| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (39)

Posted: Jan 31st 2012 6:05AM tenfootgoatman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@avaloner so you suggesting if you asked most people if they were asked would they prefer to pay say 7.50 or 5.00 dollars for a subscription fee they would say no . If so I dont think you know the way human nature works we all love a bargain . Thats why in the free market you get competative prices . An older game is less likly to be considered worth it by enough people to sustain a subscription based model at 15 dollars so its foolish for a developer to carry on charging it . The same applys for a new game if its not doing as well as expected . Take StarWars ToR for expample its ok but I dont think its worth 15 dollars a month so I'm going back to Rift which I can pay for about 7.50 a month . But if StarWars ToR was 7.50 I would probably play both . The other thing I'm suprised developers havn't looked at is weekly or bi-weekly subscriptions . Theres plenty of games I would enjoy for a short period now and again but dont because of the rigid subscription models . The fact your seeing so many games swtich to free to play is the majority of people think the majority of games arnt worth 15 dollars a month and the "plenty of people" you mention are the few you know in various games who are in actual fact the minority .
Reply

Posted: Jan 31st 2012 9:18AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@avaloner
"Don't see why so many people think $15 a month is to much"
Maybe its not "too much" if you ONLY play that single MMO, and that's your only hobby or something.
For me, $15 is an entire game.
That's one game a month, which i will probably get more fun and hours out of than spending the same month playing the same game I've been playing for X amount of time.
Reply

Posted: Jan 30th 2012 10:00PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Definitely dying i have to say, it's just taking a while especially the elephant in the room to heave out that final sigh of that final breathe before we all can move on and that's mainly due to their D3 purchase model subscription.

Posted: Jan 30th 2012 10:11PM Apakal said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Subscriptions aren't dead, but the standard required for subscription-based games has become incredibly more demanding in the past 2-3 years. Developers have been slow to recognize the shift, let alone even attempt to meet new expectations.

I personally think the damage that the F2P model has caused by allowing bad companies to continue making sub-par products has done a lot of harm to the industry as a whole and would be happy to see the business model die.

Posted: Jan 30th 2012 10:13PM Crapplebag said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
People do realize that turbine is not some magical entity that just craps out updates so long as servers are kept running right? The Devs, Quality Engineers, Artists, Project Managers, etc all have to get payed in order to keep things going.

For the record Turbine was always pretty generous with the $10 a month sub offers before it went f2p. Now the sub model is fixed at $10 a month, gets you access to all content and gives you a monthly stipend of turbine points for the store. Or you can choose to not sub and pay for what you desire.

Posted: Jan 31st 2012 1:11AM Cyroselle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Crapplebag I might just be an optimist here, but I haven't been seeing a lot of people complaining about giving developers the money they deserve and need per se, more like (justified) complaints about having ads shoved down their collective throats in-game even when they are on subscription.

That can be pretty annoying, not to mention jarring for story immersion.
Reply

Posted: Jan 31st 2012 9:04AM Deliverator said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Crapplebag
The game has been F2P'ified and is no longer worth a sub.
All of the mechanics adjustments that they make to sell item shop crap apply across the whole game - the grind was cranked for the subbers too.
Reply

Posted: Jan 30th 2012 10:22PM Yukon Sam said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The only surprising aspect is that anybody is surprised by the continuing viability of the subscription model.

Posted: Jan 30th 2012 10:46PM Crapplebag said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I guess the point is that games are expensive to develop and with the market as saturated as it is, some games will simply not survive with only a subscription model. A hybrid model like turbine's gives players a choice but also allows the company to make money in several different ways. Some say greedy cash grab others feel it's necessary to keep content flowing.

Posted: Jan 30th 2012 11:24PM Space Cobra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Kinda surprising statement coming from Turbine at this point in time, although they are right.

And while AO did change to the F2P model earlier, I never heard about such change from people or websites. Heck, I get newsletters from Funcom/AO at that time and never heard of it, but I will say it was very possible I skipped/didn't read such an announcement. The thing is, it is still not widely known, although AoC is helping. I guess AoC is just a bigger, more widely-known IP.

As for labeling games : Free-to-Play. I think some folks just want more detailed honesty in the description is all. When you hear "Free-to-Play" or "Freemium", most people concentrate on the word "Free" and that's what marketers bank on. If there were some descriptor like "Free-for-Limited-Play" or "Microtransaction-Game" or "F2P/VIP game", then maybe people would accept the term better as applied to some of these games. Although, many gamers do get by without paying much or anything with many of these games.

Posted: Jan 31st 2012 5:11AM blueimpact said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Space Cobra

You just missed it somehow, because it was plastered over the horrible proto-blogosphere enough to make my eyes bleed.

In the age where people still used Live/DeadJournal. Not so much Xanga.
Reply

Posted: Jan 31st 2012 1:11AM theBeast said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
$$$ $$$$$ $$ $$$$$ $$$$$$ $$ $$$$$$ game features such as $$$$$ $$$$ $$$ $$$$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$ $$$$$$$ development team $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$ beta $$$$$ ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

I love when they talk money.

Posted: Jan 31st 2012 1:31AM jimr9999us said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@theBeast
It's so funny...the business model has become as much a genre as the game world itself. It's like talking pro sports player contracts.

Money is such a part of who we are it needs to be a part of our games as well. I don't know what to make of it.

Anyways, best post on an entirely thoughtful thread. Go figure.
Reply

Posted: Jan 31st 2012 5:15AM blueimpact said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@jimr9999us

It's the destiny of an industry. Not only did games become more accessible, but the ability to /make games/ became widespread enough to foster competition, the demand to control an audience and the kind of environment where love for the game isn't enough.

Works for single player. Not so much for MMOs YET. I feel confident that we'll get to a point where infrastructure will be a social thing that people can prop their own games on now.

Well, we have networking for that already. Just not enough for an average Joe with an "okay" amount of cash to go starting up a Geocities MMO Project.

Just pass me some comfort money if that term goes big. I'll be throwing it back into the industry.
Reply

Posted: Jan 31st 2012 1:34AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Oh how I miss ac2

Posted: Jan 31st 2012 3:33AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
tl;dr Why ONLY charge 15$ a month when You can charge 15$ AND have a cash shop with P2W stuff.

Posted: Jan 31st 2012 5:00AM smartstep said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sorry for example Lotro even though it have subscription option it is NOT subscription game for me.

Why?

Cause of impact of cash shop have on game and how it totally wrecks my immersion.

This so called freemium model is WORST of all.

It is worse than pure F2P and worse than pure P2P.

Posted: Jan 31st 2012 1:01PM Tom in VA said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
As others in this thread have mentioned, what is this fixation MMOs have on "either/or": either $15/month or F2P? It's nutty, imo.

I would have happily subscribed to STO, for example, at $5/month for quite some time, but the game just was not worth $15/month, pure and simple.

If STO or (RIP) Tabula Rasa and other such games had offered subs at, say, $5-10/month, I bet they would have at least quadrupled their subscribers. If you sit down and do the math, you'd end up making far more money that way.

The problem is that these MMO devs just can't seem to think outside that "$15/month" box. Well, they think, "WoW did it...." I want to knock their heads together and say, "The thing is, dudes, WoW was a better game. If you charge the same rate for a lesser-quality product, well, what do you think is going to happen?"

I think the Torchlight guys understand this principle and they made a killing.

Posted: Feb 1st 2012 6:20AM Dol said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If I go for P2P, I would only rent a game and would be told to FO if I never pay them the monthly payment for renting the game.
For F2P, I would be reward them with CS sales for entertaining me and come back anytime I want and not be treated like a pariah.
I think I will take F2P.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW