MMO Subs are a dead model - John Smedley

[Merusk]

So I heard about it from Lum's Site but it requires a login at [http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2011-09-19-the-free-future-editorial]Games Industry[/url] to read the full thing, which I can't be bothered to do.

Still, I find it hard to disagree with the idea that SWTOR will be the last big-name sub MMO.  We're seeing the Korean F2P model explode over here with games that realize they're going to make a lot more money on trinkets and boosts than catering to the hardcore crowd that demands a sub fee. 

I can't say I'm completely disappointed, but it does worry me that we'll see the other side of the Korean coin as well - a landscape flooded with games that just won't die because some cabal of idiots is able to pay enough per month to keep these Auto Assault Abominations alive enough to be profitable.   Sure, there will be niches of niches but wow will you find a quality game in this landscape?

At the same time I agree with Storm that the sub game isn't going away entirely.  There will be people willing to pay per month for either a more hardcore experience than the F2P model allows, or for the gated community rules where mouth-breathers get booted (or at least gagged) because they can't keep civil in public channels.

Thoughts?

[Malakili]

Oh well, I had a good run with MMOs.  If Planetside 2 or that Tribes MMO don't work out, I'll just stay away.

[Stabs]

At the risk of being cruel I'd suggest he puts out a F2P game that dominates the MMO market  before he says that.

If Titan is sub-based then he's dead wrong.

And while I don't know the financials I'd guess that the MMO games making the most money right now are:
1) WoW
2) Rift
3) Eve

All sub-based.

[koro]

Don't the Korean F2P games stay profitable because they're cheap to make and cheaper to maintain, so only 15% of players paying ends up subsidizing the other 85% plus some? That seems at odds with the Western idea of an F2P version of your traditional MMO where you spend $35 million to develop a game, then run a nickle-and-dime cash shop (possibly coupled with the crippleware Turbine/Cryptic/SOE model) but then expect everyone to be that guy who pays $40-60 a month in virtual goods because getting less than 100% of your possible profit is considered poor business and leaving money on the table. I think World of Tanks is one of the only non-Korean games I've seen do the wholly F2P model right.

Besides, if Cryptic's development post-F2P (and to an extent, Turbine's) is any indication, money spent on a Western F2P game is more likely to go towards making new frilly frou-frou cash shop bullshit and not actual new things to do in-game.

[UnSub]

I'll make the same point I made following Lum's post:

Here's the major problem with subs: the vast, vast majority of players only have 1 sub-based title on the go at once. If you choose to go sub-based, unless you are the single sub game on a player's PC, then you aren't even in the running to earn money from them. On top of which to start playing most games still require a box sale, making most sub-based games buy-to-play-the-sub-to-play which isn't as cost effective up front as F2P.

So, is the MMO you are developing the best (maybe second best will do) sub-based MMO on the market, or the only one that caters to a large-yet-particular group of players? No? Then prepare to fire all your staff and shut your offices down, because you aren't going to keep a large enough player base to keep your game viable.

[luckton]

Besides, if Cryptic's development post-F2P (and to an extent, Turbine's) is any indication, money spent on a Western F2P game is more likely to go towards making new frilly frou-frou cash shop bullshit and not actual new things to do in-game.

Cryptic's development for sure, but the Rise of Isengard, IMO, would object to your claims.

As for MMO subscriptions, the model isn't 'dead', it's been subsidized, and it's about damn time.  Anyone can still just as easily pay a monthly fee in order to get unlimited access to things that free people can't get at all or can at a premium one-time price.  Depending on how much love you have for the game, it may just be cheaper to go monthly instead of paying-as-you-go.

I wouldn't be surprised if TOR eventually went free-to-play as well once the vanilla content gets stale enough, so long as you can keep the mouth-breathers corralled from those paying a premium to enjoy the game.

[koro]

Cryptic's development for sure, but the Rise of Isengard, IMO, would object to your claims.

In my case, the Turbine mention was for DDO. In the four or so months I played it after the switchover, I saw no real new stuff added aside from cash shop items and some extra difficulty modes for dungeons. I was in no way surprised to hear reports later on that the massive boom that DDO saw after the freemium switch almost entirely vanished after six or eight months. I was more or less fine with LOTRO's F2P, even though its store was way too pricy.

[luckton]

Cryptic's development for sure, but the Rise of Isengard, IMO, would object to your claims.

In my case, the Turbine mention was for DDO. In the four or so months I played it after the switchover, I saw no real new stuff added aside from cash shop items and some extra difficulty modes for dungeons. I was in no way surprised to hear reports later on that the massive boom that DDO saw after the freemium switch almost entirely vanished after six or eight months. I was more or less fine with LOTRO's F2P, even though its store was way too pricy.

What exactly do you add to a game that's based on randomly generated content except more random content?    

[Nebu]

As for MMO subscriptions, the model isn't 'dead', it's been subsidized, and it's about damn time.  Anyone can still just as easily pay a monthly fee in order to get unlimited access to things that free people can't get at all or can at a premium one-time price.  Depending on how much love you have for the game, it may just be cheaper to go monthly instead of paying-as-you-go.

I prefer paying a subscription simply because it's more convenient.  I don't want to have to hit a cash shop and make a purchase every time I come to new content, want to attain a new level, or travel around a game.  

I wonder if those guys ever considered that it's not that the subscription model is dead, it's that the $14.99 price point for most MMO's is just too high.  Bring down the monthly sub cost and it very well could change your revenue.  I know that I would have never gone back to LotRO for $14.99, but their 9.99 deal was cheap enough to be worth a look.  Think of how many games you'll but on steam when the price hits 4.99 or 2.99.  There's a price point where playing a few days a month becomes reasonable.  Perhaps $14.99 just isn't it.  

[Malakili]

Besides, if Cryptic's development post-F2P (and to an extent, Turbine's) is any indication, money spent on a Western F2P game is more likely to go towards making new frilly frou-frou cash shop bullshit and not actual new things to do in-game.

People love this shit.  TF2 makes a billion dollars selling fucking hats.

[luckton]

I wonder if those guys ever considered that it's not that the subscription model is dead, it's that the $14.99 price point for most MMO's is just too high.  Bring down the monthly sub cost and it very well could change your revenue.  I know that I would have never gone back to LotRO for $14.99, but their 9.99 deal was cheap enough to be worth a look.  Think of how many games you'll but on steam when the price hits 4.99 or 2.99.  There's a price point where playing a few days a month becomes reasonable.  Perhaps $14.99 just isn't it.  

Is it really $9.99, or $29.99 for three months up-front?   

[Merusk]

Don't the Korean F2P games stay profitable because they're cheap to make and cheaper to maintain

Pretty much.  But they're also reusing the same engine over and over again instead of having to reinvent the wheel every time they want to release a new game which is why they're not blowing hundreds of millions every time.   

If your game is "just another X" then why not use that engine you've already got sitting there, tweak the code and pump in some new graphics.  Voila, new game just like the good ol' MUD days.  MMO devs seem to think they're unique snowflakes so doing this is a bad idea.

It certainly would save you problems like "oh, we didn't add 'standard mmo feature' YZW at launch because there wasn't time."

[Numtini]

I think a big factor in decline of subscription as a mode has to be the sheer number of options out there. In 2000 when I went from casual to sadly addicted, I could choose from three MMOs. They were all very different and you more or less had one option for a specific type of gameplay, so you played it. Now there are dozens and a lot of them don't have a lot of differences.

What interests me more than subscription vs micropayment is how the micropayment is set up. Some of these options are a lot more player friendly than others and some I think favor a particular type of game more than another. COX is easy to sell powers and costume slots and that kind of thing, but most of the gameplay are generic dungeons, so it would be hard to sell content by the chunk. D&D Online was perfect for selling pieces of content (modules) bit by bit. World of Tanks premium account works well because if you're casual or just happy with lower tier, it's perfectly reasonable to play without paying, but there are Korean grinders where it's virtually impossible to play without the premium or xp potions or both and it just becomes subscription under a different name.

Sadly, Mr. Smedley's company is the last one I'd trust to implement a model correctly. Which sucks for me as an EQ-universe fan.

[Sky]

I haven't seen a single implementation of f2p that was better than the sub version of the game. Thus the sub version > f2p, imo. Zero interest in f2p after trying a half dozen titles I otherwise liked.

The very idea of playing a crippled game that keeps asking me for more money is the very antithesis of what I'm looking for in an entertainment model. I don't want a gold-digging woman, I sure as hell don't want a gold-digging game.

[ghost]

US MMOs have usually had pretty high quality production compared to the Korean counterparts.  I suspect that if F2P is the way these things are going you're going to see more quality like the Facebook games.  I also suspect you're going to see more games that aren't really MMOs but have a significant online component, like Guild Wars 1.  From evaluating the player base in WOW, probably 80% of the population of the MMO is fleeting and not really all that interested in interacting with other players other than in the AH. 

[tgr]

And while I don't know the financials I'd guess that the MMO games making the most money right now are:
3) Eve

Not for long.

[tazelbain]

I haven't seen a single implementation of f2p that was better than the sub version of the game. Thus the sub version > f2p, imo. Zero interest in f2p after trying a half dozen titles I otherwise liked.

The very idea of playing a crippled game that keeps asking me for more money is the very antithesis of what I'm looking for in an entertainment model. I don't want a gold-digging woman, I sure as hell don't want a gold-digging game.

You prefer alimony?

[Nebu]

Is it really $9.99, or $29.99 for three months up-front?   

It was just an illustrative example, Captain Semantics. 

[Sky]

You prefer alimony?

It's a monthly allowance, not alimony. She's still putting out for the money 

[Mrbloodworth]

At the risk of being cruel I'd suggest he puts out a F2P game that dominates the MMO market  before he says that.

If Titan is sub-based then he's dead wrong.

And while I don't know the financials I'd guess that the MMO games making the most money right now are:
1) WoW
2) Rift
3) Eve

All sub-based.

I don't think the revenue from Star Wars®: Clone Wars Adventures™, Free Realms® AND Magic: The Gathering – Tactics® Is anything to turn your nose up at.

I haven't seen a single implementation of f2p that was better than the sub version of the game.

I have seen many that make Sub games laughable. I would rather the game ask for more money, than have it insert more "Not fun" to extend my play time one more month.

[Modern Angel]

I love LOTRO's implementation. Sub or Free. I hope that's the Western standard. Go a la carte or go all in.

[Rendakor]

I'm with Sky; MTX style games constantly nag you to buy things and I just don't like that atmosphere. Dragon Age had the same problem for me. I'd rather just pay monthly then have to whip out my CC every couple days to buy the next dungeon or whatever.

[Speedy Cerviche]

Well what's funny is that a lot of f2p MMOs basically have a sub anyways, but instead of just paying it straight up and being done with it, you buy a 30 day "EXP booster" from their store that gives you 3x exp gain. Otherwise without it you are stuck playing some ridiculous grind f2p mode. This is a sub in name only, with the option of F2P nice for people looking to try it out, or some teenagers with no CC to play despite the grind (do you really want them anyways?). Yeah you can sell gimmick cosmetic items too at ridiculous profits, but we already see successful traditional sub games like WoW and Eve doing this for extra profits, selling cosmetic sparkle ponies and monacles.

The real issue comes from power enhancing items. They are balance, competition and immersion killers. When your game becomes dependant on selling crap to players to earn revenues, the temptation to juice them with overly powerful items that are must haves is already going to be there. I guess some people will play these ultra-grindy games where you need to pay2win, but if you're actually trying to make a great game instead of a farmville or korla-rpg deal I don't see how this item pushing model is so fantastic for you.

I think WoW and Eve are showing there's still plenty of people who don't have a problem paying a sub for what they perceive as a quality game. Devs working under this model can just focus on the game itself to maintain/improve that perceived quality and those maintain/grow sub base instead of worrying about meeting monthly item sale revenue quotas and balancing those items.

[Hawkbit]

I haven't seen a single implementation of f2p that was better than the sub version of the game. Thus the sub version > f2p, imo. Zero interest in f2p after trying a half dozen titles I otherwise liked.

The very idea of playing a crippled game that keeps asking me for more money is the very antithesis of what I'm looking for in an entertainment model. I don't want a gold-digging woman, I sure as hell don't want a gold-digging game.

LotRO's implementation is hands-down better than the sub version. Even if you want to argue the point, the fact remains that you can still sub and get everything you had before the F2P conversion.  It's the only MMO that improved, though, imo.  The only other game that had a chance was EQ2, but they missed a great opportunity by not following the Turbine model.  

Generally speaking though, I agree with your assessment.  Outside of dabbling with LotRO, I just don't like F2P games.  The subscription cost creates a type of investment for me, a "I paid for this, I better use it" type of feeling.  But I wonder if that's half the problem.  That investment works for someone who has time to play MMOs a lot; I don't anymore.  So I can sub, but still won't have time to commit to anything 'real' in it.  

There's also that jarring feeling when I get to a point in the game that I have to buy.  It takes me out of the world, makes me rationalize my purchase.  Whereas the sub model, I rationalize my purchase of 1s and 0s only once a month, in F2P games I have to rationalize it every hour.  Or anytime I try to enter an area and need to pay, or whatever.  

[Shatter]

Most store models suck.  Take Aion, they have a bunch of gay outfits and stupid virtually useless pets.  Recently they decided to really screw the players with pots you can buy that guarantee 100% success for manastones into your gear.  One of the reason I quit was spending over 100mil Kinah to try and get my armor from +12 to +15 and by the time I was done with failures I was at +10.  Point is I can see most games following the same type of player screwing store models where if you dont buy this stuff you either get left behind, have a generally harder time in game or no access to content.  Xp pots are another one, rather then a reasonable leveling curve make it grindy with xp pot options in the store.  Id rather pay my $15 a month and get a reasonable leveling curve, all content, mounts in game via quests, drops or for purchase, outfits made by crafters I can purchase or make myself and anything else(ie weapon skins, armor skins, etc) obtainable through normal means. 

There are 2 main ideas behind the store models.  One, get people who wouldnt normally play because of a monthly sub to play and spend some money.  This also helps the game even if they dont spend any money in the store because they are adding to the player base and in game economy.  Second is trying to get people to not just spend money in the store but to an amount close to if not more than what a monthly sub would be($15+).   I find it hard to believe that most store models could achieve this without sticking it to the players somehow in essence forcing them to purchase via bottlenecks and cockblocking. 

[WayAbvPar]

Trying my first stab at F2P games now with POTBS. I like the freedom of it- I can play or not at my leisure, and not feel pressured to log in because I paid for the month. Haven't really explored their store much yet, so I don't know how crippling or intrusive it is.

[Ingmar]

Cryptic's development for sure, but the Rise of Isengard, IMO, would object to your claims.

In my case, the Turbine mention was for DDO. In the four or so months I played it after the switchover, I saw no real new stuff added aside from cash shop items and some extra difficulty modes for dungeons. I was in no way surprised to hear reports later on that the massive boom that DDO saw after the freemium switch almost entirely vanished after six or eight months. I was more or less fine with LOTRO's F2P, even though its store was way too pricy.

What exactly do you add to a game that's based on randomly generated content except more random content?    

Um, have you even played DDO? There's no random content in that game at all.

[Jayce]

Having never played it, I can't really answer this but: Could LOTRO be an outlier because it was originally developed under the idea of being a sub game? Some of you are pointing to it as an example of a well-done F2P game, but the F2P model was not applied to it until after initial development.

My own biggest beef with F2P has always been the gated community aspect. I'd rather be behind the gate when trying to relax. That may mean that I'm ok with the sub/free model, depending on the implementation.

[ghost]

Um, have you even played DDO? There's no random content in that game at all.

DDO has content now?

[Morfiend]

I think AoC's F2P stuff is well done, with the exception that it needs about a 75% price cut across the board. Some of the stuff was just retarded expensive.

[luckton]

I think AoC's F2P stuff is well done, with the exception that it needs about a 75% price cut across the board. Some of the stuff was just retarded expensive.

Well how else are they going to get The Secret World done? 

[Reg]

Don't be silly. They'll just stick to the grand old tradition of releasing it when they run out of development money.

[Viin]

I like the F2P models of League of Legends and World of Tanks. I don't mind spending cash on a game, but I certainly don't have time to get "my money's worth" on a sub to a MMO anymore. I'd rather spend 2 weeks playing 20+ hrs on LoL and spend $20 during that time, than pay $15 for a 30 day sub that I only have time to play for 2 weeks.

The difference between a sub and cash shops is like the difference between a magazine subscription and buying a new book - the magazine isn't that expensive, but if I don't have time to read it it's wasted money. But the book, even if I don't have time to read it now, it is an owned "asset" that will be read sometime when I've got the time.

[Threash]

If i play more than 2 hours a month i consider that my moneys worth.  Absolutely nothing whatsoever i do for entertainment beats the 15 bucks for 2 hours price point.

[Lum]

And while I don't know the financials I'd guess that the MMO games making the most money right now are:
1) WoW
2) Rift
3) Eve

You are right on 1, but 2 and 3 would be F2P titles, both in the Western market and globally. NeoPets, Maple Story, and Runescape would all be high on the list and though there's no public 2010 figures I'd be willing to bet MapleStory beat Rift (Runescape may be 3rd or 4th, it's been losing ground). If you count LoL and World of Tanks as MMOs, they'd be 3 and 5 on the list. (Rift may or may not make more revenue than WoT)

Globally, outside of WoW and Aion (which might be #5) everything is Chinese F2P titles. The Chinese market currently dwarfs everything else.