MMO Subs are a dead model - John Smedley

[Kageru]

Then you have a constant connection required for when you are using finalizing the shop purchase (if that's actually the issue). Nobody is going to complain about that. They care about their game-play being suddenly killed when their internet hiccups.

Though I would have thought reliable and secure online transactions of that sort was pretty much a mature technology at this point. Or does spotty internet disallow you from using e-bay as well?

[tgr]

The always-on requirement isn't solely a piracy deterrent.  More importantly it's to keep the cash shop free of dupes and hacks.

Single-player is important to tie into multiplayer.

[sinij]

Smedley trying to justify pushing crappier games with more obnoxious pay model. People like Free, but people don't like MT and DLC.  MT pretty much guarantees that your game won't be taken seriously, at least in mmorpg scene.

[Hayduke]

Then you have a constant connection required for when you are using finalizing the shop purchase (if that's actually the issue). Nobody is going to complain about that. They care about their game-play being suddenly killed when their internet hiccups.

Though I would have thought reliable and secure online transactions of that sort was pretty much a mature technology at this point. Or does spotty internet disallow you from using e-bay as well?

I'm not sure how that would help.  With an offline mode it would be easier to create items and then list them on the auction house.  It'd make a RMT auction house very ineffective.

[Amaron]

If Smedley thinks subs are dead then he can prove it by removing the sub option from all his games.   The whole argument is nonsense.   AoC, Champo, CoH, EQ2, DDO, LOTRO etc.  These games are all still essentially subscription games that wanted to enjoy subs + cash shop.   They sell $40 worth of hats and bag slots to the game hoppers and everyone else gets to pay 20~30 bucks a month if they really like it.

[Tyrnan]

So did I. Apparently for 837 days since CoH helpfully mentions when you last logged into a character. Hard drive space is cheap, my windows partition is just for games and I always meant to come back to it. Though in practice the patcher didn't seem too happy when I tried to use it :)

Hmm, if it's been that long is it safe to assume you're patching it directly rather than using the NCSoft Launcher (http://us.ncsoft.com/en/launcher/ncsoft-launcher.html)? The launcher seems to be much more reliable and will even trickle download new patches if you have it running in the background.

[K9]

[Kageru]

Hmm, if it's been that long is it safe to assume you're patching it directly rather than using the NCSoft Launcher (http://us.ncsoft.com/en/launcher/ncsoft-launcher.html)? The launcher seems to be much more reliable and will even trickle download new patches if you have it running in the background.

I let steam download it since that's all mirrored by my ISP and I bought the expansion on steam. Steam launches the NCsoft launcher when you play, though now I use a direct link to it. Which also means according to steam I've played only a couple of minutes of going rogue.

Now is a great time to not be subscribed to CoH though. 8.5 hour patch last night, 4.5 patch tonight... I'm thinking they're prepping for a possible surge when they announce freedom is open. Which is a lot more clever than crimecraft was (who just sent me an apology e-mail for their f2p promotion on steam being primarily people staring at a full server).

[Tyrnan]

Yeah tell me about it, I'm in Ireland so have lost a lot of playtime with all the downtimes recently. But I understand the need to have stable servers when they (hopefully) get the surge of new people when it goes live. I still wouldn't mind if they threw us all a few hundred paragon points to take the sting out of it though 

[Threash]

Yeah tell me about it, I'm in Ireland so have lost a lot of playtime with all the downtimes recently. But I understand the need to have stable servers when they (hopefully) get the surge of new people when it goes live. I still wouldn't mind if they threw us all a few hundred paragon points to take the sting out of it though 

[Tyrnan]

That's how you know if things are really bad over here - when people stop drinking it's time to panic 

[TripleDES]

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

TF2 has production values. Most MMOs don't.

[caladein]

Smedley trying to justify pushing crappier games with more obnoxious pay model. People like Free, but people don't like MT and DLC.  MT pretty much guarantees that your game won't be taken seriously, at least in mmorpg scene.

Being "taken seriously" by neckbeards like us is pretty irrelevant to being able to make huge moneyhats, either in the West or more likely somewhere else.

[sinij]

Smedley trying to justify pushing crappier games with more obnoxious pay model. People like Free, but people don't like MT and DLC.  MT pretty much guarantees that your game won't be taken seriously, at least in mmorpg scene.

Being "taken seriously" by neckbeards like us is pretty irrelevant to being able to make huge moneyhats, either in the West or more likely somewhere else.

I disagree. If you want to go "mainstream" you should go console or smartphone. F2P MT for PC mmorpg market is like trying to sell boxed wine to a connoisseur, wrong audience all around. Smedley wishing SOE was Zynga but failing to recognize what make it work.

[eldaec]

I agree entirely, but the logical extension of that argument is games that charge $16 or more per month. Which for some reason is still considered an offence against god.

[Azazel]

Hm. I guess the upshot of all this is that I should stop thinking of Diablo 3 as like Titan Quest, or Torchlight, or, erm, Diablo 1 and 2.

I should think of it as like Guild Wars instead. Or LotRO.

[DLRiley]

Smedley trying to justify pushing crappier games with more obnoxious pay model. People like Free, but people don't like MT and DLC.  MT pretty much guarantees that your game won't be taken seriously, at least in mmorpg scene.

Being "taken seriously" by neckbeards like us is pretty irrelevant to being able to make huge moneyhats, either in the West or more likely somewhere else.

I disagree. If you want to go "mainstream" you should go console or smartphone. F2P MT for PC mmorpg market is like trying to sell boxed wine to a connoisseur, wrong audience all around. Smedley wishing SOE was Zynga but failing to recognize what make it work.

Lolz, this is not 1999 PC gaming isn't niche anymore, steam proved that much. The era of shockwave.com, newgrounds, warcraft 3 mods has raised just as many kids on pc gaming as the sims or age of empires. Even till this day 13 year olds first mmo experience more often than not with runescape, of all games, as oppose or along with whatever is sub game is hot today. And even less kids play sub games today, choosing f2p games that allow MT through prepaid cards purchased at your local target. That's not even counting the veteran pc gamers who prefer indieware like League of Legends or Magicka.

Its like 2 pages of this thread is dedicated to neckbeards with their monocles saying "My word, I'd never pay for a in game xp potion. I'd rather drink piss with vinegar thank you." When I'm going to be honest, the type of audience that siniji is talking about plays EvE or Darkfall and there "standards" are low (hence playing EvE or Darkfall). Its not that F2P MT games are crappy, which they often are, its the fact that F2P seems to ruin the notion of a gentlemen's club, because a long time ago mmo's were considered gated communities. Good thing EvE wanted you to spend 10 bucks on a barely pixalted monocle no one will see.

[Lantyssa]

Scary when DL makes enough sense to understand...

He's right though.  Most of us here are old gamers.  We go with subs because that's all we've ever known.  The generations of gamers after us though only know f2p.  Selling a full-priced sub to them is a lot harder.  A sub-only model limits your base to those older, dedicated, and niche gamers.

[Tmon]

I've been playing these games since UO and I don't want to mess with subs either.  I like the flexibility of micro transactions.  I travel a lot and like that I can buy premium time in WoT to fit my schedule and not some arbitrary billing period.  I also like being able to pay a few cents for conveniences like moving equipment between tanks and being able to convert experience when I want to skip over a vehicle.  So far I've spent less than I would have if I'd been paying a $15 a month sub.  Guild Wars is even cheaper, since I've only ever bought the various boxes.  I skipped Rift because I didn't want to pay a monthly sub and will skip the Star Wars game for the same reason.

[Nyght]

Well, despite what some of you think, there are reasons this old fart likes the subscription model. And it is because, I want to be immersed in the game world, not play shopping online.

After a round of LotRO this summer in a guild filled with newblers who had come with FtP, I got really weary of the constant 'do I need quest pak x to play this area?' and 'how many TP will it cost me for x?'.

I want to be in Middle Earth dammit, not the Middle Earth Online Mall (We're have a Sale!).

Also: get off my lawn.

[Malakili]

Well, despite what some of you think, there are reasons this old fart likes the subscription model. And it is because, I want to be immersed in the game world, not play shopping online.

After a round of LotRO this summer in a guild filled with newblers who had come with FtP, I got really weary of the constant 'do I need quest pak x to play this area?' and 'how many TP will it cost me for x?'.

I want to be in Middle Earth dammit, not the Middle Earth Online Mall (We're have a Sale!).

Also: get off my lawn.

 

[Kageru]

I don't mind a subscription model if it is a game I am going to be playing regularly. I don't mind a MT model if it's something I might pick up and play every so often (like Tanks, GA or CoH). I accept a big budget game with lots of content is going to need to consider subscriptions, a light-weight game (like Tanks) had better not.

There's no one right answer. Though there are many wrong answers. Like APB believing it deserved a subscription.

[sinij]

Most of us here are old gamers.  

We are also rich gamers, at least when compared to 13-olds F2P audience. There is absolutely no reason why we couldn't drop 50$/mo on mmorpg subscription, most pay more for TV they barely watch. You also have to deliver more for 50$, you can't simply charge more for the same-old.

I said this countless times, but its worth repeating - mmorpg industry got it all wrong. PC gamers, as demographic, are aging and have less time but more money. We expect higher quality product that doesn't waste our time (i.e. grind)! Just like cars, while our first car might have been beat-up rusty Civic, given choice we sure are not going to buy one right now. Problem is that 'manufacturers' in mmorpg market trying to out-cheap each other in pushing shittier, rustier versions of Civics.

WHERE THE FUCK IS OUR PREMIUM PRODUCT?!

[Ard]

Hi, as a old PC gamer with a reasonable income, if you come to me with a $50 subscription price, I'm going to tell you to go get fucked, and then go buy something for $2 on steam.

[tgr]

If it had been a sandboxy game with proper realistic(ish) car physics, tons of real world gepgraphy, various racy things you could do etc, I would pay $50/mo for that.

[eldaec]

Well, despite what some of you think, there are reasons this old fart likes the subscription model. And it is because, I want to be immersed in the game world, not play shopping online.

After a round of LotRO this summer in a guild filled with newblers who had come with FtP, I got really weary of the constant 'do I need quest pak x to play this area?' and 'how many TP will it cost me for x?'.

I want to be in Middle Earth dammit, not the Middle Earth Online Mall (We're have a Sale!).

Also: get off my lawn.

A lot of the problem here is F2P levered into a game designed for subs.

Pen and paper D&D is fundamentally F2P RMT, only with source books instead of pixels.

MtG is the ultimate F2P RMT game, and again the payment model fits the game design, as a result happy gamers and >$15per player-month income for publishers.


MtG is exactly the game F2P producers should be studying. Limited game formats avoid the pay to win problem entirely, while also driving sales. Built in obselence through format rotation that both allows gradual balancing, helps new players compete and also drives sales. Even other TCGs have failed to achieve this to any real extent.

[Merusk]

WHERE THE FUCK IS OUR PREMIUM PRODUCT?!

Despite being richer, the thought is that those 13 year olds have much more disposable income.  They're also prone to poor impulse control so they'll do stupid shit like pay $25 for a magic sparkle pony that they'll be bored of within 2 weeks.

Older gamers are - supposedly - less prone to such bullshit and will think before making purchases.  There has to be a much greater added value for them to drop as much and even then they won't do it in the same numbers as those teens.  Why? Because that $25 was the cash for Bobby's lunch & field trip this week or the haircut you'd been putting off or even just a few drinks after work on Friday. 

Plus, why bother when what you're doing will net both enough teens and adults with less time and effort than those paying such a price would demand.  The people paying $15 a month are demanding enough pricks as it is, do you think anyone wants to deal with the kind of asshole $50 or more a month would bring?

[Shatter]

WHERE THE FUCK IS OUR PREMIUM PRODUCT?!

Despite being richer, the thought is that those 13 year olds have much more disposable income.  They're also prone to poor impulse control so they'll do stupid shit like pay $25 for a magic sparkle pony that they'll be bored of within 2 weeks.

Older gamers are - supposedly - less prone to such bullshit and will think before making purchases.  There has to be a much greater added value for them to drop as much and even then they won't do it in the same numbers as those teens.  Why? Because that $25 was the cash for Bobby's lunch & field trip this week or the haircut you'd been putting off or even just a few drinks after work on Friday. 

Plus, why bother when what you're doing will net both enough teens and adults with less time and effort than those paying such a price would demand.  The people paying $15 a month are demanding enough pricks as it is, do you think anyone wants to deal with the kind of asshole $50 or more a month would bring?

Im 38 and a pick pony sounds kind cool

[sinij]

The people paying $15 a month are demanding enough pricks as it is, do you think anyone wants to deal with the kind of asshole $50 or more a month would bring?

50$ is not a lot of money, you'd spend about as much on movies or a dinner for two. You spend about that much on data plan for your smart phone to check your facebook while in traffic or HD channels for your TV.

Why are they pushing for shittier F2P games then try to scam their way to profit when it is clear that consumer would not pay for a game where 'fun' has to be 'worked for' ? Wouldn't it make more sense to make a better game, that doesn't force you to grind, that doesn't waste your time but simply lets you have fun?

For example WoW, industry's "golden" standard is choke-full of cock-blocks and only marginally less annoying than its predecessor. You still have to grind, you still have to re-run content many, many times over, you still can't play with your friends and get anywhere because game has punishing lockout system and you still can't just pick up a set of PvP gear and have some mindless fun in BGs or Arenas. All of this makes a time-constrained consumer interested in this type of game (DIKU) unable to play.

[Kageru]

WoW's rate of content is not being limited by a shortage of cash, they're just putting the cash into profit or their next game. so I'm not sure paying 50$ a month would get you more. And the drop in subscribers would almost surely cancel that out.

I'm not sure why there's an argument here. There's no one correct payment model, or amount, it's just a by-product of what sort of game it is, how much they plan to invest into content development (and their user-base demands) and what the market will tolerate. At the moment there's a reasonable suspicion that there are a lot of players who aren't interested in even a 15$ sub but who will play and may be induced to make one-time purchases if you can present a compelling sense of value. If you can harvest that and balance the loss of subscription revenue (whether from having zero subs or some subscribers going f2p) you would.

[Malakili]

Despite being richer, the thought is that those 13 year olds have much more disposable income. 

I dunno about you but when I was 13 I got maybe 1-2 new games a year, mainly for birthday + christmas (for me).  Maybe tack on a few games for the nintendo that was more a family entertainment thing than just mine.  I guess its more common for younger kids to be given a credit card these days, or at least relatively free access to their parent's?  I'm not making a "kids these days" argument here, I'm just really wondering if 13 year olds have all that much disposable income as a whole, especially when it requires a credit card.  This isn't just begging your dad for the $20 in his wallet, its asking to put his CC info online.

[Amaron]

These F2P games are still sub games.   DDO made a bunch of cash then Turbine quickly realized people were actually playing for free and made sure not to make that mistake with LOTRO.  Now everyone is falling all over themselves to copy this "F2P" model that's really just a sneaky subs+cash shop setup.

Smedly is arguing subs are dead because he's salivating at the thought of getting you to subscribe and pay $20 bucks for some textures as well.

[Merusk]

Despite being richer, the thought is that those 13 year olds have much more disposable income. 

I dunno about you but when I was 13 I got maybe 1-2 new games a year, mainly for birthday + christmas (for me).  Maybe tack on a few games for the nintendo that was more a family entertainment thing than just mine.  I guess its more common for younger kids to be given a credit card these days, or at least relatively free access to their parent's?  I'm not making a "kids these days" argument here, I'm just really wondering if 13 year olds have all that much disposable income as a whole, especially when it requires a credit card.  This isn't just begging your dad for the $20 in his wallet, its asking to put his CC info online.

My siblings and I got more than that, but we got more but nowhere near as many as my kids do now and my parents made more.  Different times.  My kids get 2-3 new games per birthday/ Christmas each.  That doesn't count the ones I might pick up throughout the year that I want to play.

13 might be a little young, but teens in general have between $90 and $106 per week that is all disposable.  That was just a quick Google and a result from '08 but this has been discussed here before.  Why do you think so much is aimed at that demographic and so little aimed at people in their prime earning years?  Because business people are stupid and "just don't get it,"  aka the way Sinij seems to think?  They wouldn't be in business very long.  No, it's because they and single males in their mid 20s are the ones seen as major consumers.  You think those Proactiv commercials are aimed at parents?

And yes, responsible parents expose their kids to credit and banking early and there's tools to do so that mean they're not able to OD but have a credit-type card all their own to enter on sites. Teen bank accounts w/ debit cards, prepaid cards controlled by parents and (for those willing to risk it/ able to afford) some parents give actual cards to their teens for which they cosign.   

[Fordel]

I dunno about you but when I was 13 I got maybe 1-2 new games a year, mainly for birthday + christmas (for me).  Maybe tack on a few games for the nintendo that was more a family entertainment thing than just mine.  I guess its more common for younger kids to be given a credit card these days, or at least relatively free access to their parent's?  I'm not making a "kids these days" argument here, I'm just really wondering if 13 year olds have all that much disposable income as a whole, especially when it requires a credit card.  This isn't just begging your dad for the $20 in his wallet, its asking to put his CC info online.

I've had unrestricted access to my Fathers CC info since I was about 12 (I might have been even younger, I don't really remember). I first used it to pay for my one time fee for Kali so I could play Mechwarrior 2 online. Meeemorrrieees! This was partnered with my unrestricted and unsupervised access to the internet at the same age.


How terrified does that make you Mom's and Dad's? 

[Malakili]

13 might be a little young, but teens in general have between $90 and $106 per week that is all disposable.

Yeah, maybe I'm hung up on the 13 number.  After I was a bit older and started working (especially in the summers) I had more money to spend, but at 13 I had no income but what my parents gave me, and even though I come from a pretty well off family, they did not give me too much money in my early teens (I guess to teach me to to think about what I wanted to buy instead of being impulsive, I had to save for pretty much anything that wasn't a few bucks).  I guess that worked though, I'm pretty good about not impulse buying things as a result.

Edit:  To get back on topic, assuming that number is accurate, then yes, I can see why F2P can work with a younger target audience.  Meanwhile, conservative (with my money) folks like myself who think a subscription is nice way to get a good bang for my buck are probably not going to make as much sense as a target audience.