MMO Subs are a dead model - John Smedley

[UnSub]

PC gamers, as demographic, are aging and have less time but more money.

In which case sub fees are a total waste of money too. "Less time" means "less ability to extract value for my sub fee" means "it's not worth paying the sub fee for a game I barely play".

Besides, it is never about money, it's about value. I think I spent more than $15 on lunch today and got value from that; I know that I'm not going to be able to sink enough time into any MMO at this point to make it feel worth $15 a month / $180 per year.

I get the resentment around F2P asking for cash all the time, but I also resent the sub-based MMO that promises, "Updates that will thrill you next month!" and delivers three new shades of green dye to the game at that point.

Smedley's point was that SWOR is probably the last of the big pure-sub titles to launch (or at least it will be, until it announces its cash shop). And it can do, since it has to be #1 or #2 in the market to even be considered a success. If you are developing a (by comparison) pissy $30m dev budget MMO, you are pretty unlikely to be top two and thus fail to recover enough revenue each month to keep growing the game.

[sinij]

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

This cannot be right. $400/mo requires solid part-time job, and good luck with that in recession. Are you trying to tell me that parents, who on average make 45K give almost 5K of it to kids to spend? You are probably confusing money spent ON teenager with money spent BY teenager.

[Threash]

Yeah, that cannot possibly be right.  20 bucks a week of actual "here, take this money and do whatever you want with it" seems about closer to what i would expect.

[Numtini]

Having looked briefly at a google search, the figure is teens with part time jobs have 90-100 dollars of disposable income.

[Shatter]

Yeah, that cannot possibly be right.  20 bucks a week of actual "here, take this money and do whatever you want with it" seems about closer to what i would expect.

When my kids are old enough this will be "mow my dam grass" money.

[Malakili]

Yeah, that cannot possibly be right.  20 bucks a week of actual "here, take this money and do whatever you want with it" seems about closer to what i would expect.

When my kids are old enough this will be "mow my dam grass" money.

You say that now, but it might also be "For twenty bucks I can drop my kids at the mall and have a day with the wife stress free money"

[DLRiley]

Yeah, that cannot possibly be right.  20 bucks a week of actual "here, take this money and do whatever you want with it" seems about closer to what i would expect.

When my kids are old enough this will be "mow my dam grass" money.

Lolz white people, you actually pay your children to mow the lawn in front of there house where they pay no rent.

[DLRiley]

Lolz white people, you actually pay your children to mow the lawn in front of there house where they pay no rent.

No.  We pay them to not bitch about having to mow the lawn. 

You let your kids bitch about mowing the lawn.

[DLRiley]

You let your kids bitch about mowing the lawn.

Children aren't animals.  After a certain age, they become self-aware and realize that no one can control them. 

At a certain age kids of non white families with attentive parents learn the meaning of "my house", "rent", "my money" along with "get a job if you disagree"

[Mosesandstick]

This has nothing to do with MMO subs. A politics thread is a good place to argue about how you treat kids.

[Malakili]

Riley is just trolling, let him alone, he'll tire himself out.

[DLRiley]

Unsub ninja'd what I was about to respond to sinji with.

[jcthebuilder]

If free to play is so great why aren't any companies launching big titles as F2P at the start? After all, who needs $50 for the box and a couple months of subscription in your pocket when F2P will make so much more money.


It is the subscription with F2P conversion later on which is the new model.

[DLRiley]

If free to play is so great why aren't any companies launching big titles as F2P at the start? After all, who needs $50 for the box and a couple months of subscription in your pocket when F2P will make so much more money.


It is the subscription with F2P conversion later on which is the new model.

  someone else please respond to this.

[Paelos]

If free to play is so great why aren't any companies launching big titles as F2P at the start? After all, who needs $50 for the box and a couple months of subscription in your pocket when F2P will make so much more money.


It is the subscription with F2P conversion later on which is the new model.

Because it's hard to justify investment in a project that will net you an ROI over a longer portion than an up front box sale.

[Amaron]

What are the AAA F2P's that completely lack subscriptions?   I just realized I can't think of any but I'm sure there are some.

[Numtini]

If free to play is so great why aren't any companies launching big titles as F2P at the start?

Well the two best online pay to play games since EQ2 & WoW are World of Tanks and League of Legends and both are cash shop games. Neither is really an MMO, but they both have MMO-esque elements.

The big thing is everyone thinks they're going to be a blockbuster. They're going to be Star Wars. They're going to be Titanic. They're going to be WoW. They're going to be Jaws. Nobody plans on being a moderately successful but long term very lucrative middle of the road game.

But on average, I suspect if the entire industry was cash shop based, developers would overall end up with more money in their pockets.

[Malakili]

What are the AAA F2P's that completely lack subscriptions?   I just realized I can't think of any but I'm sure there are some.

League of Legends?  Are we sticking only to MMOs though? 

[sinij]

There aren't any.

F2P is "new normal" for failed mmorpgs. It used to be that you simply let subscriptions drop while not spending any money on further development. F2P model allows you to do the same, but in less obvious way.

Saying "subs are a dead model" is like saying that trying to produce A-title mmorpg is "a dead model". F2P can support Farmville/Angry Birds type of games, but not much more than that.

[DLRiley]

There aren't any.

F2P is "new normal" for failed mmorpgs. It used to be that you simply let subscriptions drop while not spending any money on further development. F2P model allows you to do the same, but in less obvious way.

Saying "subs are a dead model" is like saying that trying to produce A-title mmorpg is "a dead model". F2P can support Farmville/Angry Birds type of games, but not much more than that.

Do you get tired of being wrong?

[jcthebuilder]

But on average, I suspect if the entire industry was cash shop based, developers would overall end up with more money in their pockets.

Games make money if they are good. It isn't based on subscriptions or cash shops. Even if every game released was based on free to play model, there would still be just as many failed games.

[Ingmar]

And probably even more failed studios, as they wouldn't even have the box sales to defray costs.

[Amaron]

What are the AAA F2P's that completely lack subscriptions?   I just realized I can't think of any but I'm sure there are some.

League of Legends?  Are we sticking only to MMOs though? 

Yea I'm really talking about MMO's.   Basically the expensive ones that aren't just pumped out cheaply in mass.    Nobody has ever taken a serious MMO and turned it into a game lacking subscriptions.   

The irony is if someone made a serious "F2P" mmo I wouldn't be able to afford it and I wouldn't touch it.   F2P SWTOR?   That would cost $40 a month if I actually played it all year.   I don't want to hear some bullshit about how the stuff in the store is "optional".   These F2P games are just not fun unless you get some amount of the stuff in the shop and that's reality.  That's not including the "subscription" you have to pay for so that you aren't paying $300 to perma unlock the basic content.   That is why subs are not going to die.

[Lantyssa]

That's just not true.

Maybe the games which interest you are impossible to play without buying a ton from their shops, but I've played several where I never felt I had to purchase something.

[sinij]

Subscription design ideology is to keep most players entertained for longest possible time before they quit in boredom by designing captivating experience and through it encouraging feeling of investment/achievement. If players poorly tolerate some aspect of your design, you are expected to reduce to tolerable level or remove it.

MT design ideology is to keep most players annoyed for longest possible time before they quit in frustration by designing barely-tolerable experience to encourage MT use to get around cock blocks . Initial "honeymoon" stage of the game to get player invested is similar to subscription design ideology. If players poorly tolerate some aspect of your design you are expected to make it completely unavoidable and put workaround into cash-shop as on-going expense.


If MT model from ground-up takes off (I doubt it has a future in any 'big budget' title, because outcome is even less predictable than box+subs) I fully expect a slew of throwback 'features'  - from look-at-the-book meditation, to camping spawns, to exp. hit on death...

[Ratman_tf]

All this means is that the games I like to play are drying up. The next generation of MMOGs are all going to be low quality f2p (with advertising and microtrans) shovelware.

Bleargh.

[UnSub]

If free to play is so great why aren't any companies launching big titles as F2P at the start?

Because with F2P it is better to start smaller and build than to build a massive game world and hope players stick around.

This is the other side of sub games versus F2P games - the development cost. For a game to be "worth" a sub plus box cost, it has to have a budget in the tens of millions of dollars just to even get into the arena. A F2P can launch with a much lower development cost and then add on extra development as players go through it.

I go back to RIFT here: this was the box+sub-model game that learned the lessons of previous failures, had some great innovations but the general sentiment is that it wasn't worth spending $15 a month on because it was bland. Seriously, there's little point in spending the development budget for the box+sub model if player are going to quit not because of crippling bugs or broken systems but simply because they feel the world lacks character.

Also, PlanetSide 2 is launching F2P, correct?

But outside of SWOR and maybe some holdovers from South Korea, which MMOs are being launched in the next 12 months with box+sub models?

[Ingmar]

Secret World I assume? But I haven't been following it really, maybe it isn't.

[Stabs]

Prime: Battle for Dominus will be box + sub.

[Amaron]

Secret World I assume? But I haven't been following it really, maybe it isn't.

Nope SW is doing subs + cash shop (probably vanity items only).

Maybe the games which interest you are impossible to play without buying a ton from their shops, but I've played several where I never felt I had to purchase something.

I understand what you're saying but that wasn't really what I meant.   Perhaps this only applies to me but I don't play an F2P game like I'd play say WoW.   All these F2P games so far are like a diversion you log in to for some quick fun now and then.   A real MMO that I get engrossed in is something I spend 10~20 hours a week on.   If a game like THAT went F2P (say SWTOR) then ignoring the cash shop would make the game far far less fun.  We've also seen plenty of evidence that if people actually play for free that they'll just alter the terms and make it so you don't.

TLDR:  If this "f2p" model were ever applied to a game I highly anticipated and enjoyed it would hardly be free and in fact cost me more than subs.

[DLRiley]

Secret World I assume? But I haven't been following it really, maybe it isn't.

Nope SW is doing subs + cash shop (probably vanity items only).

Maybe the games which interest you are impossible to play without buying a ton from their shops, but I've played several where I never felt I had to purchase something.

I understand what you're saying but that wasn't really what I meant.   Perhaps this only applies to me but I don't play an F2P game like I'd play say WoW.   All these F2P games so far are like a diversion you log in to for some quick fun now and then.   A real MMO that I get engrossed in is something I spend 10~20 hours a week on.   If a game like THAT went F2P (say SWTOR) then ignoring the cash shop would make the game far far less fun.  We've also seen plenty of evidence that if people actually play for free that they'll just alter the terms and make it so you don't.

TLDR:  If this "f2p" model were ever applied to a game I highly anticipated and enjoyed it would hardly be free and in fact cost me more than subs.

 

Ok while I'm taking you seriously please give us an example of one of your highly anticipated games that will cost you 40 a month.

[Shatter]

Secret World I assume? But I haven't been following it really, maybe it isn't.

Nope SW is doing subs + cash shop (probably vanity items only).

Maybe the games which interest you are impossible to play without buying a ton from their shops, but I've played several where I never felt I had to purchase something.

I understand what you're saying but that wasn't really what I meant.   Perhaps this only applies to me but I don't play an F2P game like I'd play say WoW.   All these F2P games so far are like a diversion you log in to for some quick fun now and then.   A real MMO that I get engrossed in is something I spend 10~20 hours a week on.   If a game like THAT went F2P (say SWTOR) then ignoring the cash shop would make the game far far less fun.  We've also seen plenty of evidence that if people actually play for free that they'll just alter the terms and make it so you don't.

TLDR:  If this "f2p" model were ever applied to a game I highly anticipated and enjoyed it would hardly be free and in fact cost me more than subs.

 

Ok while I'm taking you seriously please give us an example of one of your highly anticipated games that will cost you 40 a month.

www.worldofwarcraft2.com  Am i right?

[sinij]

Here is another point to consider - how MT games ever going to support competitive PvP or Raiding? Pay 2 Win not going to fly with ether of these crowds.

[Mrbloodworth]

Not all MT games are P2Win. I was like you once. Then I actually played some F2P games.

[sinij]

Not all MT games are P2Win.

You are asking a corporate suit to say no to money. Sure, developers will oppose it but they will have little to no say in the matter. Suits will boil consumer like a frog, it is only matter of time before P2Win is the norm for MT. Just like cable TV, where it started "commercial free" then when it displaced over-air broadcasting they brought in even more commercials. Now you have to PAY for cable and WATCH ads.