WIth Blizzard publishing its subscription numbers today it is kind of odd that subscriptions these days have become an odd word in MMORPG land.

WOW - EVE and a few left overs in RIFT (8US servers coming from 55 or so) and that's about it I guess.

Even http://mmodata.net/ is no longer updating its pages anymore in the last year. What's the use since every one left the boxing ring of subscriptions.

EA didn't mention anything  about them and as SW TOR turned into a free to play but pay for many things game, it is interesting to see how the last of the Mohicans will stand in the future.

Nevertheless a subscription based game is a gold mine, while the complete absence of hard $$ signs on cash shops says it all. We only see things like suspicious % growth in these F2P games and it is quite clear after seeing Zynga games hit the bottom of the barrel with its ... 80 million players and 800% stock crash, the on line industry is licking its wounds.

MMORPG's a dying breed...

The subscription model has taken a hit lately due to so many sub-based MMOs doing badly as a result of not having a specific target audience. Essentially they get greedy and try to appeal to everyone and ultimately satisfy no one. Rather than rethink their strategy and develop better games for specific player types though they instead just change the business model but continue to develop the same shallow games...

This whole B2P and F2P craze will die out after a while. Players will eventually realise that subscriptions were better as they guaranteed the devs had to work to keep you paying. Look at GW2, there has been very little post-launch content added to that game and the majority of it has been very poorly received... B2P means the devs can get lazy as they already have everyone's money.

F2P is still, in most cases, just a scam. The more games go this route the more people will finally work it out for themselves.

If sub games die out then that'll leave the market wide open for someone else to release a new sub-based game for the players unsatisfied with B2P and F2P. In other words, subs won't die out because a lot of MMO players would rather pay for quality.

Originally posted by Alberel

The subscription model has taken a hit lately due to so many sub-based MMOs doing badly as a result of not having a specific target audience. Essentially they get greedy and try to appeal to everyone and ultimately satisfy no one. Rather than rethink their strategy and develop better games for specific player types though they instead just change the business model but continue to develop the same shallow games...

This whole B2P and F2P craze will die out after a while. Players will eventually realise that subscriptions were better as they guaranteed the devs had to work to keep you paying. Look at GW2, there has been very little post-launch content added to that game and the majority of it has been very poorly received... B2P means the devs can get lazy as they already have everyone's money.

F2P is still, in most cases, just a scam. The more games go this route the more people will finally work it out for themselves.

If sub games die out then that'll leave the market wide open for someone else to release a new sub-based game for the players unsatisfied with B2P and F2P. In other words, subs won't die out because a lot of MMO players would rather pay for quality.

I can agree with the first two sentences somewhat, but then it all goes wrong from there. It would take a whole new thread to discuss the erroneous assertions in the rest of your post. Man, you're really lost.

Originally posted by Alberel

 

This whole B2P and F2P craze will die out after a while. Players will eventually realise that subscriptions were better as they guaranteed the devs had to work to keep you paying. Look at GW2, there has been very little post-launch content added to that game and the majority of it has been very poorly received... B2P means the devs can get lazy as they already have everyone's money.

There is zero evidence for that. In the past 3 years, F2P has grown its market share in revenue against P2P.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Alberel

 

This whole B2P and F2P craze will die out after a while. Players will eventually realise that subscriptions were better as they guaranteed the devs had to work to keep you paying. Look at GW2, there has been very little post-launch content added to that game and the majority of it has been very poorly received... B2P means the devs can get lazy as they already have everyone's money.

There is zero evidence for that. In the past 3 years, F2P has grown its market share in revenue against P2P.

I think he meant the games will be there as F2P, but the only ones worth playing will all be subbed based. Case in point, it's already 75% true, most F2P games aren't worth playing even free as it was/is a trainwreck that never got fixed.

Originally posted by Aeonblades

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Alberel

 

This whole B2P and F2P craze will die out after a while. Players will eventually realise that subscriptions were better as they guaranteed the devs had to work to keep you paying. Look at GW2, there has been very little post-launch content added to that game and the majority of it has been very poorly received... B2P means the devs can get lazy as they already have everyone's money.

There is zero evidence for that. In the past 3 years, F2P has grown its market share in revenue against P2P.

I think he meant the games will be there as F2P, but the only ones worth playing will all be subbed based. Case in point, it's already 75% true, most F2P games aren't worth playing even free as it was/is a trainwreck that never got fixed.

I would count Zynga's crash as evidence that the F2P movement doesn't have legs.Not enough evidence to say the model is dead or dying, just enough to give me pause about the long term viability.In the past 3 years the MMO games have been pretty bad IMO. Going F2P up until recently has generally been seen as a "bad" thing.Most of the MMO games launched in the last 3 years have been forced to go F2P just to survive.

It could just be a fad.

It could become the only way to game.

Time will tell, but my old lady doesn't spend any money on Zynga. I know I don't spend any money in any F2P game.

So someone is paying our way.

The way people feel about taxes and welfare, I just can't see people supporting others gaming habits in the long term.

Originally posted by Aeonblades

 

I think he meant the games will be there as F2P, but the only ones worth playing will all be subbed based. Case in point, it's already 75% true, most F2P games aren't worth playing even free as it was/is a trainwreck that never got fixed.

Sure. "Worth playing" is subjective though. If you look at the numbers, tens of millions are playing F2P games.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Aeonblades

 

I think he meant the games will be there as F2P, but the only ones worth playing will all be subbed based. Case in point, it's already 75% true, most F2P games aren't worth playing even free as it was/is a trainwreck that never got fixed.

Sure. "Worth playing" is subjective though. If you look at the numbers, tens of millions are playing F2P games.

Yes. I don't find any of the subscription-based games worth playing.

Originally posted by paulytheb

 

I would count Zynga's crash as evidence that the F2P movement doesn't have legs.Not enough evidence to say the model is dead or dying, just enough to give me pause about the long term viability.In the past 3 years the MMO games have been pretty bad IMO. Going F2P up until recently has generally been seen as a "bad" thing.Most of the MMO games launched in the last 3 years have been forced to go F2P just to survive.

And i would say the growth of the F2P market (from 39% to 50% market share against p2p in the last 3 year) says otherwise. Total market data is obviously more relevant than a single company.

Microsoft Window 8 phone is selling badly .. does that mean that the smart phone market is a fad?

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Aeonblades

 

I think he meant the games will be there as F2P, but the only ones worth playing will all be subbed based. Case in point, it's already 75% true, most F2P games aren't worth playing even free as it was/is a trainwreck that never got fixed.

Sure. "Worth playing" is subjective though. If you look at the numbers, tens of millions are playing F2P games.

Yes. I don't find any of the subscription-based games worth playing.

That's because the majority of them are god awful games. People tend to not pay for shit quality entertainment. It would appear though that some will indulge if it's "free" for short periods of time and then shuffle on to the next one.

They way industry robbed us with 3 month, $60 box cost  games last year. I would rather pay a sub no box price. 

9.99 per month. If your game is good, I will play and happily pay. 

Originally posted by Aeonblades
I could post something inflammatory about MMORPG socialism and the new world order, but I'm just too tired to stir things up today. Suffice to say a lot of people hate F2P, and a lot of other people hate Subs.

And the same time, more and more games are F2P, and F2P has grown its market share.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by paulytheb

 

I would count Zynga's crash as evidence that the F2P movement doesn't have legs.Not enough evidence to say the model is dead or dying, just enough to give me pause about the long term viability.In the past 3 years the MMO games have been pretty bad IMO. Going F2P up until recently has generally been seen as a "bad" thing.Most of the MMO games launched in the last 3 years have been forced to go F2P just to survive.

And i would say the growth of the F2P market (from 39% to 50% market share against p2p in the last 3 year) says otherwise. Total market data is obviously more relevant than a single company.

Microsoft Window 8 phone is selling badly .. does that mean that the smart phone market is a fad?

Short term growth does not equal long term viability. Just because the short term is trending one way does not mean that it cant change or even reverse.

Microsoft could release a new phone that totally redefines the entire smartphone model. (Unlikely I know, just as it is unlikely any new MMO we don't know about would come in and redefine the genre.)

They could then "set the price" as it were.Charge double what an Iphone charges. If it became the item to have to remain relevant in the sphere, then it would sell like hotcakes. Same for a new genre defining game like WoW was. If I remember correctly up until WoW came along most games charged 10 dollars a month. Now most have tried 15.

I'm not complaining mind you, I get to try a lot of games for free. (Most of them are awful.)

I just wonder how long the "whale" culture can last. I might be completely wrong. I have been before.

I once said rap music was a fad. LOL.

just fun to speculate.

Originally posted by paulytheb

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by paulytheb

 

I would count Zynga's crash as evidence that the F2P movement doesn't have legs.Not enough evidence to say the model is dead or dying, just enough to give me pause about the long term viability.In the past 3 years the MMO games have been pretty bad IMO. Going F2P up until recently has generally been seen as a "bad" thing.Most of the MMO games launched in the last 3 years have been forced to go F2P just to survive.

And i would say the growth of the F2P market (from 39% to 50% market share against p2p in the last 3 year) says otherwise. Total market data is obviously more relevant than a single company.

Microsoft Window 8 phone is selling badly .. does that mean that the smart phone market is a fad?

Short term growth does not equal long term viability. Just because the short term is trending one way does not mean that it cant change or even reverse.

Microsoft could release a new phone that totally redefines the entire smartphone model. (Unlikely I know, just as it is unlikely any new MMO we don't know about would come in and redefine the genre.)

They could then "set the price" as it were.Charge double what an Iphone charges. If it became the item to have to remain relevant in the sphere, then it would sell like hotcakes. Same for a new genre defining game like WoW was. If I remember correctly up until WoW came along most games charged 10 dollars a month. Now most have tried 15.

I'm not complaining mind you, I get to try a lot of games for free. (Most of them are awful.)

I just wonder how long the "whale" culture can last. I might be completely wrong. I have been before.

I once said rap music was a fad. LOL.

just fun to speculate.

Sure .. short term growth != long term viability. But at least that is market wide data, not just one company.

And no one knows exactly what will happen in 5 year. But does anyone think that F2P is going away in 2013?

Originally posted by Alberel

The subscription model has taken a hit lately due to so many sub-based MMOs doing badly as a result of not having a specific target audience. Essentially they get greedy and try to appeal to everyone and ultimately satisfy no one. Rather than rethink their strategy and develop better games for specific player types though they instead just change the business model but continue to develop the same shallow games...

This whole B2P and F2P craze will die out after a while. Players will eventually realise that subscriptions were better as they guaranteed the devs had to work to keep you paying. Look at GW2, there has been very little post-launch content added to that game and the majority of it has been very poorly received... B2P means the devs can get lazy as they already have everyone's money.

F2P is still, in most cases, just a scam. The more games go this route the more people will finally work it out for themselves.

If sub games die out then that'll leave the market wide open for someone else to release a new sub-based game for the players unsatisfied with B2P and F2P. In other words, subs won't die out because a lot of MMO players would rather pay for quality.

I don't agree at all. F2P and B2P gives players too much freedom to play multiple games that they couldn't afford before. And, the way the economy continues to tank, people will be prioritizing their entertainment options even more.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Aeonblades
I could post something inflammatory about MMORPG socialism and the new world order, but I'm just too tired to stir things up today. Suffice to say a lot of people hate F2P, and a lot of other people hate Subs.

And the same time, more and more games are F2P, and F2P has grown its market share.

 

Yet the most populated MMO's and those generally regarded as sub based have higher ratings and better player retention. It goes both ways. F2P has massive jumps that usually drops off after a year or two. I have played several F2P games that ended up just as desolate a year or so later. Don't get me wrong there are some F2P gems out there, I am enjoying F2P Vanguard again despite being mostly gear locked on my original character. I'm enjoying my new druid, SoE did a decent job with the new F2P restrictions if you start from scratch.

Originally posted by Aeonblades

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Aeonblades
I could post something inflammatory about MMORPG socialism and the new world order, but I'm just too tired to stir things up today. Suffice to say a lot of people hate F2P, and a lot of other people hate Subs.

And the same time, more and more games are F2P, and F2P has grown its market share.

 

Yet the most populated MMO's and those generally regarded as sub based have higher ratings and better player retention. It goes both ways. F2P has massive jumps that usually drops off after a year or two. I have played several F2P games that ended up just as desolate a year or so later. Don't get me wrong there are some F2P gems out there, I am enjoying F2P Vanguard again despite being mostly gear locked on my original character. I'm enjoying my new druid, SoE did a decent job with the new F2P restrictions if you start from scratch.

No one says otherwise. We are not talking about a single game. We are talking about the whole market. In fact, the nature of F2P is that players can game hop more.

The point is not whether a single F2P game will last longer, or more successful .. but that in totality they are taking the market away. In fact, i can see there will be even more F2P games produced, and each last a shorter period of time. Players will just, on average, play more games.

Originally posted by Cecropia

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Aeonblades

 

*snip*

That's because the majority of them are god awful games. People tend to not pay for shit quality entertainment. It would appear though that some will indulge if it's "free" for short periods of time and then shuffle on to the next one.

Someone is paying though. That is the thing. I'm not sure why, but someone is paying.

OR these companies are lying about the money they are making. It is sometimes hard to tell who is telling the truth.Even financial reports can be fudged and amended later. Companies hire a lot of lawyers for a reason.They push the rules just as far as legally possible.

Still highly unlikely. Someone is paying. I just can't quite put my finger on who or why.