I think that is obvious that almost all people isn't willing to pay a monthly fee to play a game that delivers a single player experience. People thinks that SP games should be buyed once and played at ease until be "beaten" or they get sicken of them. However, some recent developers (like Bioware) offered single player games as if they were mmos.  In the last years, many "lobby games" were created too.

This wouldn't be a touble if the costs of these games and the profit expectations weren't so high, as in mmos.

 How can the devs to think that a common person is willing to pay monthly fee to play a single player or to join a lobby to play "matches" with others?

I think that a game that offers single-player-like experience can only be sucessfull as P2P if the content be VERY huge and constantly renewing.

Cause there is proof that people will pay for content that appeals to them.

COD4: MAKE ACTI MONEY has their 'Elite' program which has a sub and is making millions every month.

BF3 has their own premium service which is again a sub-fee program.

Most games come with DLC later on which is almost always not-free.

Gamers will pay for content. Whether it is logical to you or not doesn't matter.

I don't think it is logical to own a Limo, but that doesn't mean people don't own a limo.

Originally posted by jpnz

Cause there is proof that people will pay for content that appeals to them.

 

There are outliers, they are not usual trends.

Originally posted by DavisFlight

Originally posted by jpnz

Cause there is proof that people will pay for content that appeals to them.

 

There are outliers, they are not usual trends.

And Activi-Blizz's financials will love to have a word with you cause that thing is enormous in size (players and $$$).

Heck, even BF3's premium service is huge compared to just 'normal' game releases.

Originally posted by maccarthur2004

I think that is obvious that almost all people isn't willing to pay a monthly fee to play a game that delivers a single player experience. People thinks that SP games should be buyed once and played at ease until be "beaten" or they get sicken of them. However, some recent developers (like Bioware) offered single player games as if they were mmos.  In the last years, many "lobby games" were created too.

This wouldn't be a touble if the costs of these games and the profit expectations weren't so high, as in mmos.

 How can the devs to think that a common person is willing to pay monthly fee to play a single player or to join a lobby to play "matches" with others?

I think that a game that offers single-player-like experience can only be sucessfull as P2P if the content be VERY huge and constantly renewing.

 

 

 

What makes you think that devs think that people wanna pays subs for anything?

Why do you think F2P is the trend? Devs don't think people want to pay subs .. otherwise why all the F2P games?

So games with dungeon and battleground are consider single player game now?

At best you should call them lobby game.

Originally posted by DavisFlight

Originally posted by jpnz

Cause there is proof that people will pay for content that appeals to them.

 

There are outliers, they are not usual trends.

Anyone who purchases any video game related items of service is paying for content that appeals to them.

This includes copies of the game, subscriptions to the game, or any form of payment at all to any game company for any reason.

Not only are they not outliers- they are EVERYONE, lol.

Originally posted by LeegOfChldrn

Originally posted by DavisFlight

Originally posted by jpnz

Cause there is proof that people will pay for content that appeals to them.

 

There are outliers, they are not usual trends.

Anyone who purchases any video game related items of service is paying for content that appeals to them.

This includes copies of the game, subscriptions to the game, or any form of payment at all to any game company for any reason.

Not only are they not outliers- they are EVERYONE, lol.

Yeah .. exactly.

Why would anyone pay for stuff that is not appealing?

Originally posted by maccarthur2004

I think that is obvious that almost all people isn't willing to pay a monthly fee to play a game that delivers a single player experience. People thinks that SP games should be buyed once and played at ease until be "beaten" or they get sicken of them. However, some recent developers (like Bioware) offered single player games as if they were mmos.  In the last years, many "lobby games" were created too.

This wouldn't be a touble if the costs of these games and the profit expectations weren't so high, as in mmos.

 How can the devs to think that a common person is willing to pay monthly fee to play a single player or to join a lobby to play "matches" with others?

I think that a game that offers single-player-like experience can only be sucessfull as P2P if the content be VERY huge and constantly renewing.

 

 

 

The problem today is more that many make the mistake to talk about their own playstyle in how they play a game.

Yes I too feel that SWtOR feels more like a singleplayer game with co-op options, but lets face the fact that you can play allot together with other people if you choose too. I simply choose to play it more like a singleplayer game because I feel no real need for community purpose because it's a mainly combat oriented game. Would SwtOR be a SWG 2.0 then my playstyle would turn back into MMORPG style because of it's more virtual world nature.

And even though the game didn't give me a MMORPG fibe I still subbed to the game even when it went F2P because for me atleast the sub-fee is such a low cost and find the restrictions anoying in F2P and the game provides me entertainment.

I still use the ingame market to sell and buy things from other players, sometimes live-trades, am able to ask for help or give help to other players.

There are still more layers in even today's MMORPG's compared to singleplayer game due to it's ingame community.

But the singleplayer parts in MMORPG's are more like the old singleplayer games. I havn't seen a current MMO that could compete with today's singleplayer games if you really want to play alone.

Originally posted by Reklaw

I still use the ingame market to sell and buy things from other players, sometimes live-trades, am able to ask for help or give help to other players.

You don't need a MMO to do that. Just a persistent AH. D3 is a good example. Not a MMO but you can trade with anyone.

There are still more layers in even today's MMORPG's compared to singleplayer game due to it's ingame community.

Obviously not true. Look at xfire numbers. Aside from WOW & GW2, most on the top are NOT MMOs (add WOT if you count it as one). D3 is probably bigger, in player numbers, than 90% of the MMOs out there. COD is probably also bigger.

But the singleplayer parts in MMORPG's are more like the old singleplayer games. I havn't seen a current MMO that could compete with today's singleplayer games if you really want to play alone.

There are many. For example, STO. There is no other Star Trek theme RPG in the last few years. I would just play it as a SP game because there is no better Star Trek RPG.

 

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Reklaw

I still use the ingame market to sell and buy things from other players, sometimes live-trades, am able to ask for help or give help to other players.

You don't need a MMO to do that. Just a persistent AH. D3 is a good example. Not a MMO but you can trade with anyone.

You missed the word "I" and never said there arn't other games with certain feature's I might like from MMO's.

You missed the word "I" and never said there arn't other games with certain feature's I might like from MMO's. But I can not trade with another player in a SINGLEPLAYER offline game. Which is for me what a singleplayer game is. Else it's a online game regardless it's genre.

There are still more layers in even today's MMORPG's compared to singleplayer game due to it's ingame community.

Obviously not true. Look at xfire numbers. Aside from WOW & GW2, most on the top are NOT MMOs (add WOT if you count it as one). D3 is probably bigger, in player numbers, than 90% of the MMOs out there. COD is probably also bigger.

Thought the discussion was about singleplayer games being MMORPG, doesn't X-fire show mostly online games regardless which genre? atleast you seem to mention online games...

But the singleplayer parts in MMORPG's are more like the old singleplayer games. I havn't seen a current MMO that could compete with today's singleplayer games if you really want to play alone.

There are many. For example, STO. There is no other Star Trek theme RPG in the last few years. I would just play it as a SP game because there is no better Star Trek RPG.

Well very obvious there are exceptions, but I am still 100% that a pure singleplayer game experiance is still far different then playing a MMORPG as a singleplayer game, there is so much more that will impact your character and the ingame world in a singleplayer game that a MMORPG can not match that atleast not most current themepark MMO's.

Will you not say that lets say you ignore every other player in a MMO and you wander about the ingame world, look at the city's, NPC's overall ingame AI life, compare that to singleplayer games, now don't you think that singleplayer game are able to make to world more alive by it's ingame AI?

That to me is the difference that while I might play certain MMO's currently like singleplayer games, they still don't feel like singleplayer games.

 

 

Originally posted by Quirhid
Is it just me, or are these threads beoming more and more preposterous? Where is your inner censor guys?

Threads are just places to pass time in between work.

My inner censor is very simple. I look at a game, preferably play a demo, and will buy into it (or if it is F2P, spend time) if i find it fun. I don't care about which genre it is from.

Originally posted by jpnz

Originally posted by DavisFlight

Originally posted by jpnz

Cause there is proof that people will pay for content that appeals to them.

 

There are outliers, they are not usual trends.

And Activi-Blizz's financials will love to have a word with you cause that thing is enormous in size (players and $$$).

Heck, even BF3's premium service is huge compared to just 'normal' game releases.

 

 

The fact that Blizzard has made a ton of money doesn't change the fact that its an outlier.

/signed. Yep I agree. Also kudos to DavisFlight for the posts.