I disagree, I would still prefer a sub for a game, however I would like a trial period before having to commit to anything.

Also, if a game has a sub there should not be a cash shop.

Originally posted by chryses

There are multiple ways for a gamer to get a fix.  In the past 3 years I have seen a trend of MMO's being packed for 3 months at launch then dying a quick death.  Players won't commit to an MMO long term if there is a sub. 
There is always a new MMO on the horizon or a new console or game being released.

That doesn't make sense.

If all mmo's had subs then hopping to a new game that also has a sub wouldn't  change anything.

Besides, the reason these games are only holding their audience for a few months is that they only have a few months of content and then players have to wait for the next influx. This is a problem that is indicative of theme park mmo's.

OP: I'm sorry but back in the real world, you are 100% wrong.

WoW has 10 million subs and is still the most successful mmo ever made.

It has lost more subs then most mmo's ever dream of having (even f2p ones) and still has 10 million to spare 8 yrs later.

Originally posted by Robokapp

as long as there's no cash shop idc what model they have.

 

that's my only condition: no cash shop. rest is up to them.

        I dont even remember the last time I looked at a cash shop to be honest...To me its much less of a deterrant than a sub model......THe cash shop is fine because you determine what you pay (often nothing) instead of a sub model where its $10+ regardless of how little you play.

Subs only is the fairest model...

All the other models try to trick players intoo spending more then what they would spend on a sub. And obviously it works.

It depends on the game. I'm no longer prepeared to pay a sub for WoW, due to the changes made over the years. I no longer think it's worth a sub but I'd probably still dabble if it was FTP.

On the other hand I have a subscription to EVE which is worth every penny IMHO, and I'll happily pay it because the game is worth it.

I un-subbed from TOR because it was a poor game, and even when it goes FTP I can't see me going back, because it's a poor game.

So it really depends on the game, not the payment model. Make a good game and you can charge a sub. Simple.

Originally posted by jmcdermottuk

.....

I un-subbed from TOR because it was a poor game, and even when it goes FTP I can't see me going back, because it's a poor game.

....

Actually is great game. Only game so far I continue to pay sub as act of support despite I'm not playing it for last 2 to 3 months. No matter if somebody love some food can not eat 5 times per day for years and years. So I felt need for detour of few months to half year. In mean time will continue to be subbed.

Originally posted by Istavaan
I doubt any new mmo will launch with a subscription fee, it's just not cost effective. the subscription model only works for one game all the rest cannot keep players satisfied hence why they all go f2p.

There are multiple MMOs that do a monthly fee, and monthly fee has never been "a scam" it has existed for a very specific reason. MMO servers are expensive.

Lately I was thinking about it again, when reading about SOE ideas in business model and  their plans to Introduce of Krono and plans to monetize player's creation and so on.

It is just more and more clear to me that for MMORPG's  ONLY model that is working for me is subscirption without ANY cash shops, rmah's, plex, gems and any stuff like that.  Box + sub + expansions ONLY.

Since both gameplay and business model trends are going into totally opposite direction that what I like in mmorpg's - it seem that my hiatus in playing mmropg's will continue.  

PS. Other type of MMO, like mmofps, mmorts, and others - don't care I am not really interested in them anyway.

Originally posted by OG_Zorvan
Bitching about paying a sub is an outdated topic.

^this 100%

good games deserve a sub

Originally posted by OG_Zorvan
Bitching about paying a sub is an outdated topic.

Originally posted by Yakamomoto

Originally posted by OG_Zorvan
Bitching about paying a sub is an outdated topic.

^this 100%

 

good games deserve a sub

agreed here !

I ll pay for my favorites mmo's with satisfied

Originally posted by chryses

MMO's are going to have to go to a FTP / BTP model otherwise they won't survive.

In 2001 I started playing MMO's and I happily paid a sub due to the lack of MMO's out there.  Not to mention virtually no competition from console or PC.  (Wii, smartphones, hand held devices didn't even exist!)

In today's market there are:

- consoles

- PC single player games like Skyrim

- Hand held devices

- dozens of MMO's

- Wii

- Flash games on Face book

- Smart phones / iPad

There are multiple ways for a gamer to get a fix.  In the past 3 years I have seen a trend of MMO's being packed for 3 months at launch then dying a quick death.  Players won't commit to an MMO long term if there is a sub.  There is always a new MMO on the horizon or a new console or game being released.

An MMO needs a lot of population or by its very nature it dies badly.  FTP / BTP is the only model that will work going forward and if companies insist on sticking with a sub model, then they have literally set themselves up to fail.

My thread isn't a support thread for FTP / BTP btw.  Its about the changing gaming market and how subs are not justifiable anymore.

 

SWTOR proved that there are plenty of people who are more than willing to pay a subscription for an MMO (as well as paying a high box price).

They're just not willing to pay a sub for a game that's not good enough to justify keeping on paying for.

You're right in that we're long past the day when all online games are automatically able to command a subscription, but subscriptions are still a viable payment model. They're just not the only viable model in the spectrum any more, and not one that's appropriate for limited-content themeparks.

If Publishers want to go with a subscription model for their Shiny New MMO™ then they also have to provide continued content upgrades, live events, frequent patching, game engine development and so on. In short, they're going going to have to earn that sub money by doing something more than paying the server bills. CCP are good example here; they charge a subscription, but their expansions are all free, they're still continuously developing & polishing EVE almost 10 years after launch, they allow a 14 or 21 day free trial, and there's no "box price" to pay up front, and they've quietly backed away from their misguided attempt to introduce a cash shop. And there is actually a free-to-play option with the very clever PLEX system. Those guys are justifying their subscription charges (even if you personally don't happen to like EVE).

Conversely look at TSW: Box price, sub and a cash shop, for a game with limited quantities of themepark entertainment. It's brilliant that it's got an original theme, but the fact is that the monetisation model just isn't appropriate. They might have been better advised to go with a low-priced B2P and/or DLC route. Certainly their "triple whammy" model hasn't exactly inspired customers.

In short, publishers need to chose a monetisation model that fits with their game. EVE going F2P would break a number of game mechanics horribly. Casual massively singleplayer grinder games are best served by F2P/Cash shop. Story-based games like TSW are no-brainer candidates for the DLC model.

Why do gamers continually come out in favor of a model that will cost them more money 90% of the time, well unless you're a broke college student that can grind all week for items that take a couple days to get in a sub game?

f2p isn't free, just like government healthcare and welfare programs, you pay one way or another, and usually the price is higher than what you'd pay otherwise. 

memo to the world; people don't make a business to give you things for free, they do so to make money. There is no such thing as free 2 play.