Originally posted by DanitaKusor
Subscription games are generally better quality games but they are not meeting player demand for content. 

But, to be fair, that is a design issue and not a revenue model issue.

MMORPGs need to get that part right and not scapegoat the sub as an excuse.

Originally posted by Boneserino

Originally posted by IG-88

Im suprised by the results, i thought most wanted F2P theses days.

 

If a MMO is good enough to play, i gladly pay the sub to keep it alive and support its devs for more content.

 

And you consider that the results of roughly 80 people at present, on this forum, represents what is happening in the industry?

Sorry  but the rest of those people are out playing their favorite F2P game and not worrying about what the whiners on this site have to say. 

I have never met a more hypocritical group than the P2P crowd.

Considering the original post displays complete disregard for (or at least lack of knowledge of)  basic economics, it's probably a safe bet that of that tiny sample of people that responded it was mostly this forum's avid anti-F2P base that just saw 'prefer subscription' and hit YES.

His intent is to use results to "Do you prefer subscription" to prove the question in the subject right, and there really aren't many people here that are going to see through that. If nothing else, it's clever.

Originally posted by Vesavius

Originally posted by Nikopol

The way I see it:

If I don't enjoy a game enough to pay $15 a month for playing, I should probably be doing something else.

Exactly.

If it isn't good enough to make me want to pay money why on Earth would it be good enough for me to invest my (more) precious leisure time into it?

Holy cognitive bias, batman.

Mind you, your reasoning is exactly why an MMO with a monthly fee cannot offer a price lower than $15.00 even if they wanted to.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Phry

and yet people say that gaming apps (etc.)

It's important to note which people and consider the source. "People" leads to a blanket statement which is every bit as false.

which is actually unimportant tbh, as its not the source that is in question, but the comparation, tools like xfire, or raptr are as indicative of 'trends' as forums such as this one, each represents a very small portion of the userbase of any particular genre, or in this case, MMO's.
 

It's not that simple, I'd gladly pay a sub-fee if there were truly amazing game that I cannot wait to log in almost every day. So yes, I'd love to pay sub-fee. Since there is no such game, I'm not paying a sub-fee currently. If the quality and feature list stays the same what it has been for several years now, then I prefer F2P or B2P.

It's definately not the payment method that makes or breaks the games, first comes the game and how much I like it, then we can see what kind of sub-model it has.

Originally posted by Vesavius

Originally posted by Nikopol

The way I see it:

If I don't enjoy a game enough to pay $15 a month for playing, I should probably be doing something else.

 

Exactly.

If it isn't good enough to make me want to pay money why on Earth would it be good enough for me to invest my (more) precious leisure time into it?

These guys that tell me that this or that game isn't 'worth' a sub make me boggle... they blatantly don't even enjoy or even like what they are doing and are just looking for a free knitting simulator to kill time in until the next one comes along. Too many people that don't even like MMORPGs are steering the direction of the industry IMO.

It's absolutely possible. I love playing EVE very casually, half-afk hi-sec mining, relaxing autopilot cargo hauling through dozens of jumps while cooking or doing some other semi-afk activity. I would love to keep doing that, but the sub-fee is too much for me to justify this semi-afk play style. If someone would pay for my monthly fee, I'd definately keep playing the game, or if it was B2P/F2P. Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

Originally posted by Kuinn

Originally posted by Vesavius

Originally posted by Nikopol

The way I see it:

If I don't enjoy a game enough to pay $15 a month for playing, I should probably be doing something else.

 

Exactly.

If it isn't good enough to make me want to pay money why on Earth would it be good enough for me to invest my (more) precious leisure time into it?

These guys that tell me that this or that game isn't 'worth' a sub make me boggle... they blatantly don't even enjoy or even like what they are doing and are just looking for a free knitting simulator to kill time in until the next one comes along. Too many people that don't even like MMORPGs are steering the direction of the industry IMO.

 

I love playing EVE very casually

I would love to keep doing that, but the sub-fee is too much for me to justify this

You 'love it', but you don't think it's worth pay £2.50 a week for...

What on Earth does something have to do to justify itself to you in order for you to invest in it's continuance past offering a service that you 'love'?

You would think supporting the company that makes the game would be enough, rather then expecting to freeload off them and others.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Vesavius

Originally posted by Nikopol

The way I see it:

If I don't enjoy a game enough to pay $15 a month for playing, I should probably be doing something else.

Exactly.

If it isn't good enough to make me want to pay money why on Earth would it be good enough for me to invest my (more) precious leisure time into it?

Holy cognitive bias, batman.

Mind you, your reasoning is exactly why an MMO with a monthly fee cannot offer a price lower than $15.00 even if they wanted to.

Call it whaty you want, dosen't bother me really, but when people tell me it's not worth their money but it *is* worth their time I have to boggle.

Time to me personally is way more valuable then money.

That is obviously what I am saying in the full unedited version of my post. I do not think it is a case of cognitive bias to say that (thought I admit it may be a case of framing, though in fairness I am only talking about the subject from my own perspective... we all suffer from CB on a daily basis because it is such a broad umbrella, you could accuse just about every post here of it. This is derailing the subject though, so best just move on I guess).

Originally posted by syntax42

The majority of people who play F2P games without paying are people who don't have the money to pay for a game in the first place.  This usually consists of minors, college students, and otherwise low-income gamers.  As a result of the lower income per player, the F2P game market is forced to make games for as little cost on their part as possible.  This has evolved into a money-grab in most games, because they think paying money equates to allowing a player to win.

 

The quality of subscription games is higher and the quality of the community is usually better.  A few F2P hybrid games have done well and cater to both types of gamers without compromising on quality.  Hybrid might not be the best payment model for every game, but it has the only future I can see in which both payment models co-exist.

 

Couldn't agree more

Originally posted by Kuinn

  Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

 That is an absolute, you are a stih.

Anyway, sorry P2P defenders, your defense that one must pay a monthly fee if a game is good is an outdated closed minded view to defend a pay model based on the lie that a company must cover very high bandwidth and server costs. It has been proven to be false by a great many companies LONG before P2P games started going FREEMIUM.

The MMO world is leaving you behind, I will now commence with the sheding of a tear for your losing arguments.

Originally posted by jtcgs

Originally posted by Kuinn

  Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

 That is an absolute, you are a stih.

 

Anyway, sorry P2P defenders, your defense that one must pay a monthly fee if a game is good is an outdated closed minded view to defend a pay model based on the lie that a company must cover very high bandwidth and server costs. It has been proven to be false by a great many companies LONG before P2P games started going FREEMIUM.

The MMO world is leaving you behind, I will now commence with the sheding of a tear for your losing arguments.

I shed a tear for the crappy games and updates for games already out that are F2P.

Originally posted by Vesavius

Originally posted by Kuinn

Originally posted by Vesavius

Originally posted by Nikopol

The way I see it:

If I don't enjoy a game enough to pay $15 a month for playing, I should probably be doing something else.

 

Exactly.

If it isn't good enough to make me want to pay money why on Earth would it be good enough for me to invest my (more) precious leisure time into it?

These guys that tell me that this or that game isn't 'worth' a sub make me boggle... they blatantly don't even enjoy or even like what they are doing and are just looking for a free knitting simulator to kill time in until the next one comes along. Too many people that don't even like MMORPGs are steering the direction of the industry IMO.

 

I love playing EVE very casually

I would love to keep doing that, but the sub-fee is too much for me to justify this

 

You 'love it', but you don't think it's worth pay £2.50 a week for...

What on Earth does something have to do to justify itself to you in order for you to invest in it's continuance past offering a service that you 'love'?

You would think supporting the company that makes the game would be enough, rather then expecting to freeload off them and others.

Love is only as strong a word as the context is. Right here it is a computer game that I play mostly casually and semi afk, since you choose to ignore that fact, I'm not even sure what you are trying to prove or force feed here. I said it's entirely possible to enjoy a game while not finding it madly awesome to justify a monthly payment, if you cant understand that then dont, but that's how it is, it's quite simple tbh.

You should also understand that I'm not saying EVE should be B2P or F2P. I'm simply saying why different model would work in my case with this particular game. Why I personally would play it if it was B2P or F2P. But there's the monthly fee, and I'm not playing, and that's perfectly fine. The world isnt black and white, there's all shades of grey too.

Originally posted by madazz

Originally posted by Paladrink
Stop beating a dead horse...

Agreed.

Well ... partially I could agree. On the other hand, many new players join, younger one, .... so for somebody listening for the first time to Elvis can be pretty new discovery. :-))

Originally posted by Phry

Originally posted by Boneserino

Originally posted by IG-88

Im suprised by the results, i thought most wanted F2P theses days.

 

If a MMO is good enough to play, i gladly pay the sub to keep it alive and support its devs for more content.

 

And you consider that the results of roughly 80 people at present, on this forum, represents what is happening in the industry?

Sorry  but the rest of those people are out playing their favorite F2P game and not worrying about what the whiners on this site have to say. 

I have never met a more hypocritical group than the P2P crowd.

and yet people say that gaming apps like xfire and raptor etc represent 'trends' even though only a fraction of the gaming community uses them

There is a major difference.

Xfire or Raptr stats are not based on forum-dwellers claiming this or that. On top of that, MMORPG.com is pretty much the haven for disgruntled vets.

Xfire and Raptr stats are based on informations available by registering what their userbase plays (and for how long). There is no debate or opinion during the process of collecting that data as it registers exactly what their userbase is playing.  Now whether you agree or disagree with their stats is probably better left for another thread.

Originally posted by ksternal

Originally posted by jtcgs

Originally posted by Kuinn

  Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

 That is an absolute, you are a stih.

 

Anyway, sorry P2P defenders, your defense that one must pay a monthly fee if a game is good is an outdated closed minded view to defend a pay model based on the lie that a company must cover very high bandwidth and server costs. It has been proven to be false by a great many companies LONG before P2P games started going FREEMIUM.

The MMO world is leaving you behind, I will now commence with the sheding of a tear for your losing arguments.

I shed a tear for the crappy games and updates for games already out that are F2P.

 Yeah, but we dont care if you do or not, the industry is changing in our favor while you complain about not having to pay...we are lol'ing over it, you are raging.

- 15$ = WoW
- 5$ I can pay for less good game but they never asked me.
- buy to play seems fail, as GW2 try to make item shop oriented progress, IMO, can be debatable.
- f2p are ok until you feel like need to pay, then I just look if it can be 5 or 15$ for month, then I pay 5$ for like 4 months or so (more I guess will be boring) or hop to the next game.

sub model with me works with WoW when I have time/money to play it, otherwise it not working so I may choose f2p.

best of all will be b2p small fractions of game every year to have new content and not be stressed about sub delay and such.

No, subscription games are not meeting player demand.

Why? My personal opinion on this is that there are a few different factors that contributes to it's decline, however I don't think the subscription model is 'doomed' (yet, perhaps things will change 5 or 10 years from now, who knows).

It's been over 10 years already, and the rise of the F2P market.

A lot of us have been playing MMOs since UO, EQ, Lineage, SWG, etc. Remember exactly how old you were back then and how much free time you had compared to now? Unless you're one of the lucky bastard who landed 'that job' that pretty much gives you a great salary while you spend most of your time lazying around, today you probably work full-time, have a wife (husband) and maybe kids, bills to pay, having to put food on the table, etc. That's a pretty big gap and it makes for a pretty big difference in the amount of time you can spare on your hobbies without negatively affecting your responsabilities.

Enters the F2P market. No entrance fee (box cost), no subscription, you can simply just download it and play. If you like the game, you can spend money. The rise of F2P MMORPGs brought more attention to the concept that you don't actually "own" your account in P2P games, you're renting it as you would rent an apartment. If you stop paying, you can't access your apartment anymore. I think that when players began realizing this, they've begun looking over what exactly does their subscription provides them in terms of stability and "sureness"? In a F2P, you can buy cash shop items with real money and even if you take a 1 year break and come back, you'll still have those items. With a P2P, if you take a break well you 'lose' the money you spend on the remaining time of your subscription that hasn't been used, and you will be required to put $15 upfront to begin playing again at your return (and possible buying an expansion to keep up).

The reality of today's lives, coupled with the changed in mentality brought upon by the F2P market (albeit indirectly) is one of the reason why I believe the subscription model is in decline.

One apple a day keeps the doctor away

With P2P MMOs, we pay a monthly fee, but what exactly are we getting during that month besides rental access to our account? Has the content changed from 1 month to another? Has there been new additions? Unless we're talking about Trions World which are putting other MMO developers to shame by delivering new content on a nearly monthly basis, the answer is most likely no. So what exactly are you paying for? The right to play the new yearly expansion you'll have to buy anyway?

Let's take a non-MMO for a minute as an example, Diablo 2. Bought the game for $60 (or whatever it was when it came out). it has online so I didn't have to pay a buck to play with other players. Lord of Destruction expac came out I think 1 or 2 years later. Bought that as well. There were patches that contained fixes and sometimes small additions or minor content (much like a P2P game) but I didn't have to pay monthly for that.

Let's take Guild Wars 1 as an example this time (although a Cash Shop was later added to it). Bought it for $60 when it came out. Didn't have to subscribe either. Bought 2 other expansions that came out (I think there's a third as well?). Again, there were patches that contained fixes and sometimes small additions or minor content (again, much like a P2P game) but no subs either.

So what exactly are you getting from that P2P MMO that you wouldn't if that same MMO were to use a B2P or F2P model?

Entrance Fee

If you want to start playing a P2P MMO, you need to buy the box. Not too bad if the game has been out just recently. The lower level areas will still be relatively well-populated as will the middle and higher grounds.  But what if the game has been out for a few years?

Before Everquest 2 went F2P (and I'm not sure if players have to buy those or not, haven't looked into it) if you wanted to play it when it was P2P, well you had to buy the box, and if you kept playing you eventually reached a point where you'd have to buy the expansions.

• The Bloodline Chronicles
• The Splitpaw Saga
• Desert of Flames
• Kingdom of Sky
• The Fallen Dynasty
• Echoes of Faydwer
• Rise of Kunark
• The Shadow Odyssey

I'll leave it at that for now. This has taken much longer to write than I expected.