General Discussion

www.joystiq.com/2008/07/24/study-gamers-not-interested-in-mmo-subscriptions/

Market research firm Parks Associate has released a study claiming subscription-based MMOs aren't dropping enough loot for its players. According to the group's Electronic Gaming in the Digital Home II study (via Worlds in Motion) found that only the hardcore gamers were into the subscription model, whereas the casual gamer showed "significant interest" in the free-to-play, microtransaction model.

Another part of the study found that, of the non-MMO players polled, 14% would be interested to play if they could play for free, whereas only 2% of that group was interested in subscription-based MMOs. As we always caution, studies generally aren't worth more than the pixels they're displayed on (unless it's a nice monitor, then they're probably worth less). In a recent polling at Joystiq HQ, games that are "free to play" were also seven times more likely to grab our attention that games that weren't free.

Said Director of Broadband and Gaming Yuanzhe (Michael) Cai, "World of Warcraft, with over 10 million players, exceeded expectations for subscription-based MMORPGs, but it's unlikely any other publishers will achieve the same in the near term using a subscription model." Of course, that's kind of a no-brainer even for WoW's competitors.
 

With casuals making up for a huge amount of players, I think we can expect to a see a lot more micro transaction mmo's soon.

im a hardcore fps, rpg, multiplayer gamer. But I hate the subscription model. So I'm quite weird... but yeah, pay to play is just wrong - thus i play guild wars, even that game I dont stick to too much.  Much more of CSS, DoD, TF2, Dota, SC, D2, and stuff like that. If they had an mmorpg as good as wow (graphics wise and grind wise) where you only pay for the copy of the game, and pay for microtransactions/ expacs then i wont have a problem with it. I think Anet has the model bang on.

Don't hold your breath.

Blizzard nets a billion a year on the current subscription model.

No one is in any great hurry to change it.

With a pay to get upgrades model, the company may need to produce new content as fast as it's player base wants it. Something no company has yet been able to do. Far better to just get paid anyway. The current model is well established and highly lucrative.

And with the only major company threatening to run their games on a pay to upgrade system being SOE, it is unlikely to get a lot of player support.

I'd be willing to try it, if the game was one I was intrested in playing, but I don't see that there is any competative will to start a price war.

Originally posted by ikra

im a hardcore fps, rpg, multiplayer gamer. But I hate the subscription model. So I'm quite weird... but yeah, pay to play is just wrong - thus i play guild wars, even that game I dont stick to too much.  Much more of CSS, DoD, TF2, Dota, SC, D2, and stuff like that. If they had an mmorpg as good as wow (graphics wise and grind wise) where you only pay for the copy of the game, and pay for microtransactions/ expacs then i wont have a problem with it. I think Anet has the model bang on.

Speak for yourself mate.  Loads of FPs players pay for the servers you play on.

It's not free at all. You just aren't keeping your end up.

One of the benefits of MMO subscription models, is that it forces all the blaggers to pay their share.

That said, the Guild Wars model is by far my favourite. I can't see any other model out there that works better for the players intrests. They get no new money until the new content is delivered. If only more companies were willing to be as honest and fair trading as them.

Originally posted by baff

And with the only major company threatening to run their games on a pay to upgrade system being SOE, it is unlikely to get a lot of player support.

ANET is not as big as SOE but GW2 will have no monthly charges

- and will have a persistent world unlike GW1

wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_2/FAQ

So 6 million hardcore players are subscribed to World of Warcraft. Yeah, sure.

If any MMO that is f2p can ever come close to the quality of a game of a p2p (micro trans vs. monthly sub) I would give it a shot.  GW, even if it was a persistant world is almost there but not there yet IMO. Perfect World may be the closest but it still lacks with hacks and bugs. Maybe they will fix thoes in the NA version, who knows.

I'm fine with having the micro transaction MMORPGs attract those sorts of players, and leave the rest of the players on subscription MMO"s.

I will only play the subscription MMO's, and am more than happy for those that don't like this model to go elsewhere. I'm sure there's room to make money with both models, so both sorts of games will continue to be developed.

 The other point is we've seen this time and time again. The majority of players on subscription based games like Vanguard, AoC, WoW, etc. DO NOT participate on forums, or polls. They buy the box in a retail store, and play the game, the don't hang out on forums.

OTOH, free to play microtransaction games are more likely to be download only with no box in the retail store, and those sorts of players are probably more likely to be on the forums looking for the next  asian grinder to download.

Originally posted by baff

Don't hold your breath.

 

Blizzard nets a billion a year on the current subscription model.

No one is in any great hurry to change it.

 

With a pay to get upgrades model, the company may need to produce new content as fast as it's player base wants it. Something no company has yet been able to do. Far better to just get paid anyway. The current model is well established and highly lucrative.

And with the only major company threatening to run their games on a pay to upgrade system being SOE, it is unlikely to get a lot of player support.

 

I'd be willing to try it, if the game was one I was intrested in playing, but I don't see that there is any competative will to start a price war.

That's why the article mentions this:
 

Said Director of Broadband and Gaming Yuanzhe (Michael) Cai, "World of Warcraft, with over 10 million players, exceeded expectations for subscription-based MMORPGs, but it's unlikely any other publishers will achieve the same in the near term using a subscription model." Of course, that's kind of a no-brainer even for WoW's competitors
 

WoW's success is the exception, not the rule. WoW is currently leading with 10 million subscribers, the next one in line is probably Lineage 1 or Lineage 2, with about 1 millions subscribers each. That's a difference of 9 million subscribers. Next one is probably Age of Conan and Lotro, which I estimate have around 300k ~ 500k subs each, and it only goes down from there.

nice topic btw and i think that this is something more and more gaming companies should consider for future development.

When u take ANets success into account with their GW franchise this debate is a very realistic draw to the way gamers are going. In a market saturated with so many over hyped and subpar games its hard now adays to know exactly which games u want to be that committed to.  Sometimes that subscription model becomes the main underlying factor and it shouldnt be, though i understand why some games have subscriptions in place.

Someone mentioned GW2 , in hindsight this seems like wit