Originally Posted by
Mace
interesting point, in teh sense that viewing what the competition is , you coudl argue from the game end game perspective, that by offering less content at the end for the same subscription price, it would be viewed as untenable - certainly while wow was around.
Hard to judge, but obviously the loss of subscription has answered that question, but was it more because of the fact? or more because of the negative publicity generated by the brats?
What exactly were we paying that subscription fee for? for the really engaging storyline and gameplay which tbh, for the first 50 levels was pretty darn impressive. Or was it for the end game content? . I think to maintain a game on a string of servers as they had at release and facilitate the expected playerbase at that time, there price model was not disparaging or unfair when compared to world of warcraft. You had a better animated game, a cineamtic master piece, for the same number of levels and for the opening entry you had far more than wow, not to mention better graphics etc.
PErsonally I think it is better than wow in many ways, but it obviously hasn't worked. I don't know if it could have been better, they could have charged less for the subscription fee since they did not have as much content, that would have worked. Offer varying degrees of subscription. I can say this in hindsight though. .
They should probably do that you know. Free to play to level 50, $7.49 or £4.49 gives you full access to all content, then charge you your $14.99/£8.99 for a platinum service for the addicted giving you some serious game perks. It is probably the only realistic way to compete with wow, focus on building a bigger subscriber base, even if they have to pay less, you get more playing, and then in time when you've released more content and an expansion or 2, you can climb it up based on your subscriber base.