Originally posted by dave6660

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by Beatnik59

Originally posted by Boneserino

"Games arent run on thin air, as some people seem to think, people have to be paid, resources such as power, bandwidth, etc etc. all have to be paid for, personally i'd rather pay through a sub fee that gives me 100 percent access to game content, than pay through the nose for 'extras' in the cash shops of various F2P games. "

I respect your right to choose sub based games.  I think you are going to find it increasingly hard though.

However, when you make statements like the one above which is completely biased and untrue, when you refer to "paying thru the nose" it just shows your ignorance.  Paying thru the nose is a choice.  A sub is not. 

Also F2P games make money, otherwise they would not be operating.  Another false statement on your part.  But hey, you are just another of the Pay 2 Win crowd spouting the same tired story.

 

There are also F2P games that can't make money, or--if they can--cannot feed enough wallets and bodies to make their owners happy.  Which is why we've had a dozen or so close in the last few months.

Someone above said something along the lines of "I don't mind the guy who pays $50 to the cash store, because they keep the game afloat."  In some cases, that might be true.  But then there are other cases where the guy who pays $50 to the cash store cannot keep the game afloat, and what then?  The game gets yanked out from under everyone and the $50 counts for nothing.

Don't get me wrong.  The same thing happens in subscription games too.  It's just something inherent in the genre that we can't avoid.  Personally, I'd be more comfortable in a game where the costs are more evenly distributed among the players than borne entirely on a few "whales" (which is, in case you haven't noticed, a term that started in the casino industry).  When the game depends on a few whales to keep it afloat, when the whales get used up, the game folds.

And the reverse is also true.  You might have people who spend hundreds--if not thousands--of dollars buying item store currency.  But the hundreds and thousands they spend aren't enough to cover the costs, their game gets yanked away from them, and the person has nothing to show for it.

At least the casinos treat their whales well.  The only thing that awaits an MMO whale is the harpoon of regret when the game gets pulled out from under him.

 Other than CoH, what f2p game has closed in the last few months?

Zynga is shutting down 11 games.  Does that count?

 Possibly.  I consider those more social/facebook type games rather than a f2p mmo (or at least the more traditionnally described MMO - not going to get into the whole are facebook games mmo's, not the place in this thread).  However I haven't played them so can't say for sure. 

If they are the social/facebook type game, well I see them come and go all the time. 

Are there any infos about if the development time of f2p games are shorter than conventional mmos ? 

I feel the price point actually should stay bit higher now that F2P is getting more popular.  Monthly fee becomes more associated with niche and "hardcore" games, and they need more money (and stable money) from each player to stay in business. F2P is for the mass market, a lot of Asia as well. The games are crafted more like Facebook games, something that focuses on reward elements and is as accessible as possible. Monthly fee games can focus on immersive, social experiences with deeper gameplay etc, stuff that is stimulating for the "real" nerds. I think this is what is happening now, and why there's isn't too many satisfying games for some people on the market. We didn't have target market outside of the nerds before (other than maybe RP preferring nerds, PvP preferring nerds etc), less demanding players is a newer thing.

5$ falls too much in between, may work for some. Isn't Runescape membership like that much? They have decent F2P experience first to suck people in though. I'm not upto date with that info. For most devs... think about it. Do you want to ask 5$ or 15$ month? That's a huge difference in potential income, but not necessarily much of a difference in the eyes of the target market. It's very little money taking into account how much time some people spend on these games, for some they are a substitute for the reality they are not content with. Perhaps the magic number will be 10$, but just not 5$. Then again, who wants to ask 10 instead of 15? Might as well ask 15. 15 is the comfortable standard of the current indurstry. if you go cheaper, you pretty much have to go all the way to F2P and think the monetizaiton from whole different angle.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

 

 Possibly.  I consider those more social/facebook type games rather than a f2p mmo (or at least the more traditionnally described MMO - not going to get into the whole are facebook games mmo's, not the place in this thread).  However I haven't played them so can't say for sure. 

If they are the social/facebook type game, well I see them come and go all the time. 

There is no reason why F2P MMOs cannot come and go all the time. The revenue share of F2P is increasing in the MMO space, so even if some closes, i highly doubt we are going to run out of F2P games to play anytime soon.

If LOTRO, DDO, STO, DCUO, POTBS ... are all still running and new ones are released all the time, what is the worry?

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by greenreen 

These are the credits for the games he has been involved in listed on Wikipedia. I see few F2P listed there. What makes him an authority on the subject? His experience is mostly with just one company too. Just because someone publishes a book it never meant they knew best, remember that phrase, those who can't - teach. 

He devloped and ran Metaplace.com. He also doesn't exist in a vacuum and spends a lot of time consulting. Is it your contention that since you've played a lot of video games your personal view of game design and how the industry works is more valid than the experience of those who have been successfully working in the industry for 30 or so years? If so, don't worry, there's a lot of people here like that, so you're in good company. 

 

You don't need an expert to coin a term. Everyone knows a very small number of players pay through the roof. It is not uncommon to name a customer segment. So he borrows the term from the gambling industry and it sticks.

Why is his expertise relevant?

You cited an individual in your post. The other person asked how or why he is an authority on this. I answered, supporting your post. At this point it seems like you're just arguing with people for the sake of arguing. 

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

 

 Possibly.  I consider those more social/facebook type games rather than a f2p mmo (or at least the more traditionnally described MMO - not going to get into the whole are facebook games mmo's, not the place in this thread).  However I haven't played them so can't say for sure. 

If they are the social/facebook type game, well I see them come and go all the time. 

There is no reason why F2P MMOs cannot come and go all the time. The revenue share of F2P is increasing in the MMO space, so even if some closes, i highly doubt we are going to run out of F2P games to play anytime soon.

If LOTRO, DDO, STO, DCUO, POTBS ... are all still running and new ones are released all the time, what is the worry?

I guess the worry might be "for how long?"

Originally posted by Beatnik59

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

 

 Possibly.  I consider those more social/facebook type games rather than a f2p mmo (or at least the more traditionnally described MMO - not going to get into the whole are facebook games mmo's, not the place in this thread).  However I haven't played them so can't say for sure. 

If they are the social/facebook type game, well I see them come and go all the time. 

There is no reason why F2P MMOs cannot come and go all the time. The revenue share of F2P is increasing in the MMO space, so even if some closes, i highly doubt we are going to run out of F2P games to play anytime soon.

If LOTRO, DDO, STO, DCUO, POTBS ... are all still running and new ones are released all the time, what is the worry?

I guess the worry might be "for how long?"

It is not likely that all of them shut down. And even if so, since the market is big, there are others to play. So why worry? In fact, none of these games are likely to be shut down in the next few months .. and that is beyond the time frame i care about.

---

Originally posted by dave6660

---

Originally posted by AlBQuirky
Didn't vote. Not a choice I liked.

What's wrong with old school?

---

Many posters enjoy using the "Appeal to Novelty" argument.

---

Originally posted by MMOExposed

but 5$ a month sub model is the thing of the future.

 

Developers still get a constant sub, but not as intimidating as 15 dollar sub model is.

And with growing number of MMORPG game list, consumers would be better off being able to sub to multiple MMOs rather than commit to a single 15$ a month AAA MMO.

By lowering it down to 5$ a month, consumers can squeeze 3 AAA MMOs out of a single month with that same traditional 15$ a month.

With more MMORPG on the game list, more will be played at a time for the avg MMO consumer in theory. (and even more for those that already comfortable with coughing over 60+$ a month to play multiple MMOs)

 

keep in mind this is about sub model alternative then doing the risky F2P and B2P models.

I don't think its feasible. While running a server is cheaper now, people do still have salaries and there is a real world thing called inflation. Which is why prices of things do typically go up instead of down. We may get a break here and there on somethings, but on average you'll find things typically don't get cheaper when it involves someones time.

With that said, I feel that since developers are starting to pump out many many MMO's to saturate the market as much as possible, they are going to have to start coming up with a plan that is closely mirrored to SOE's group sub option (station pass). I can't recall but I believe it is $20.00 per month for full sub access to all their games instead of the typicall $15.00. 

Originally posted by AlBQuirky

 

---

Originally posted by dave6660

---

Originally posted by AlBQuirky
Didn't vote. Not a choice I liked.

 

What's wrong with old school?

---

Many posters enjoy using the "Appeal to Novelty" argument.

---

D'OH! I forgot about that... "New and "Innovative" are the latest buzzwords, right?

 

And like massive now means 5-10, New now means "wasn't here before", and innovative can equate to removing something too. 

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by dave6660

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by Beatnik59

Originally posted by Boneserino

"Games arent run on thin air, as some people seem to think, people have to be paid, resources such as power, bandwidth, etc etc. all have to be paid for, personally i'd rather pay through a sub fee that gives me 100 percent access to game content, than pay through the nose for 'extras' in the cash shops of various F2P games. "

I respect your right to choose sub based games.  I think you are going to find it increasingly hard though.

However, when you make statements like the one above which is completely biased and untrue, when you refer to "paying thru the nose" it just shows your ignorance.  Paying thru the nose is a choice.  A sub is not. 

Also F2P games make money, otherwise they would not be operating.  Another false statement on your part.  But hey, you are just another of the Pay 2 Win crowd spouting the same tired story.

 

There are also F2P games that can't make money, or--if they can--cannot feed enough wallets and bodies to make their owners happy.  Which is why we've had a dozen or so close in the last few months.

Someone above said something along the lines of "I don't mind the guy who pays $50 to the cash store, because they keep the game afloat."  In some cases, that might be true.  But then there are other cases where the guy who pays $50 to the cash store cannot keep the game afloat, and what then?  The game gets yanked out from under everyone and the $50 counts for nothing.

Don't get me wrong.  The same thing happens in subscription games too.  It's just something inherent in the genre that we can't avoid.  Personally, I'd be more comfortable in a game where the costs are more evenly distributed among the players than borne entirely on a few "whales" (which is, in case you haven't noticed, a term that started in the casino industry).  When the game depends on a few whales to keep it afloat, when the whales get used up, the game folds.

And the reverse is also true.  You might have people who spend hundreds--if not thousands--of dollars buying item store currency.  But the hundreds and thousands they spend aren't enough to cover the costs, their game gets yanked away from them, and the person has nothing to show for it.

At least the casinos treat their whales well.  The only thing that awaits an MMO whale is the harpoon of regret when the game gets pulled out from under him.

 Other than CoH, what f2p game has closed in the last few months?

Zynga is shutting down 11 games.  Does that count?

 Possibly.  I consider those more social/facebook type games rather than a f2p mmo (or at least the more traditionnally described MMO - not going to get into the whole are facebook games mmo's, not the place in this thread).  However I haven't played them so can't say for sure. 

If they are the social/facebook type game, well I see them come and go all the time. 

Actually a game like Farmville uses many of the same play drivers and retainers as a MMORPG, and it was a major factor in creating the F2P bubble and causing the MMO industry to see cash shop driven revenue as 'the future'. Their performance is important indicator of the whole 'F2P Movement'.

The collapse of Zynga that we are seeing definitely count as F2P shut downs, at least for anyone interested in how things are maybe looking like a little down the road for MMORPGs (rather then always living in the 'right now').

There is a very good reason that pretty much all Western conversions still offer a sub option.

Originally posted by Vesavius

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by dave6660

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by Beatnik59

Originally posted by Boneserino

"Games arent run on thin air, as some people seem to think, people have to be paid, resources such as power, bandwidth, etc etc. all have to be paid for, personally i'd rather pay through a sub fee that gives me 100 percent access to game content, than pay through the nose for 'extras' in the cash shops of various F2P games. "

I respect your right to choose sub based games.  I think you are going to find it increasingly hard though.

However, when you make statements like the one above which is completely biased and untrue, when you refer to "paying thru the nose" it just shows your ignorance.  Paying thru the nose is a choice.  A sub is not. 

Also F2P games make money, otherwise they would not be operating.  Another false statement on your part.  But hey, you are just another of the Pay 2 Win crowd spouting the same tired story.

 

There are also F2P games that can't make money, or--if they can--cannot feed enough wallets and bodies to make their owners happy.  Which is why we've had a dozen or so close in the last few months.

Someone above said something along the lines of "I don't mind the guy who pays $50 to the cash store, because they keep the game afloat."  In some cases, that might be true.  But then there are other cases where the guy who pays $50 to the cash store cannot keep the game afloat, and what then?  The game gets yanked out from under everyone and the $50 counts for nothing.

Don't get me wrong.  The same thing happens in subscription games too.  It's just something inherent in the genre that we can't avoid.  Personally, I'd be more comfortable in a game where the costs are more evenly distributed among the players than borne entirely on a few "whales" (which is, in case you haven't noticed, a term that started in the casino industry).  When the game depends on a few whales to keep it afloat, when the whales get used up, the game folds.

And the reverse is also true.  You might have people who spend hundreds--if not thousands--of dollars buying item store currency.  But the hundreds and thousands they spend aren't enough to cover the costs, their game gets yanked away from them, and the person has nothing to show for it.

At least the casinos treat their whales well.  The only thing that awaits an MMO whale is the harpoon of regret when the game gets pulled out from under him.

 Other than CoH, what f2p game has closed in the last few months?

Zynga is shutting down 11 games.  Does that count?

 Possibly.  I consider those more social/facebook type games rather than a f2p mmo (or at least the more traditionnally described MMO - not going to get into the whole are facebook games mmo's, not the place in this thread).  However I haven't played them so can't say for sure. 

If they are the social/facebook type game, well I see them come and go all the time. 

Actually a game like Farmville uses many of the same play drivers and retainers as a MMORPG, and it was a major factor in creating the F2P bubble and causing the MMO industry to see cash shop driven revenue as 'the future'. Their performance is important indicator of the whole 'F2P Movement'.

The collapse of Zynga that we are seeing definitely count as F2P shut downs, at least for anyone interested in how things are maybe looking like a little down the road for MMORPGs (rather then always living in the 'right now').

There is a very good reason that pretty much all Western conversions still offer a sub option.

The shutdown of several Zynga games is the result of their game design, not the business model.

There's a reason that the borwser games are constantly adding new 'servers'. Players reach a point where they still like the game but either they have done everything the game has to offer or they are at a point where they feel they can no longer make a difference. Whereas browser games open new servers, Zynga just created reskinned games. The problem there is that the person that is enjoying gangsterville wants to restart over in gangsterville, not in bakeryville, cowpieville or spaceville. Had they opened new instances of existing games (in addition to introducing the new games), it would have prolonged their replayability and profitability.

Those who do not know history are fated to repeat it.

Originally posted by r3zs1ckn3ss
No. You're just too cheap to support the companies that spend a lot of time maintaining game servers and developing new content. #$@% F2P!! Keep in mind that this is an opinion. MY opinion. So don't get all butthurt by my comments like everyone else does.

You are right. I don't "support" anything. I am a consumer and i consumer entertainment product. If the price is compete down to zero, i will take it. I am not going to donate money to company to "support" anything.

Originally posted by r3zs1ckn3ss
No. You're just too cheap to support the companies that spend a lot of time maintaining game servers and developing new content. #$@% F2P!! Keep in mind that this is an opinion. MY opinion. So don't get all butthurt by my comments like everyone else does.

     I've been in the customer business world too long..  Everything is about "value of the dollar".. Plain and simple..  Now this will vary  from customer to customers, but the logic is still the same..  You call it support, I call it donation IF and when I'm not getting my monies worth.. Do I blindly support Ford Motor each time they come out with a new model?  OH HELL NO!!.. A company needs to give value for everything they do..  In my opinion as well as many others today's mmo market is filled with companies that dish out product NOT worthy of a subscription fee.... I love Golf Digest and Sports Illustrated, but neither will I support at a tune of $15 a month.. I think you get the idea..

Originally posted by r3zs1ckn3ss
No. You're just too cheap to support the companies that spend a lot of time maintaining game servers and developing new content. #$@% F2P!! Keep in mind that this is an opinion. MY opinion. So don't get all butthurt by my comments like everyone else does.

You? could you be more specific? unless you are generalising everyone who thinks nowdays MMOS are not worth 15 bucks a month as 'too cheap'?

Generalisations are bad.

Give me a good game that I enjoy playing and I'll be willing to pay $15-$20 bucks a month per account to play it.

Two concepts to remember:

1.  You get what you pay for.  More expensive doesn't always mean better but high quality does come at a price.

2. TINSTAAFL (little concept I learned in high school economics many years ago) or There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.  What does it mean?  Nothing comes for free, if you aren't paying the price then someone somewhere is.  We love the idea of free games or low cost games but games still cost the gaming company money to produce and keep running (in the case of online games that require servers).

The problem with the MMO market now is it is flooded with games, most of which have an "endgame" and little replay value, and many which have too much of a grind (I understand grind as being a way to lengthen the time playing a game but there are ways to have the grind not seem so ridiculous....from balancing out the amount of grind over all the levels so that the first 10-20 levels don't fly by why levels 30 on take forever to not requiring a repeat of the same three or four quest in the same zone 100 times) which leads to people getting tired of a game quickly and wanting to play multiple games at the same time because no one game can hold their interest.

The other issue is game companies have discovered that they can make more money by tearing apart the content of the game and charging for each little thing via cash shops.  Want a choice of species to play? Pay for it! Want a choice of classes to play? Pay for it! Want to gain xp at a rate that doesn't test your frustration level? Pay for it! Want a mount so it doesn't take an hour to walk from one side of the world to another? Pay for it! Want a health pack so you can make it through the battle without dying? Pay for it!  All those things that could once be crafted by players or looted from quests? Pay for it!  And guess what? Paid for a monthly subscription so you wouldn't have to pay a separate fee for everything?  That still doesn't unlock everything so there are still items you'll need to visit a cash shop to get.  (Aside from my preference for straight subscription fee, I think all F2P games with cash shops should have a subscription option and EVERYTHING in the cash shop would be purchaseable using in game funds at members only vendors.  Mark the items as "members only" so if the player goes back to being a non-member he or she would no longer be able to use the items purchased through member vendors.)

Am I saying to throw out all the other payment options in place of the monthly subscription option?  No, some games fit well with other payment options.  Am I saying that one fee fits all?  I wouldn't mind seeing subscription based games offer options.  Charge the $15 - $20 for unlimited access to the game.  Offer other payment plans for limited access to the game (limits being how many hours a month a person can play before the game shuts off and they are unable to log in again until the next month).

Originally posted by spizz

 

I dont think you can compare a movie with a good quality mmorpg with rich content. You invest time into the mmorpg to develop your character, to socialize with people, you join a guild and build friendship,  you fight for your faction and so on....A movie is like a BigMac you just consume it and finish it in a short time.

If you are a game hopper and you invest loads of time into games but not into a single one and if you love switching games, go ahead there are thousands of mmorpgs out there but most of them are not high quality games. What was the longest time you stayed with a single mmo ? For me it was around 3 years.

Of course i can. Not only i can, i am. Entertainment is entertainment. The time i am playing a MMO is the time i am not watching a movie, reading a novel, playing a SP game, .. you get my drift.

And of course i am gaming hopping. Do you think you really need to tell me to go ahead?

And for the amount of time, i played WOW for more than 3 years (just quit last yaer), EQ for 1 (worst waste of my time and only because there is little atlernatives). But the point is that the 3 year is not crucial. I only did 3 because it was still fun.

And if it is only fun for 3 weeks, i still will play it. Why shouldn't i?

And as for quality .. i already said that quality is the measure (for me) if it is fun when i play it. Not if it last long. In that regard, there are lots of high quality MMOs. STO is a good one. DCUO is also fun for a while. There is a long list.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Onomas

 

No im not wrong, you have even called me a whale in a different post.

Just because someone tries to be cool and coin a new phrase or term doesnt mean you need to use it. That term is derogatory and just stupid. Many here dislike that including myself.

There are many terms for race, sex, culture, religion but just because they are around doesnt mean you have to use it.

There is no term required for people that wish to pay for their entertainment, everyone pays at one point in life to someone.

Its your way to by sly and insult someone, but nonetheless its a derogatory term.

Are you a whale? Did you spend much more than average in a F2P game? If the definition fit, then you are one, whether i call you or not.

Just like i free-ride on F2P game.

If you have such a thin skin, it is your problem.

You don't free ride, you freeload.  See the difference in connotation and how well it is likely to be recieved?  Some terms are less offensive than others and if other feel the term you use is offensive, then there is nothing you can say to make it otherwise.  I'm a gay man and it offends me when people use "gay" in a derogatory way.  The same principle would apply with any use of the language.  If a large enough group of peers consider something offensive, then it in fact becomes the definition of offensive.