---

Originally posted by Lobotomist

---

Originally posted by Jaedor I remember a friend telling me he'd added up all the money spent in EQ for his and his wife's toons over the years and it was something like $7K (!) because of the cash shop. I added up all the money I'd spent in WoW over 4 years for games, xpacs, server transfers, sub fees and a sparkle pony and it was $600. I like subs.

---

Here is the difference

In sub game you are forced to pay at least 15$ every month. In F2P game you are not forced to pay anything.

Just because your friends are compulsive gamblers (for lack of better word) doesnt mean every player would spend so much money.

---

I agree that not everyone needs a game to be their stand-in for personal discipline. But for the sake of clarity, most mmos these days have a sliding scale of sub fee based on how long you sub. So for example, I can pay $100/year for LOTRO or WoW, which ends up being about $8.50/month US. Cheapest entertainment ever and LOTRO will actually pay me game currency to use in the cash shop.

Originally posted by Lobotomist

Originally posted by Kiljaedenas

Originally posted by Lobotomist

You asked about server cost, here it is :

I work in internet company - we have around 180 million users log in daily. Yet we have moved all our servers to Amazon cloud.

Plus we have a inhouse server cluster for content updates and main system (hardened)

This costs around 16 thousand dollars a month.

 

Lot of money ? For 180 million users - which is over 100 times more than WOW had in its hay day ?

 

 

Second. I never said development tools do not cost money. But its a same cost single player games have. Yet they are B2P.

How come ?

 

We are being milked.

 

And as for claim that B2P games do not invest in user  because they gat their money up front ? P2P games get all the money upfront too !

Ok, so why not have only subscription without box price ? Fair is fair ?

 

No they want Box price + sub (19$ for TSW) + cash shop !!!

Some nerve...

 

You forgot to mention a very key factor here: what are those users doing with the bandwidth? Browsing a few webpages, discussion forums or transferring the odd datafile or two  is extremely different than playing a modern MMO with 3D graphics, physics engines and perhaps twitch mechanics. If all your company is providing is a host for webpages and forums that statement of its cost and that it had more users than WoW is 100% invalid for a cost discussion on MMO server clusters.

 

Chatting and sharing files ( pictures ... not gigabyte large files ). Multiply this by 180 million - or 100X something WOW user base. I guess it equals (and largely surpasses) anything 500.000 players MMO uses in terms of bandwith.

 

 16G/mo???? LOL, that's 2-3 people's salaries.  WTF makes you think you can fund a game and host a data center on that. Even if we are talking server expenses alone, there is still so much more overhead involved.

Originally posted by i_evil_i

Originally posted by krage

As for B2P it has done fairly well with GW1, and so far GW2 is doing well...the biggest hope from B2P for us as the consumer is that it rewards responsible devs who have to create content faster with good quality in order to sell and sustain itself...like MMO ala carte you only pay for things you want and not just generalized garbage made for a broad audience.

Agree with you about fully about GW1 already proving their B2P sales model is profitable.

GW1 also had paid expansions that helped prolong their cash flow. I am hoping they will continue in the same line with GW2 to bring in much larger chunks of new content.

Personally I think there should be a B2P standard with enhanced subcription options. B2P with cash shop gateways to content that rewards players and subscription players who get access to the content at a stable and discounted price. One size never fits all :D

I don't agree with you on this one.

In a B2P model, I have nothing against paying for expansions, however adding a subscription option, is once again heading in the wrong direction for the customer.

You start to create player 'social classes'. The 'poor' basic players and the 'rich' subscription players.

Thus making it much easier for an MMO gaming company to become overly greedy...i.e. leading the company to neglect or disregard their so called poor or 'basic' players who aren't bringing them any steady income. The company then concentrates almost entirely on bringing content to the subscription paying players...causing the basic player to get tired of the 'second class' content and sub par treatment...causing him to either leave the game or start a subscripton (subscribing for a while at least but then ultimately leaving for another game cause he doesn't want to pay a subscription to multiple games).  *Presto* you have the same tired subscription model seen already in too many MMOs.

@ Welcome again to MMO subscription Hell my friend.  @

 Yeah the only reason I think B2P or even F2P should have a sub option is for transition. Some people are not comfortable or willing to figure out that X amount of dollars in a cash shop per month = X amount of dollars in subscription fees for whatever content is available.

I can definitely agree in the realistic assessment that companies will eventually cater near exclusively to subscription accounts as primaries and B2P players as sub-citizens...if only there were a non-profit game developer! lol

Reasons that make me ready to pay subsription:

1. Unique game experience that is not similar to other games genres.  Basically what mmorpg's tried to did in the past - combining combat, economy, crafting, exploration, trading and other types of gameplay into one game all in persistant world that is separated from external influence.

2. Absolutely no cash shop and other microtransactions and ideas like currency selling via plex-like, gems-like or any other system. No rmah. No trading cards.   Just nothing of similar sort.

Sadly there is hard to find a game like that in this times.

I don't think any of the MMOs these days can justify a subscription. Not because the subscription model is outdated but because none of the new games on the market in the past few years has been worth the sub fee. You look at a game like the first iteration of MMORPGs, those sub fees were justified. Huge worlds with deep gameplay. I played live EQ for about 4 years and I think I have about 300 days on my main character played, probably another 100 on my main alt.

You just don't get that with today's MMOs at all. You play them for 2-3 months, cry that they aren't pushing content out quick enough and then these types of threads get posted.  I'll give credit to Trion for pushing out content quick, but the fact is if there was more to the game they probably wouldn't need to push out content as quick as they are.

Yes, we're being ripped off.  I don't care what "facts" and ideas people use to justify it.  I'd be willing to bet that if the vast majority of players decided they would no longer pay a sub, we would see all MMOs go to the sub-less models.  I'd also be willing to bet that quality wouldn't really suffer either.

As for the idea that a sub fee is cheap compared to other forms of entertainment, I agree to an extent.  However, I can get plenty of enjoyment from B2P and some F2P games without that monthly fee.

I would have no problem with a game that offers a sub as one form of payment as long as they also allowed the B2P crowd (I still think people should make that initial investment and subsequent investments in expansions.  Yes, devs need to be paid) to get all the things the sub would pay for in some other way.  Using any combination of CS and grind would be ok with me.

So, I think subs are ok as an option, but a rip off if they are the only way to play a game.

Here is what I think is a rip off. I'd rather pay my sub fee than subsidise your content.

Originally posted by GeezerGamer

Here is what I think is a rip off. I'd rather pay my sub fee than subsidise your content.

I dislike freeloaders as well, but if I had to choose between paying a sub (WoW for example) as it stands and subsidizing other peoples content in GW2 for example...I would take GW2.

My reasoning is I would rather subsidize fellow gamers and reward developers who push out good content or fluff items instead of rewarding developers who take my sub charge me for expansions, charge me for name/race/server changes, and everything else under the sun. Then they repay us for our subs with gear treadmills, and gateway grinds only to make unecessary time sinks to justify subscriptions until the next full content patch aka Expansion that we must pay full price for!

Originally posted by GeezerGamer

Here is what I think is a rip off. I'd rather pay my sub fee than subsidise your content.

...I think you need to play only purely subscription based games.

If you want to be upset at someone for being a F2P player in an MMO that also offers subscriptions, you need to focus your anger on the Game Developer who is offering the F2P option. It is not the players' fault. 

 

Originally posted by vgamer

 

 

You don't really need to ask. It's to keep the profit steady and the shareholders happy.

 

Oh, btw value is perceived differently. For example, I think to some people, burning money in the litteral sense can be of extreme value if you're freezing to death/extremely rich. It just depends on what people perceive to be worth their money. And it's a good way to help someone get rid of his cash...

 

Well what about salaries? What about benefits or "fringe" costs? Are you aware that sometimes benefits can be up to 40% of a salary? What about costs for equipment, renting space, furniture, IT infrastructure, Office supplies, The hiring of temps or contract employees as the need arises. Insurance, legal fees, recrutiment costs?

I mean, OP, why didn't you list any of these costs?

Or travel, training, taxes, etc?

I would agree that a subscription has to mean the customer gets something, even if every few months there is a content update. Having a sub for a year with nothing but bug fixes is difficult to justify.

But given how easy it seems for these companies to fold or cease to exist, even if they offer decent games, it makes sense to work a subscription into their business model.

Heck, even GW and GW2 has a cash shop on top of the price to purchase their product because they need the additional revenue.

Originally posted by krage

Originally posted by GeezerGamer

Here is what I think is a rip off. I'd rather pay my sub fee than subsidise your content.

I dislike freeloaders as well, but if I had to choose between paying a sub (WoW for example) as it stands and subsidizing other peoples content in GW2 for example...I would take GW2.

My reasoning is I would rather subsidize fellow gamers and reward developers who push out good content or fluff items instead of rewarding developers who take my sub charge me for expansions, charge me for name/race/server changes, and everything else under the sun...and then repay me for my sub with gear treadmills, and gateway grinds.

I really should have been clearer. I was trying to make a genreal statement. It's only considered a ripoff if the individual who sees it that way doesn't have to pay anything. But that point of view (The OP's in this case) depends on someone else paying. So the B2P model is not the same for everyone across the board. So it's a ripoff for some, but not the "freeloader". So as long as there is someone else to pick up the tab, it's not a ripoff. It just reeks of hypocrisy. It's great that some have found what they are looking for, but it's on the backs of others that they get it. And that is fine becasue all who play have agreed to this. But, they have no justification thumbing their noses at a developer who says, "No. The expense of this is going to be shared fairly by all who play."

TL;DR: You are getting your lunch paid for by someone else, so shut up and be happy.

Originally posted by Trudge34

I don't think any of the MMOs these days can justify a subscription. Not because the subscription model is outdated but because none of the new games on the market in the past few years has been worth the sub fee. You look at a game like the first iteration of MMORPGs, those sub fees were justified. Huge worlds with deep gameplay. I played live EQ for about 4 years and I think I have about 300 days on my main character played, probably another 100 on my main alt.

You just don't get that with today's MMOs at all. You play them for 2-3 months, cry that they aren't pushing content out quick enough and then these types of threads get posted.  I'll give credit to Trion for pushing out content quick, but the fact is if there was more to the game they probably wouldn't need to push out content as quick as they are.

My thoughts exactly. I have zero problem paying a monthly fee for a product I deem worthy. I also have zero issues when it comes to cash shop items as long as they aren't too game breaking. Hell, I usually end up spending a lot more money in F2P games compared to their P2P counterparts. I know value is subjective, but still. Despite what developers/publishers want you to believe, it's not necessarily the $15 a month that I feel is the issue here. It's the quality (or lack thereof) of the product that's demanding the fee. Sorry, derivative themepark #562, you just don't have the sort of depth and longetivity that warrants a subscription fee. You can't just make an MMO and expect people to pay for it. I can see how it's becoming an easy scapegoat for developers who push out subpar products.

It could end up being a complete bust, but Black Desert Online has certainly peaked my interests. Besides the fantastic visuals, it looks to be offering the sort of scope and freedom I crave for in an MMO. Same goes for ArcheAge. Assuming they're half decent, I'd gladly pay a monthly fee for titles such as these. All I ask for is variety! Oh, and more emphasis on the virtual world instead of just combat, combat, combat.

Originally posted by GeezerGamer

Originally posted by krage

Originally posted by GeezerGamer

Here is what I think is a rip off. I'd rather pay my sub fee than subsidise your content.

I dislike freeloaders as well, but if I had to choose between paying a sub (WoW for example) as it stands and subsidizing other peoples content in GW2 for example...I would take GW2.

My reasoning is I would rather subsidize fellow gamers and reward developers who push out good content or fluff items instead of rewarding developers who take my sub charge me for expansions, charge me for name/race/server changes, and everything else under the sun...and then repay me for my sub with gear treadmills, and gateway grinds.

I really should have been clearer. I was trying to make a genreal statement. It's only considered a ripoff if the individual who sees it that way doesn't have to pay anything. But that point of view (The OP's in this case) depends on someone else paying. So the B2P model is not the same for everyone across the board. So it's a ripoff for some, but not the "freeloader". So as long as there is someone else to pick up the tab, it's not a ripoff. It just reeks of hypocrisy. It's great that some have found what they are looking for, but it's on the backs of others that they get it. And that is fine becasue all who play have agreed to this. But, they have no justification thumbing their noses at a developer who says, "No. The expense of this is going to be shared fairly by all who play."

Once again, how can you fault the players!!!

It is the Game Developer who is giving them the option for hellz sake.

You need to ask yourself, why a Game Developer would even have a F2P option and offer a subscription. I would assume they want to make a profit. For some reason they see this model as a way to do it. They want to entice people to sample their product in the hopes that they might get a subscription or two.

I really think there has been a fundemental change in the way consumers view MMO subcriptions nowadays, and for damn good reason IMHO.

I applaud companies like Anet, who are putting the spotlight on the subscription model.

As GN-003 said in his post, You can't just make an MMO and expect people to pay for it. I can see how it's becoming an easy scapegoat for developers who push out subpar products.

Originally posted by i_evil_i

Originally posted by GeezerGamer

Originally posted by krage

Originally posted by GeezerGamer

Here is what I think is a rip off. I'd rather pay my sub fee than subsidise your content.

I dislike freeloaders as well, but if I had to choose between paying a sub (WoW for example) as it stands and subsidizing other peoples content in GW2 for example...I would take GW2.

My reasoning is I would rather subsidize fellow gamers and reward developers who push out good content or fluff items instead of rewarding developers who take my sub charge me for expansions, charge me for name/race/server changes, and everything else under the sun...and then repay me for my sub with gear treadmills, and gateway grinds.

I really should have been clearer. I was trying to make a genreal statement. It's only considered a ripoff if the individual who sees it that way doesn't have to pay anything. But that point of view (The OP's in this case) depends on someone else paying. So the B2P model is not the same for everyone across the board. So it's a ripoff for some, but not the "freeloader". So as long as there is someone else to pick up the tab, it's not a ripoff. It just reeks of hypocrisy. It's great that some have found what they are looking for, but it's on the backs of others that they get it. And that is fine becasue all who play have agreed to this. But, they have no justification thumbing their noses at a developer who says, "No. The expense of this is going to be shared fairly by all who play."

Once again, how can you fault the players!!!

It is the Game Developer who is giving them the option for hellz sake.

You need to ask yourself, why a Game Developer would even have a F2P option and offer a subscription. I would assume they want to make a profit. For some reason they see this model as a way to do it. They want to entice people to sample their product in the hopes that they might get a subscription or two.

I really think there has been a fundemental change in the way consumers view MMO subcriptions nowadays, and for damn good reason IMHO.

I applaud companies like Anet, who are putting the spotlight on the subscription model.

As GN-003 said in his post, You can't just make an MMO and expect people to pay for it. I can see how it's becoming an easy scapegoat for developers who push out subpar products.

 

Not blaming the player for using this system. I'm saying those who are getting their game paid for buy someone else, have no justification for running around screaming "Subs are a ripoff"

But at the same time, a PoS game doesn't deserve a sub. It's not the revenue model that is the problem, it's the game. If the game is good, thena sub will be worth it. Because it delivers value.

Originally posted by GeezerGamer

Originally posted by krage

Originally posted by GeezerGamer

Here is what I think is a rip off. I'd rather pay my sub fee than subsidise your content.

I dislike freeloaders as well, but if I had to choose between paying a sub (WoW for example) as it stands and subsidizing other peoples content in GW2 for example...I would take GW2.

My reasoning is I would rather subsidize fellow gamers and reward developers who push out good content or fluff items instead of rewarding developers who take my sub charge me for expansions, charge me for name/race/server changes, and everything else under the sun...and then repay me for my sub with gear treadmills, and gateway grinds.

I really should have been clearer. I was trying to make a genreal statement. It's only considered a ripoff if the individual who sees it that way doesn't have to pay anything. But that point of view (The OP's in this case) depends on someone else paying. So the B2P model is not the same for everyone across the board. So it's a ripoff for some, but not the "freeloader". So as long as there is someone else to pick up the tab, it's not a ripoff. It just reeks of hypocrisy. It's great that some have found what they are looking for, but it's on the backs of others that they get it, so they have no justification thumbing their noses at a developer who says, "No. The expense of this is going to be shared fairly by all who play."

I think I see where you are coming from, I tend to play devils advocate for discussions like this. For example I prefer the idea of subs over the other business models if it can be handled more responsibly by the devs.

As for the B2P value being the same across the board for both the buyer and the freeloader. The buyers whose purchases are subsidizing the freeloaders is only a ripoff if the person unwillingly purchased something. Instead the buying player should only be buying things they enjoy and want. Therefore the buyers value should be similar to the freeloaders value in the game in terms of being pleased with their gaming experience. Subs as it stands now take your money and push out content you may not want that someone else does. Now its more empowering to pay for content "ala carte" and have it catered to your wishes that may not please the freeloaders...but then again they did not pay/vote with the content of their wallets to have a say lol.

Only really becomes an issue outside of the game and business model itself when we think of the inequalities having to pay for other people to enjoy the game...in which case when I go to that dark place I consider my purchases as a reward to developers for good work not so much carrying dead weight in the community lol.

My ideal MMORPG would be subscription based with a bit more transparency from the developers on intent of using our (MMO community) subscriptions, without them nickel and diming us for additional money grabs through cash shops and additional services for a fee.

Originally posted by Zekiah
Most MMOs today can't justify a box price let alone a sub fee.

i wouldn't say that.. many single player games offer well under 50 hours of unique content total and charge $60 most of the time.. i really can't think of a MMO from a pure content perspective that isn't worth $60.. now if you don't care for the game at all that's a tottaly differn't issue but as far as pure content MMOs are the best deals around for the initial price..

[mod edit]

i can ask the same question with  free per month games.....

Why does GW2 need a cash shop?

why do they shut down games? why do they turn sub based games into free to play?

Profit.

only reason f2p games make it is because people that spend in cash shop usually spend well over $15 a month to make up for freeloaders. In many cases most people spend $30+ or more a month.

Originally posted by i_evil_i

Originally posted by GeezerGamer

Originally posted by krage

Originally posted by GeezerGamer

Here is what I think is a rip off. I'd rather pay my sub fee than subsidise your content.

I dislike freeloaders as well, but if I had to choose between paying a sub (WoW for example) as it stands and subsidizing other peoples content in GW2 for example...I would take GW2.

My reasoning is I would rather subsidize fellow gamers and reward developers who push out good content or fluff items instead of rewarding developers who take my sub charge me for expansions, charge me for name/race/server changes, and everything else under the sun...and then repay me for my sub with gear treadmills, and gateway grinds.

I really should have been clearer. I was trying to make a genreal statement. It's only considered a ripoff if the individual who sees it that way doesn't have to pay anything. But that point of view (The OP's in this case) depends on someone else paying. So the B2P model is not the same for everyone across the board. So it's a ripoff for some, but not the "freeloader". So as long as there is someone else to pick up the tab, it's not a ripoff. It just reeks of hypocrisy. It's great that some have found what they are looking for, but it's on the backs of others that they get it. And that is fine becasue all who play have agreed to this. But, they have no justification thumbing their noses at a developer who says, "No. The expense of this is going to be shared fairly by all who play."

Once again, how can you fault the players!!!

It is the Game Developer who is giving them the option for hellz sake.

You need to ask yourself, why a Game Developer would even have a F2P option and offer a subscription. I would assume they want to make a profit. For some reason they see this model as a way to do it. They want to entice people to sample their product in the hopes that they might get a subscription or two.

I really think there has been a fundemental change in the way consumers view MMO subcriptions nowadays, and for damn good reason IMHO.

I applaud companies like Anet, who are putting the spotlight on the subscription model.

As GN-003 said in his post, You can't just make an MMO and expect people to pay for it. I can see how it's becoming an easy scapegoat for developers who push out subpar products.

 

I actually welcome some type of F2P system with the subscription option. As much flak as it's gotten, I do like SOE's model. It's allowed me to try out, for an unlimited amount of time, a good chunk of their games to see if I want to continue playing. If I don't want to, it's allowed me to go back to my toons I spent so much time with on EQ1 and see what's changed and just explore a bit for nostalgic reasons as well as continue to play if I want. If it's incorporated into future games, it'll let people in on an extended trial before actually purchasing the game and unlocking it's full content, reducing the barrier of entry. Really much more than that I wouldn't really care for. I guess maybe I use the free option differently than others because if I enjoy the game and see the game as good enough to sub to I will. If I don't I'm mostly likely going to stick around for a week or 3 and not play again. Still haven't seen a F2P game that's really worth investing as much time as I'd like into it.