I generally don't like item malls.  Anyone who knows me will likely be aware of this.  I make an exception with Gamigo.  They don't do RMT like anyone else I've seen. 

If I choose to buy an item, I'm purchasing the licence to use it for a specific amount of time.  If during that time period, the item doesn't work, or gets altered in any way, I can get a refund on the time that is left on my licence.

Most RMT MMOs tell me that I'm paying for an item, but this doesn't give me any any rights to it.  If it doesn't work, gets nerfed or even deleted outright, that's just tough luck for me.  Gamigo is different.  I know exactly what I'm getting, and for how long.  If I'm not satisfied, I get my money back.  That's the way all RMT shops should be run imo.

Also, this is not subscription plus RMT, it's RMT only, and that's the way it should be.  Multiple layers of fees in an MMO are a non-starter for me.  If I pay a subscription fee, then all the best features should be included.  I shouldn't have to pay extra for the newest gear (e.g. StarWars Galaxies TCG loot items), and I shouldn't have to pay extra for starting races with unique stats (e.g. StarTrek online).  I also shouldn't have to pay extra for respecs (Champions online).

I beta tested Gamigo's Pirate Galaxies because of the way they do business.  I liked it.  I'm still playing it now.  I had one glitch in the game and got excellent customer service.  I sent a ticket, and the next time I logged in, the issue was resolved and I had an email explaining the nature of the problem and solution.  The only thing I would say about it is that I think it would run better on a newer machine.

The folks at Gamigo seem to know what they're doing, and that's refreshing.

Originally posted by Amathe

I have long been convinced that if a game maker included a brick in the game box, and awarded the best gear in their game for whoever cracked themselves in the skull with that brick 5,000 times, people would do it. Not only would they do it, some guy would boast of having done it first.

 

Rofl!  Yeah, I'm sure you're right.  Someone mentioned this is a repeat thread.  Sorry for missing the other one.  Gonna go look for it :)

Btw, I'm sure this doesn't just apply to the games referred to in the article.  I'm thinking of others that have collections and a chance to win uber loot for an MMO every time you buy a booster pack for a related Trading Card Game.  The booster pack uses the most powerful form of reinforcement (intermitent) and you have to pay real cash every time you try for the loot.  It's kind of like a slot machine.  People report pumping hundreds of dollars into this, just in the hope of winning a new vehicle.  Nasty stuff.

I thought that was pretty blatant tbh.  This article highlighted a much more widespread use of psychology to get at people's wallets. 

I found this article to be an incredible read: 

http://www.cracked.com/article_18461_5-creepy-ways-video-games-are-trying-to-get-you-addicted_p1.html

As a social science professor (and former psychotherapist), I can vouch for the science as well.

Very, very enlightening--and disturbing.

Originally posted by SeNsaToR1337

Originally posted by TUX426

WORST GAME OF THE DECADE!!!

 

I'm sorry, are you people blind... It's the top 10 DISAPPOINTMENTS of the decade--not the top 10 worst games.

 

There were some pretty good games there: Fable, MGS2, etc. It's just that the games were hyped up so much by the devs and the community and on release they fell short--in SWG's case it fell short a couple of years after release. :S

 

I don't think your blindness comment fits here.  SWG was not a good game.  It released in bad shape, and two disastrous revamps made it even worse.  I think the last revamp severed an artery in terms of subscription bleed.  To suggest that the game was merely overhyped seems to completely ignore its severely troubled--and well documented--history.

In fact, the lead dev on the last revamp referred to it as an "epoch grade f*ckup."  This doesn't refer to marketting hype.  It's about what not to do to an MMO.

Originally posted by TUX426

Holy crap lol!!! 

Think we can stop blaming "Vets" for the bad reviews now? ;)

What a freaking smack that is. WORST game of the DECADE!!! I've played some real SH!T the past 10 years - to take the top spot should make Smedley realize he needs to fire every flipping person that works for him besides Adept and Hjal.

I just have to do this one more time...

 

WORST GAME OF THE DECADE!!!

Tbh, I think Smed should hit the eject (resign) button rather than fire.  Biggest problems in the game to date imo:

-released in busted, very incomplete condition (like a car missing the transmission kind of incomplete)

-massive revamps that alienated the majority of the playerbase

-a history of poor customer service that generated incredible frustration among those brave or foolish enough to stay in the broken, incomplete, utterly revamped game

-change of business model adding addtional layers of fees via RMT to said broken, revamped, incomplete subscription-based game.

If you ask me, those are all upper level management decisions.  I don't think they need to keep dumping development talent.  They need new direction at the top.

P.S.  Yeah I know some of the whacky ideas came from devs themselves (e.g. NGE), but a good manager needs to know when to listen to his staff, and when to tell them to get back to work.

Would we pay more for a sandbox game?

Tbh, I don't think that's the right question, and here's why: sandbox games do not rely on linear content that must continuously be provided by the developers.  In fact, you highlight this in your second point.  Why should this cost more?  Simple answer: it shouldn't.  To make a sandbox game cost more than a linear, quest-based game, you have to be doing something very wrong. 

Would we be okay with less developer content?

The funnest content I ever enjoyed in any game was the player-created Galactic Civil War of the original StarWars MMO.  Professions had interdependent roles to claim territory, build bases, hold them, take out enemy bases etc..  There were land battles with hundreds of people, and massive space-battles with squadrons of starfighters on each side.  Most of us were on ventrilo, and I tell ya, it felt like we were living the StarWars trilogy.  Those that didn't get hooked on the original GCW really missed out on something special.  The player-driven economy was also pivotal in equipping each side for battle.  We needed guns, armour, medical kits for use in the field, mines, speeders, buffs and healing.  Pretty much all the professions got in on the action, each playing its own complementary role.

So, yeah, I'd be totally cool with less developer content, if the devs gave us an immersive world, working game-mechanics, and all the tools we would need to generate our own enjoyable content.  This was Koster's vision for SWG, by the way.  Imo it was wrecked when the game was pushed out the door with numerous missing and broken tools.  It needed to be less ambitious or have more time in incubation in order for it to be successful.  Awesome vision, very poorly managed imo.

Would we be okay with a slow build?

Damn straight I would.  What do we have now?  Slow death, in most cases.  Games release amidst great fanfare.  Initial box-sales are huge due to all the hype, and then they start bleeding from an artery because they're broken and incomplete.  No thanks.  Start off with something smaller, functional, enjoyable, and user-generated; then grow baby grow--just like EVE seems to have done.

People point to the rise of WoW, and how quickly this happened.  Why?  It's been said numerous times by people who know MMOs better than me: polish, polish, polish.  This damn game actually worked.  People who were playing competitors' products were awe-struck by the polish of WoW.  They switched games in a heart-beat, and I don't blame them.  Then WoW had fantastic ad campaigns and trials to draw people in by the millions.

Here's the important point though that so many other games fail at: when people were drawn into WoW, they liked what they found.  Why?  Back to polish.  Like I said before, this damn game actually worked.  So, you have all the immersion and adventure of a global online community in a fun fantasy land without all the bugs, issues and customer service hassles of pretty much every other MMO on the market.  That's a friggin gold mine is what that is, and the fact that it has linear quests isn't the issue.  Remember: polish.  That's what makes the MMO world go around...or not; there are more examples of the latter I'm afraid, and incidentally most of those are not sandbox games.

Couple things I've noticed about the responses (thanks for all of them btw).

1)  Lifetime subs can be a gamble, and sometimes you're gonna get burned (e.g. Hellgate),

2) A lot of people really like Lotr, and are happy that they got the lifetime sub.  I'm glad it worked out tbh.

My personal preference is to maintain the right to take my money elsewhere if the game, or customer service, goes down hill.  I think customers need to keep the publishers on their toes as much as we can.

Originally posted by championsFan

Originally posted by ArcAngel3

...is that they may not last very long these days.  Sometimes I wonder if people know this refers to the life of the game.  We've seen a lot of sloppy, rushed out, broken games over the past few years.  This seems to make life-time subs a bad idea.

I for one carefully analyzed the risks and made the decision to get a CO lifetime sub in a logical way.  That is why I have never once felt disappointed.

Also, you know how some people will defend their online funpark no matter what, even if their comments clearly defy reality?  Well anyone who sinks a few hundred bucks into an MMO, pre-launch, will now have a few hundred reasons to defend their investment, come hell or high water.  Either that, or they're gonna have a few hundred reasons to be extremely pissed off if it shuts down prematurely after a bad launch.

This sounds like a convenient way to dismiss other peoples opinions, but in my case these considerations are irrelevant, I regularly spend more money on entertainment that is much more fleeting, and I feel no need to defend these large expenditures on various internet forums.   I praise CO because it is a good game, not because I care about $200 I spent last year.

You may have missed the flip-side of my comment: "either that, or they're gonna have a few hundred reasons to be extremely pissed off if it shuts down prematurely...."

I expect that some people will be hesitant to criticize a game they just invested a few hundred bucks into.  Others, I'm sure, will not be deterred.  They'll make their voices heard because that's how they roll (/tiphat to them).  Unfortunately, as I said to someone else, even if they continue to give feedback (positive and negative), once you pay everything in advance, you lose the right to take your money elsewhere if you get bad service.

Originally posted by Terranah

Just because I get a lifetime sub to STO or any other game doesn't mean I suddenly become a yes man.  My integrity doesn't have a price tag, and I always reserve the right to bitch and complain if it is warranted. But it goes both ways: if a game company does something I approve with I will give them praise.

By paying up front, I don't think you lose your integrity.  What you lose is your leverage.  If you don't have a lifetime sub, you can complain about problems and take your money elsewhere.  If you do have one, you can only complain.

If you pay in advance, and the game crashes and burns like Hellgate, you still don't lose your integrity.  What you lose is your cash.

Originally posted by Ilvaldyr

Never bought one, not even sure what games offer them, but if we were to theorise that every game offered them for a value roughly equal to 18 months of subscription fees:

• If I'd bought a lifetime sub for WoW .. it would have probably saved me tons of money.
• If I'd bought a lifetime sub for EVE .. it would have probably saved me tons of money.
• If I'd bought a lifetime sub for UO .. it would have probably saved me a little money.
• If I'd bought a lifetime sub for LOTRO .. it would have probably saved me a little money.
• If I'd bought a lifetime sub for SWG .. it would have probably saved me a little money.
• If I'd bought a lifetime sub for AoC .. it would have been a significant waste of money.
• If I'd bought a lifetime sub for WAR .. it would have been a significant waste of money.
• If I'd bought a lifetime sub for TR .. it would have been a complete waste of money.
• If I'd bought a lifetime sub for EQ2 .. it would have been a complete waste of money.
• If I'd bought a lifetime sub for PotBS .. it would have been a complete waste of money.
• If I'd bought a lifetime sub for Aion .. it would have been a complete waste of money.
• If I'd bought a lifetime sub for CO .. it would have been a complete waste of money.
• If I'd bought a lifetime sub for STO .. it would have been a complete waste of money.

So yeah, from my perspective, it's risky as hell. I'm probably best served by avoiding lifetime subs completely. I might end up out of pocket if I sub to a game for 2+ years instead of going for the lifetime sub, but I can deal with that. Much preferable than forking out lifetime subs for a game I don't last more than 6 months in.

I might be wrong (really not sure which games offer lifetime subs), but LOTRO might be the only game where it would have saved me any money whatsoever.

These examples pretty much illustrate what I'm thinking.  Thanks.  Would the gamble have paid off in some games (e.g. lots of people mention Lotr)?  Apparently.  Would people have been burned in many others?  Seems like it, yeah.

Paying up front, especially pre-release, is an unnecessary risk imo that mainly seems to benefit the publisher.

Originally posted by Comnitus

Originally posted by trancejeremy

Originally posted by ULQQKED

If you buy a lifetime sub before playing the game for at least 6 months then you get what you deserve, imo.

 

Definitely true. I have a lifetime sub to LOTRO and I've been regretting it well, pretty much every moment after my 3rd month. I used to force myself to play a few hours every month, I can't even stand that any more.

Still, part of the trouble is, you don't always have the chance to get a lifetime sub, or a chance to get a lifetime sub at a certain price. Mine was $199.99, but if I had waited 6 months, it would have been $299.99 (plus 6 months at $10 each). So it's a gamble.

Forget about it.

You don't see a $15 monthly charge. You can hide your LotRO box or just ignore the forums/website and soon you'll forget that you paid that lifetime sub. But you know what? If you want to, you can come back. Whenever you want. Without paying another dime (maybe for an expansion, but if I remember correctly, they offered SoM free for lifetime subs). I don't see how that's a bad thing.

A game that offers a lifetime sub before it launches? Yeah, I agree with being skeptical about that. If you roll the dice and pay for that, it's your fault. But there's nothing wrong with a lifetime sub for well-established games that you know are going to be around for a while and that you enjoy. If the company offers them, it's their choice (I always thought that it ends up being worse financially for the company, but there are people out there who like the idea of never having to pay monthly again. The pressure of playing every month so you don't feel like you're wasting your money is lifted, unless you're like trancejeremy here and you can't forget that $199). You could spend $199 on hardware and it could break in a few weeks, who knows? Same thing with how long you'll enjoy an MMO.

I see a big difference between buying hardware and purchasing a lifetime subscription to an MMO.  The big difference is warranty. 

When I spend a few hundred dollars on new hardware, I make sure I get a good warranty.  The rig I'm working with now came with 3 years.  I know that I'm getting a quality machine for a 3 year period when I spend my money.  The risk is minimal, if it exists at all.

Let's compare this to an MMO.  Do I have any assurance of quality?  Do I have any idea how long I'm going to be able to enjoy my purchase?  Nope.  I'm handing over a few hundred dollars, and getting what?  Access to servers that provide unspecified content, in an unspecified condition for an unknown amount of time.

It's a different kettle of fish altogether, and the fish smells bad to me.

Originally posted by Nesrie

Publishers want me to spend more than 50 dollars for a game, fine, charge 80 dollars and allow me to reutrn the damn thing when its a pile of smoldering crap. Until I have the ability to return the crap that gets shoveled out the door, I am not paying a penny more for my games, not the box, not the subscription, and I won't tolerate games forced on slow, terrible servers that the publisher yank at will to try and get their customers to buy their next medicore, DRM filled rehash of yesterday's games.

Right with you.  As of now I am paying publishers exactly zero dollars while I continue to enjoy legitimate, online gameplay.  I'm having a great time, and have no hassles.  I kind of figure that's what entertainment is supposed to feel like.  I always figured, but almost forgot.
 

Originally posted by erickdefores

Originally posted by zymurgeist

Hate to break up the torches and pitchforks party but they got fired for cause.

Nah it won't break up the party. Conspiracy theorists don't heed facts.

 

What was the "CAUSE" Zymurgeist?  I am interested.  You usually dont make blanket statements without some information to back it up.  Please dont get defensive,  but I worked for a software firm that got purchased buy a large corporation. and then were disbanded when all the projects where completed.  We were productive and profitable yet the heads of the Corporation would only look at what they had spent to buy the company vs what they were going to make after we completed the current line of products.  Basically they all took thier bonuses that year and laughed as they handed out our pink slips.

Again,  I am not saying you are wrong but the conspiracy I was involved with is a fact.

This kind of thing isn't even a conspiracy, it's dirty corporate politics, and it happens all too often these days.  I'll be interested to see how this works out.

I think players aren't the only ones getting tired of how the bean counters are wrecking video-gaming.  Seems like the game designers (the real creativity in the industry) are getting sick of being jerked around too. 

I've seen us go from "pong" to MMOs with $7000 RMT items.  That's just plain, ugly as hell greed.

I agree with the problem being highlighted 100%.  "The publishers think quarterly layoffs are a good start."  Wow did that ever hit the nail on the head. 

I've noticed over the years that its both the players and the devs that get exploited by the big companies who truly don't seem to care about creativity or entertainment value.   All they do is suck...cash and creativity.

I think your comparison to the music industry is excellent.  Remember the album cover for Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here?  I'm pretty sure that a musician is shaking hands with a guy that's on fire, but not burning up.  I'm pretty sure that's a producer, aka the devil lol.

Apparently I also agree with your recommendation too.  I'm playing 2 Indie games currently.  They're made by computuer super geniuses just because, and they're fun to play.  They're creative as hell.  No one is exploiting the devs, and no one is exploiting me.  The supernerds (I mean that affectionately) are having the time of their lives creating their own world and playing in it, and I'm lucky as hell that they invited me to the party.

Maybe if publishers weren't so focused on short-term cash grabs, it wouldn't have to be this way.  Maybe if they understood the value of earning customer loyalty over the long haul with excellent quality and service things could change.  Maybe if the way MMOs were run had more dev and user friendly legislative parameters, exploitation wouldn't be the rule.  Until all these maybes become a reality, I think I've found my niche in the Indie scene.  And yeah, I'm an Indie musician too, with a friend who runs a legitimate online distribution site.  It's good times all around.

Originally posted by Einherjar_LC

Originally posted by ArcAngel3

Originally posted by Einherjar_LC

Originally posted by ArcAngel3

Also, I want to respond to this comment you made, "I can go back anytime to play and talk to friends and not have to pay a dime."  You don't have to pay a dime now because you already paid $199.00.  Imo, that's a lot more than a dime.

 

If he played 30 hrs/wk for 2,5 years, he got his $199(or dime's) worth and then some.

 

He is technically playing on their dime now.

 

IMO for someone like that, which includes myself, the lifetime deal was a steal for LOTRO.  At $9.99 a month, the cheapest monthly rate offered at release, it would only have taken you roughly 20 months to break even on that deal.  Less if you count it against the $14.99 rate.  Those of us who were in the beta for LOTRO knew it was a deal.

 

That being said, I would never jump on a lifetime sub if I wasn't involved in some stage of testing.  Being in the beta of LOTRO gave me an idea of who and what I was dealing with when I considered the lifetime sub. 

 

It works for some, not so well for others.  I think it's a good thing but it really depends on a case by case basis.

 

 

I edited the comment you quoted here to make reference to a game like Guild Wars.  In that game you can play whenever you like, or not, without having to pay the big check up front.  Now that sounds like a sweet deal.

Also, I've now seen that some people are happy with their LOTR decision, but others are not.  Those that aren't happy are pretty much screwed.  I doubt I'd find anyone pleased with paying $149.00 up front for Hellgate.  What I take from this is that you're paying a lot of money up front, but you don't really know what you're going to get, or whether or not you're going to be happy with it.  Does this sound like a good idea for any other purchase?

Your other option (in a subscription based game) is to pay as you go.  If you like the game after 2 months, you can buy more time.  If you want to take a 6 month break, you can do that without feeling like you wasted your money.  During your break, you pay nothing (nothing now, and nothing up front).  If you want to hop back into the game after your break, you can, for 10 or 15 bucks a month.  

If they change your game (e.g. remove what makes it fun for you, add an item shop for all the cool new loot, add irritating bugs via new patches), you can opt out at anytime, and keep your money for something you'll enjoy...like another MMO. 

 

I see where you are coming from.

 

IMO, it's up to each individual gamer.  Only individual can decide for themselves if it's worth the risk.  It works for some if they think it's worth it, for others it doesn't.  In some situations it's a rip-off(hellgate:london), in others it works out pretty well(LOTRO). 

 

As consumers as well as a gamers, it's ultimately up to us to make informed decisions.  I was pretty comfortable with Turbine, and the direction they wanted to take LOTRO.  I played AC1 for nearly 6 years so I had some background with Turbine.  Being a tester, I felt pretty good about the game and the development staff, and the buzz that was generated during OB sealed the deal.  It was a good game, it was going to do well, and there were going to be a lot people playing it.

 

I say queue up the lifetime option and let gamers decide for themselves.  More options are a good thing and I see no reason for developers not to offer it just because some people don't like the idea. 

I see where you're coming from too I think.  You did your research and had a good history with Turbine before paying for the lifetime sub on LOTR.  I think those would be good tips for other gamers tbh.  Before shelling out 2 hundred bucks, check out the history of the company.  Do they make good games?  Do they treat customers right?  I'd also have a good hard look at the game itself.  Is it polished?  Did it have a good release?  Is the population growing?

Having said that, I'd still like to see a few things change about the industry as a whole before I'd ever consider purchasing a lifetime sub.  Allow me to illustrate:

MMO marketting dept.: "Let's make a deal, you pay us $200 dollars up front, and we'll give you access to our servers for as long as our new MMO lasts.  It may not work, you may not enjoy it, we might revamp it, you might finish all the content in a couple of months, we may not add more content, and we're thinking about adding an RMT shop with game-enhancing gear at some point.  What do you say?"

MMO gamer: "Um..."

What I'm saying is that a lot of MMO EULAs are extremely lopsided in favour of the game provider.  Caveat emptor is a gamer's first line of defense.  Signing the big check up front leaves you with precious little recourse if things go sour.  As I look around, I see a lot of sour MMOs, especially ones that have come off the assembly line lately.

Originally posted by Einherjar_LC

Originally posted by ArcAngel3

Also, I want to respond to this comment you made, "I can go back anytime to play and talk to friends and not have to pay a dime."  You don't have to pay a dime now because you already paid $199.00.  Imo, that's a lot more than a dime.

 

If he played 30 hrs/wk for 2,5 years, he got his $199(or dime's) worth and then some.

 

He is technically playing on their dime now.

 

IMO for someone like that, which includes myself, the lifetime deal was a steal for LOTRO.  At $9.99 a month, the cheapest monthly rate offered at release, it would only have taken you roughly 20 months to break even on that deal.  Less if you count it against the $14.99 rate.  Those of us who were in the beta for LOTRO knew it was a deal.

 

That being said, I would never jump on a lifetime sub if I wasn't involved in some stage of testing.  Being in the beta of LOTRO gave me an idea of who and what I was dealing with when I considered the lifetime sub. 

 

It works for some, not so well for others.  I think it's a good thing but it really depends on a case by case basis.

 

 

I edited the comment you quoted here to make reference to a game like Guild Wars.  In that game you can play whenever you like, or not, without having to pay the big check up front.  Now that sounds like a sweet deal.

Also, I've now seen that some people are happy with their LOTR decision, but others are not.  Those that aren't happy are pretty much screwed.  I doubt I'd find anyone pleased with paying $149.00 up front for Hellgate.  What I take from this is that you're paying a lot of money up front, but you don't really know what you're going to get, or whether or not you're going to be happy with it.  Does this sound like a good idea for any other purchase?

Your other option (in a subscription based game) is to pay as you go.  If you like the game after 2 months, you can buy more time.  If you want to take a 6 month break, you can do that without feeling like you wasted your money.  During your break, you pay nothing (nothing now, and nothing up front).  If you want to hop back into the game after your break, you can, for 10 or 15 bucks a month.  

If they change your game (e.g. remove what makes it fun for you, add an item shop for all the cool new loot, add irritating bugs via new patches), you can opt out at anytime, and keep your money for something you'll enjoy...like another MMO. 

Originally posted by AnimusChaser

I was a early beta tester for LOTRO, when they gave out the lifetime sub option I jumped all over it. Getting the lifetime sub was the best decision I ever made with that game. I played lotro 30hrs a week for nearly 2.5 years.

Even though I dont currently play lotro its nice to know that if I want I can go back anytime to play and talk to friends and not have to pay a dime :D

A lot of people are pleased with their decision to life-sub for LOTR it seems.  That tells me that its probably a good game, and one that treats players alright. 

How many games offering a life-time sub can you say this about?  Case in point: Hellgate London.  An optional lifetime sub  was selling for $149.99.  A sub was optional, but this entitled you to a lot of additional content, character slots and other perks...for the life of the game, which wasn't very long.

As someone else pointed out, when you shell out the big check right out of the gate, you've just lost the ability to vote with your wallet.  You're now at the mercy of the MMO executive class...scary thought.

Also, I want to respond to this comment you made, "I can go back anytime to play and talk to friends and not have to pay a dime."  You don't have to pay a dime now because you already paid $199.00.  You do realize that don't you?

This would make more sense to me if you were talking about a game like Guild Wars.  This is extremely casual friendly because you can do exactly what you're saying, without having to pay the two hundred bucks upfront that you may or may not ever actually use.

Reasons you may not use it include the following: you might find the game boring or repetitive after a couple of months, it might get a nasty revamp (that you won't have anything to say about because you paid up front), your server might get closed, the business model may change (new content may become available only via RMT), or the game may close entirely.  Tbh, I've seen each and every one of these things happen in major MMO titles.

Someone already said it this way: a lifetime sub is a real gamble.

Originally posted by SgtFrog

Life time sub is not a bad idea, it is just a bad idea when they only offer it before the game comes out as a special...I think people should be allowed to play the game for a number of months before getting a life time sub.
Making it limited before release is a clever marketing trick that gets allot of people sucked in before release.

Good point, and I agree that this is a marketting trick that doesn't do the gamer any favours.

...is that they may not last very long these days.  Sometimes I wonder if people know this refers to the life of the game.  We've seen a lot of sloppy, rushed out, broken games over the past few years.  This seems to make life-time subs a bad idea.

Also, you know how some people will defend their online funpark no matter what, even if their comments clearly defy reality?  Well anyone who sinks a few hundred bucks into an MMO, pre-launch, will now have a few hundred reasons to defend their investment, come hell or high water.  Either that, or they're gonna have a few hundred reasons to be extremely pissed off if it shuts down prematurely after a bad launch.

Originally posted by Ilvaldyr

Originally posted by ArcAngel3

When I read posts about how the industry is thriving, I have to wonder where that notion comes from.

Subscription numbers.

How many people were playing MMOs in 2000? .. 2005? .. how many today?

Sure, a lot of the recent MMO's have sucked balls on an epic scale, but the industry itself, i.e. the number of people playing MMOs has risen dramatically, and I've yet to see any evidence of it slowing down/decreasing.

I think that most of those subscription numbers have congregated in games made by companies that have earned a degree of consumer confidence.  This, I think, is one reason Blizz has so many customers compared to other companies that really don't seem to focus on consumer satisfaction.

Also, in response to someone else's comment, I think gamers do know what they want.  MMO companies don't seem to be very skilled listeners in my experience.  Games launch even though core systems are broken or missing, despite the fact that a majority of beta testers say the game is not ready.  Games are revamped, despite the fact that a majority of players who test the revamp say that it does not address any of their concerns, that it makes the game less enjoyable, and that it is actually broken.  Struggling games add ever increasing layers of fees, despite the negative response this tends to draw from players, and despite net subscription loss.

In all the examples listed above, players are speaking very clearly.  They do not seem to be heard, however, and that begs the question, "why not?"