Yes, that's a good observation, I think you might be right.
Like I said: I don't know that much bout data and number when it comes to MMO's, I just listed what I was seeing.

So if this is true, this would not mean wow is in decline, but whenever other games pop up, people leave WoW to play the other game, but 'always' return to WoW at some point in time.
It would mean in fact, the opposite of what I had assumed:the playerbase of WoW is stable and has been for the last years.
Am I understanding this correctly?

Yes, makes perfect sense.
I always laughed when I read about some new mmo that would be the 'wowkiller', I mean the mere reason for using that word already indirectly confirms the topdog status of WoW in that genre.
Do you have any thoughts about IF it would be possible to beat WoW (considering the huge amount of content cos of its long existence) and what it would take?

Maybe the sheer amount of content that WoW has, makes other mmo's come up with the sandbox 'no rules'thing, you know, they pitch their ideas with: 'players make their own story'.

I wasnt argueing or making a point, I just gave a description of what I thought I seen, and your answer actually convinced me there's a lot to say for your pov, therefor I just learned something new.
This is why I don't care for arguments, but its always good to discuss and exchange ideas so we all can learn a thing or two.
If im not willing to change my pov or opinion about something, I shouldnt enter a discussion.

WoW is certainly declining, but right now it is still strong. For a long time what you said has been true, which was the waxing and waning of the "wow killers"; they all grew for a moment, then died when people went back to WoW. Now, WoW is getting old, so a lot of its players are finally "free" from the game, and that has, in my opinion, partially lead to the success of FF14.

There is no difference between an "argument" and a "discussion". I think we're fundamentally on the same side, I just approach these things from a very serious, technical angle while you use a more conversational form. Both are acceptable. Sorry if it makes me feel a bit heavy handed, I am definitely open to changing my mind and have done so plenty of times. ^^

Ah, kind sir, it appears you may have accidentally exaggerated a number of my points. It's no surprise the straw man that resulted is no longer standing.

I'm wasn't saying subs never work, or that games prior to the rise of F2P were unable to make them work, or saying that subs models now are automatically unviable (although they are increasingly uncommon amongst live MMOs). Neither did I claim that all devs pocket all subs as profit and invest nothing in new content, which would be self-evidently false.

So with that out of the way...

What I did say was that there would always be a temptation to draw healthy profits from a stable income stream, and although the subs model does also make it easier for developers to plan ahead for earmarking investment in new content, it's not a guarantee that this automatically translates into better content delivery for the players.

The subs model was (and almost certainly still is) favoured by developers for a number of reasons, but the strongest of which relates to profitability. You can track back to the payment model thread here by Miguel Caron, where he made exactly this point speaking as a developer. It is much, much easier to make steady money from subs than microtransactions.

However, subs are no longer the dominant payment model in the MMO world. In effect, the subs model creates a walled garden of content and demands money up front for players to have the right to walk in the garden, irrespective of how much time they spend in it. But once inside, everything in the garden is free.

Nothing wrong with the principle, but this has some deep flaws from a player perspective. For starters, it tends to favour those spending large amounts of time over those spending smaller amounts of time, as the value for money balance is very different between the two groups. For all the mild sniping about "casuals" in the MMO player base, they outnumber the "heavyweight" players by a large margin and tend to strongly dislike subs models. There is also a justifiable suspicion that subs are a more expensive way for the majority of subbed players to access existing content and receive new content compared to F2P models.

In contrast, F2P grants a direct benefit to both heavyweights and casuals by offering a zero access cost, but this has a demonstrably stronger appeal to the casual or switching player bases because of the value for money imbalance. It also brings its own selection of risks and unintended consequences, of which P2W is the most widely despised and one that many devs actively try to avoid.

It also tends to rebalance payment in favour of a much smaller number of whales subsidising large chunks of the player base; great for players on the one hand, as the majority of players will usually be paying quite a bit less than a subs model for the same access to content. But it also creates a perverse incentive for devs to cater more heavily to the needs of this influential minority, many of whom are more open minded about P2W as they stand to benefit the most. F2P also introduces the risk of devs constantly pumping new shiny premium items into the world to keep the microtransactions flowing, segregation of the playerbase when expansions are options, and potentially grindfesting or gimping core mechanics to push players into paying regularly just to play the game without pain, with no cap on payment as offered by a subs model. That last model in particular tends to earn the ire of heavyweights, rather understandably.

Neither approach is perfect. Both can be done well and done badly.

However, more recent MMOs tend to launch as F2P, or launch with a subs model and end up with the inevitable kludge down the line to rework it to F2P, even if the subscription option continues to exist in some form (because no-one likes to kill the goose laying the golden eggs). SWTOR and TESO are both fairly recent high profile examples, but by no means alone. I can't think of any live MMOs that have switched from a F2P to a subs model.

Did the subs model cause the problems that SWTOR and TESO ran into as games? No. But it's notable that part of the solution to revitalise MMOs is often to drop the subs requirement. However you care to cut it, more players overall will engage with a F2P MMO than a subs one - I would be stunned if this is in dispute.

Whether it's conscious preference by players for the F2P model or simply economics driving player behaviour is an interesting question. However, the net effect is that, in general, only...

1. "Higher quality" MMOs (no clear definition applies)
2. MMOs in a unique space (including WoW ultra-long-term player base)
3. MMOs new enough to use hype and novelty to temporarily defy gravity

...have been able to thrive with a pure subs model in the face of direct F2P competitors with a decent competing MMO to offer. Many have either died or joined the F2P model themselves. This is the same economic logic at play in other markets where free access or other disruptive price models tend to savage incumbent companies.

Given that devs would prefer a subs model given a choice, the decisions being made to increase focus on F2P suggests the subs model is becoming less workable or increasingly unreliable for developers to rely on as an MMO payment mechanic in most cases, and it's players that have been pushing that shift through their choices in what to invest their time and money into. Whether we individually like it or not, and whatever the reasons for it, F2P is clearly preferred by a majority of players. There will always be places and situations where subscriptions work well, but personally I can't see subs rising from the ashes and unseating F2P and it's variants to become the dominant payment model again.

As for profitability, we can argue over whether me saying MMOs were phenomenally profitable (especially in the subs era) is the right term or not in your view, but let me take an example of the failed first launch of Final Fantasy XIV. When Square Enix decided to drop the launch and rebuild the game from the horrible mess it was into the very successful MMO it is now, they cut income projections for the company by 90% for that year. Square Enix isn't a tinpot company, and even granting that the costs of MMO development and maintenance are pretty eye-watering, for an MMO to be expected to make 90% of a developer and publisher's income gives some idea of the scale of money changing hands. Irrespective of what WoW's position may be, it would be hard to argue it isn't a highly profitable sector to be involved in.

If there was no money in it, we wouldn't have seen the explosion of so many new MMOs being scoped and developed over the past, say, 10 years. Of course, the explosion of competition that happened likely contributed to many MMOs being less profitable than they were when the funders first got excited about the profit forecasts. And developers often underestimated just how resilient WoW is, and how difficult it is to make an MMO that really works long-term and isn't threatened by the next new MMO release in the same genre. And individual companies had wildly different experiences.

But such is life.

Stopped reading one paragraph after this, after confirming that your claim that I strawman you is basically a strawman of my arguments. You quite clearly said that no major MMO, except ONE, has been able to maintain subscriptions for a long time. (I admittedly substituted "forever" for "long" as obviously "forever" is a point we will never arrive at!) Yet you call it a strawman when I claim you say exactly that, okay then.

You then proceed to say you never said that "all devs pocket all subs as profit", something I never claimed you said either. You may have noticed a "mostly" in my post, referring directly to where you in your post said "a large chunk". Again, no strawman.

You may have mistaken the term "strawman" for "not the exact same words I used, to the letter". Exaggerating an argument someone made is not (automatically) a strawman either, never heard of hyperbole as a rhetoric device? (Disclaimer: the fact that I chose to comment on this particular misconception you seem to have is not an admission of exaggeration on my part in this specific instance.)

Not up to me to know what you wanted to say, I just look at what you said.

I resent your allegations, and suggest you practice what you preach. Insulting your debate partners with objectively false claims that amount to the thing you are accusing them of has got to be just about the poorest way I've seen someone open a post this year.

Not being interested in the grammar-semantical defence of aforementioned insult that is sure to follow, I withdraw from the discussion.

Apologies for offending you. I promise there was no intention of insulting you, and your anger that my refutation felt like a strawman/hyperbole/major exaggeration of your points may at least help you empathise with why I felt compelled to respond to what felt in places like a strawman/hyperbole/major exaggeration of mine.

My original post was certainly not faultless, and any comment with "pretty much no" and "forever" in it invited confusion, misinterpretation and me looking like an idiot - indeed, my response was an attempt to better explain the reasoning behind what I was saying and expand it to cover the exceptions that you rightly pointed out made the thrust of my argument appear nonsensical.

In an additional layer of irony, this was the part of my post that you skipped. D'oh.

To complete the circle, I've now responded to a post you've indicated will be your last, even if only to assure you there is no bad blood here from me, and I certainly did not want to drive you from the discussion. Of course, you may not read it out of principle, as its from me.

Ah well. We can bury the hatchet once we're in the game...in each other, if necessary.

Wow, if you stop reading a post like Khantrics, I wonder what you do in the rest of the Forum/Internet. There are so many shitposts out there... and you STOP reading this one?
...
I personally would fear feeling pretty stupid answering to a post I haven't fully read. If the post was really unworthy of my time, then I would not even answer at all. Hm.


To come back to the orginial topic of the thread: If you play a game in alpha, it seems weird to then comlain that you would have had more fun if you would have just played it at release. It seems to me that is your fault.

Except if games aren't really in Alpha/beta, but really already launched and just say Alpha so that they can sell lower quality to you, and you are "forced" to play them then, because of all the reasons you want to play those games at launch.

Still, most posts I saw here were about Storydriven games, or multiplayer games that got reset at launch. And then I would still say: Your own fault.

It offended me, so I stopped reading. If any other "shitpost" offends me I wont read them either, why should I expose myself to things that will not benefit my mood during my free time? Why should I read any post that starts out by insulting me on unsound grounds? Are you saying you personally bother reading every shitpost on the internet? Sounds like a waste of time if you do, but I won't insult you just because you handle shitposts on the internet in a different way than I do.

I fully read the part I replied to, and Khantrics made it clear the rest of his post was seperate from that issue. "With that out of the way...". I never said it was unworthy of my time either, I said it offended me. I'd feel pretty stupid if I got the two confused, personally, but hey. Hm. -> Do you see how obnoxious this kind of post is? I hope you do.

Also seems incredibly rude to just walk away without at least notifying the person who obviously spent a lot of time on his replies. Just because he upset me doesn't mean I disrespect him. Maybe you should consider decent motives like that before you insult my intellect? Ad hominem are way too popular these days.

I didn't mean to insult you, I just really don't understand you. I realize that the "I would feel pretty stupid" part seems like a Insult, I have thought about that when I wrote it, but I honestly meant it. I personally would feel stupid. I would also feel stupid asking someone on ebay for other offers. But thats just me.

I used unworthy of my time to include offending. So no, I didn't confuse them, I categorized one of them in the other.^^ I felt it was a good Idea, because I didn't only talk about posts that offended you, I talked about shitposts in general.

But, in the end it was a honest question. If I personally didn't want to read all of a post, either because it offended me, or because of its low quality, I wouldn't respond to it at all. The "hm" was there to show that I really did think about the question, and didn't just post it to insult you. I should have probably put a stronger emphasis on that.

Also, thanks for your answer, I think I now understand you better. It's not the approach I would take, but I understand it better now. On a side note I feel it is more disrespectfull to only read a part of a post, comment on that and not read the rest, it seems we have different opinions here.

I agree that "ad hominem" attacks are way to popular nowadays. I am interested in better discussing things.
And what annoys me even more than personal attacks, are... low quality posts. Posts that are so stupid that you can't even begin to discuss anything because basic facts are wrong. Or posts that put no effort into them.
So I am always surprised if 2 people that seem to argue on a high level (for the internet) refuse to engage in conversation.

I also can see, that my own post is pretty low quality and could easily be seen as an Insult. I should have wrote out all of this in the first place. Sorry.

Also, if this was just a normal shitpostingfest between two people, I wouldn't have cared. The point that suprised me, was that both of you argued on a above average level. That always sparks my interest. I hope you can see that I don't want to insult your intellect, I respect it. Thats why I bothered to post in the first place.

The last game I put money into before I got a product was Warhammer age or reckoning.... after the shit they pulled to launch title the game, with out all the classes, I will never buy into faith that a company will do things right.

Much to my sadness, as Tau is my hope a dream they will not be seen in ET for some time, as such my money will most likely stay in my wallet.... tell I see what I want then ill buy it, no more buying just cause it may have neat stuff. I can live with out the "fancy pants" Limited edition preorder BS anything just give me what I want and ill give you my money.