Resolved: SWTOR is not an MMO

[Kageru]

It does not change the fact that it was miles above and beyond EQ where you'd probably only do a handful of quests while levelling up at most. WoW made levelling by quest the model to follow.

I think it's somewhat of a dead end though. The more deep and movie-like you make it (ie. SWTOR) the more money you are spending on content that is consumed as a one-off and is ultimately just window dressing on the levelling process. That left them spending a lot of money on content with poor longevity (played once), not available to all players (unless everyone plays every class) and ultimately even with the money they spent not able to conceal the grind.

That money should be spent on content that can be run multiple times and the quests should be a side effect of playing the game. GW2 seems to get this as do most of the shooters (who will become more MMO like). Raiding also works, but it's got its own issues with power progression and exclusivity, and it only works once levelling is done.

As for f2p and sub both have their place. The biggest games with a progression focus will be sub-based because they can make the most money that way and people play enough to justify it. The second stringers or games with a more casual focus with be f2p or box sale. The niche games will probably be sub too because they have dedicated players but no mass appeal. Ultimately though the only important thing is that the sub model matches the game. APB's policy of spend millions on a casual shooter and then demand a sub was an amusing suicide.

I also wonder if we'll see the "per hour" approach tried again. 15$ gets you 30 hours or a month whichever comes first, so casuals and hardcore can use the same sub model. Though I think selling it will be hard (no one really likes rental).

[Malakili]

I don't know that it is really an issue of "hardcore" v. "casual."  I just think most people don't actually like the idea of an MMO in the way it was originally conceived.  People like personal progression, people like comparing their progression with others, people like playing with their friends, and none of those things really have anything inherently to do with MMO.  The reason developers like the idea is because it has a sustained income model built in, and this is why we've seen MMOs get less MMO and we've seen other genres start to try and figure out ways to implement models to support sustained income (DLC, CoD Elite, F2P, etc). 

Incidentally, this is why I think Diablo 3 is going to be absurdly popular.  It has all the things people want, and none of the things they hate, just for the box price. 

[Sheepherder]

15$ gets you 30 hours or a month whichever comes first, so casuals and hardcore can use the same sub model.

What?

[pxib]

It's $15 for 30 hours, but if you don't use all 30 in a month, the rest disappear. Which is why it wouldn't work. A month is difficult to grasp intellectually, 30 hours is not. When you don't use a subscription at all for a month you -- completely irrationally -- don't feel as bad as when you've only used 5 of your 30 hours. Plus they'd be equally irrationally paranoid about going over their 30 hours. People would stress out and unsubscribe.

It's why the big cell phone services have moved away from their minute-by-minute costs and offered more expensive package plans. Fire-and-forget monthly subscriptions don't tend to set off our internal alarms.

[Malakili]

It is because then you are making exactly one decision a month.   One of the reasons I dislike F2P games is that every time I am playing I have to contemplate a purchase, even if the answer is always no.   With a monthly fee, you just pay the damn thing and then you're done and you don't need to make money decisions about that game anymore until the next pay period. 

[Kageru]

It's $15 for 30 hours, but if you don't use all 30 in a month, the rest disappear. Which is why it wouldn't work.

No, the idea is it's 30 hours until you use them up, the month is effectively a cap if you burn more than that (ie. hardcore playing). Put another way if I don't play enough in a month I get to carry over unused hours. You could just as easily do it through discounting the sub based on game-time under a number, if "not really logging in at the moment" cost 2$ then people would be much more likely to keep their accounts active. Heck, if you are doing that make it substract from in-game "coins" so that sub and cash-shop are using the same mechanism (which WoT effectively does already).

Effectively if you are playing a game very casually (as I am with LotRO) a subscription makes no sense. But neither does the current model of paying 20$ for an instance I might only run once or twice before I out-level it or get bored. It's not all that great for the game company either as all the payments are one off and priced on the assumption that the person is playing fairly hard-core (will farm the instance, level many characters).

That said I do think people don't like "renting" or gaming while "having a meter running" so it has its own issues.

[Malakili]

It's $15 for 30 hours, but if you don't use all 30 in a month, the rest disappear. Which is why it wouldn't work.

No, the idea is it's 30 hours until you use them up, the month is effectively a cap if you burn more than that (ie. hardcore playing). Put another way if I don't play enough in a month I get to carry over unused hours. You could just as easily do it through discounting the sub based on game-time under a number, if "not really logging in at the moment" cost 2$ then people would be much more likely to keep their accounts active. Heck, if you are doing that make it substract from in-game "coins" so that sub and cash-shop are using the same mechanism (which WoT effectively does already).

Effectively if you are playing a game very casually (as I am with LotRO) a subscription makes no sense. But neither does the current model of paying 20$ for an instance I might only run once or twice before I out-level it or get bored. It's not all that great for the game company either as all the payments are one off and priced on the assumption that the person is playing fairly hard-core (will farm the instance, level many characters).

That said I do think people don't like "renting" or gaming while "having a meter running" so it has its own issues.

Something like LOTRO is pretty casual friendly with a subscription, especially if you buy in bulk.  If you know you are going to want to play the game on and off for 6 months, you can do so and have access to absolutely everything, plus get a monthly stipend of money to spend in their item store for less than the cost of one new game.  That seems fairly cost effective and reasonable to me.   

[Phred]

Incidentally, this is why I think Diablo 3 is going to be absurdly popular.  It has all the things people want, and none of the things they hate, just for the box price. 

Hmm. That turned out well eh? :)

[Fabricated]

Well, the absurdly popular part is right.