as they transitioned to F2P.
People already have a hard enough time justifying subscriptions when it pays for access to a whole game...what do you think is going to happen when you tell them a subscription (which costs the same as you used to pay) now only grants you these 5 things? Sure the crazed/loyal/well off people will still have them, but on the whole most people will not. Normally the most surefire way of enticing subscribers in a B2P/F2P landscape is to provide cash shop currency as it has a real world monetary value....effectively reducing the cost of the subscription.
BAD WOLF
I really don't care what they want to call it, Patron is still an optional sub. It gives me some convenience, and that's worth the money for me. I don't have time to do dailies and grind rep for 2 months straight without the boosts, they provide me with daily boosts for a low price. I'm happy, they are happy.
What else do you want with the optional sub, honestly?
paying for a sub now with an alternative free to play option.. things i would want as perks for sub would be along the lines of.. max character slots, double rested exp cap, more area's to gain the log off buff, send + recieve mail anywhere, portable AH, more auction house slots, more bank slots.. would also expect some eshop money per month.
It's understandable that you don't get the implications of what Trion are doing, as it is rather original for the mainstream market. This has been discussed at length in the Rift forums and it is certainly not a subscription in the traditional sense, which is really the whole point of what they are doing. You are also disregarding why I mentioned this in the first place.
I'm happy today too. I don't see the relevance.
Are we talking about an actual subscription service, or Rift's patron status? It is acceptable as a patron status, since you can buy it in several time increments, including the 'Weekend Warrior' boosts. For an actual subscription, where you pay your $15 and have no choice otherwise? Not good enough.
It also depends on what any game's Free-to-Play actually means. For Rift and TERA it works, because no content is restricted. These are relatively new models and they are great. Now, take a game where you still have to purchase a box (whether for B2P or just F2P and you buy the expansions) and it is 100% not acceptable without more value.
To the point, I already answered your question. Most companies tend to use a stipend in their cash shop to make the subscription option(not sure why we need to highlight this, as any subscription even in sub only games, including simply playing games in the first place is optional) worthwhile, as it adds real money value and effectively discounts the subscription.
BAD WOLF
Both my posts got removed when I just mentioned the reddit wildstaronline website. As I said, I can understand that you dont want any nda breaking material around here, but the mods needs to agree. Cause all I did was linking to reddit.com/r/wildstaronline.
But I'm going away for 14 days tomorrow, sunny beach woop woop. So hopefully it will be some interesting news waiting for me when I get back!
Have fun everyone, looking forward to playing this game hardcore when it launches.
- Alkzn
I did obviously mean something like Rift's patron in all of my previous posts.
Also, I never said the sub-only payment model is good. It's not and it hurts both developers and the players. What I said is that optional subs, providing minor convenience tools, are good for both the players and the company.
No, guaranteed money never hurts the developers. That is silly.
The developers could be less inclined to come out with risky, but amazing content, yes. Or even less inclined to put out content quickly.
But guaranteed money never hurts anyone.
and as a developer, I would like that security.
However, as a player, I am not so inclined to spend 15 dollars a month on a video game.
Last edited by Sakorath67; 2013-07-29 at 07:01 PM.
Yeah, but that's what optional sub is for - guaranteed money. If the game is good, people will pay, regardless if they have to or not. It's like tipping a good waiter, lol. But many people don't want to pay monthly, and it's not good for developers to cut them off the game completely, because these more-or-less casual players could pay a lot for visuals or convenience items like XP boosts when they have time to play, and they could even pay more than they would with just sub. Yeah, it's kind of a gamble, but it usually turns out as a win for the developers.
You said that yourself, you don't want to pay 15 dollars a month. But I bet you wouldn't mind buying some things from in-game store occasionally.