http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-05-10-danny-bilson-inside-the-rise-and-fall-of-thq and old interwiev: So we can considerate that when a game is released with P2P the developer also have in mind other paiment option.
There are several subscription MMOs coming out. Pathfinder and Wildstar are other examples. Subscriptions have been around since the beginning of the genre and they're not going away.
If Wildstar and Elder Scrolls Online ditch their sub system for a F2P system after their respective launches I believe the subscription model will die. It will be very interesting to see how it goes for them. One of the biggest and most costly MMO's (SWTOR) had to go F2P as well. Obviously if these MMO's keep having to go F2P because their subscription models are not profitable then future MMO's will see the pattern and F2P/B2P will become standard, especially with big titles like GW2 and Everquest:Next not having subs.
To understand me: I'm not a real MMRPG player, but I am an OLD gamer at hearth. Taking that in consideration: I like the B2WAAGH system + EXPANSIONS. NO DLC or CONTENT microtransactions. I can tolerate microtransations if they are just VISUAL and don't affect the gameplay and even accept them if there is a way to obtain them by playing. The reasoning for this is that micros are our way to "pay more" in gratitude for a good game. And the payment for the game itself is on the retail price and expansions.
Since when does forbes have any credibility when it comes to gaming? I mean where to start with their ridiculous articles... the $200M budget is an incorrect and already discredited rumour... he called 'MMO' a genera, MMO is a prefix to a genera not a genera itself, RPG is a genera, FPS s a genera... MMO is a description of Size and Accessibility, so with this alone it shows that Paul Tassi 1) accepts non-fact as a basis to launch off, and 2) knows nothing about gaming, he also makes the comparison to SWTOR, suggesting that a if a Movie fan base cannot keep a game going then how can a game base keep a game going... do I need to point out how ridiculous that comparison is? That a game might be in the same trouble from a gamer player base (the same medium), that a game would have from a movie player base (a different medium), not to mention SWTOR had a very poor endgame and thats the main reason people dropped off, where as ESO will have half the game structured around the end game. The guy just seems to know very little about the subject matter and I'd not consider him knowing anything about what he is talking when it comes to gaming.. Both Forbes and MMORPG.com give me the shits, but at least MMORPG knows the industry. Will sub games die off? I doubt it... Will P2P die off? even more unlikely...
I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on this. I only play MMO's with pvp and pvp is what keeps me playing, not the 'endgame' raids. We have plenty of game that are pve only or pve focused so seeing more pvp focused games is nice. It's not like anyone is forcing you to do pvp however. As far as ESO goes hopefully they don't fuck up the best thing about TES games and that is the exploration, so you can always do that. However, from a lore stand point i agree with you the alliances are awful. PS: I do not have high hopes for ESO, the more i hear about it the more i dislike it already.
I prefer the P2P model as well, for a lot of different reasons. However I do think P2P could be done better, and I like to use the Lineage 2 model as an example. I won't say it was perfect, but for the first 3 or 4 years of it's existence, L2 released new content about every 6 months. Usually it was a huge amount of content as well. They did eventually go free to play, and of course stopped the frequent updates, but the point being they made paying for the game worth while in that you never had to go looking for stuff to do. Now I am only touting the subscription model here. I know it was a huge eye bleeding grind fest (literally could take weeks to get a level in later levels) there was very little questing, and open world PvP with legions of gankers. So I am not saying the game play alone was worth the subscription (even though I paid for it for many years) but the subscription I always felt was worth it due to the new content all the time. As I said before it keep a lot of trouble causers out of your hair as well. Back then, p2p was the only model so it didn't work as well, but now with all the F2P garbage out there, it works a lot better. Having said ALL that, I feel that the subscription model EC has chosen look very promising. People can test drive the game, see what it is all about and if they choose jump in knowing what they are getting. Very good system imo. Plus you only really have to watch one part of one faction to catch the majority of spam bots, cheaters etc. I know cheaters will be anywhere, but again people are more willing to risk a free account over something they pay for. Given a choice. I am very interested in this model. B2P, P2P, F2P, none of them will ever die, or go away. They will just be more or less relevant depending on the game. Very well made and appealing game can most likely support the P2P model, other games will shake out somewhere else, but I doubt any system will go the way of the dinosaur any time soon.
here another article about p2p vs f2p and DLC: december 2013 digital sale: http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=a2b9207999131347c9c0c44ce&id=f1b8fb8081&e=56010f2224 http://www.superdataresearch.com/blog/us-digital-games-market/ i think must be bigger:
this one is also interesting (only usa not global) sub: -21% free to play (with also hibrid game with other payment method like wow) +45% steam winter sale= money with dlc. people hate dlc but love -75% dlc.
