This! I fully support this..now im not sure how well this would fit into their game engine and the Pikko server. To be able to load different textures and models into a game where there will be 500 players in a battlefield. LOL This is the will of the emperor and he protects and stuff. So do right by the emperor bE jk jk.. bu this would be cool.
I won't do subscription games, unless they are relatively cheap. I quit Elder Scrolls after the first free month was up.
1. It's not simply a yes or no answer. If the game is good? Yes. If it sucks? No. I'd give those same answers for any type of revenue model, though. A game has to be solid to succeed. There are tons of F2P-type games that don't do well (Defiance - B2P/no subscription), just like there tons of subscription games that are just sort of hanging in there (Fallen Earth - changed to F2P after 2 years, had a population spike, now pretty dead again). 2. The only way to create revenue from F2P players is to hope the F2P account experience allows for enough fun, but not too much. Inconvenience and/or gated content is what will make people want to purchase micro stuff and/or buy the game. We don't know the limitations, yet. DB storage on inactive accounts is a loss if you have to expand the database for new players coming in, but still plan on holding the inactive characters. DB storage, writing to the character, log files, and the like is a loss for F2P accounts, but correct... It is also potential (your marketing/promotion post) revenue. I'm not talking about alts on the same account. I've always talked about separate accounts people create to take advantage of F2P characters as alts. Those are the leeches; not alts on the same account.
Do you know what this translates to? It translates to "subscriptions do not benefit the game at all, they only 'benefit' the owners of the game if it is already so much better than the competition that enough people will put up with being wrung out like that." Note that this doesn't require a game being objectively "good" or "bad" per se, it depends on who their competition is. Like Psyctooth said, WoW at launch would be a trash game by modern standards. But it got away with it because all their competition was worse. It seems like despite you crying "nobody understands me!" like an angsty teenager, you're the one who's missing the point: 1:I do not play subscription games simply because they are too damn expensive. I have enough monthly bills and I don't need another one. 2:Why the hell should I want EC to go subscription when it will not improve the game AND prevent me from playing it? Seriously, would you honestly expect me to back an idea that would exclude me from a game I want to play? 3:Why the hell do you want EC to go subscription when it does not improve the game and only costs you more money, considering that the alleged "reasons" you put up so far have been either hollow, null, or petty? If you really just want to throw money at the devs, go buy some stuff in the cash shop with your own money. Don't go trying to throw my money at them, because I'll just take my money and leave. Besides, how many one-time purchase or free games have had to start requiring a subscription to play in a desperate attempt to expand their player base?
1. Ok I could have expected such an answer, Im not saying it's bad or sth cos this is YOUR opinion. While it's hard not to agree with, the same can be said about any other game. I was trying to ellicit an answer for EC only, taking into consideration everything we know so far that determines this particular game, not any other. So I guess it's just down to 'I like subs' or 'I don't like subs' at this point however the poll result is not a coincidence here, the same with the devs view, they said themselves subs are an outdated solution but anyway I'm not going to delve deeper into this, enough has been said about this issue. 2. This however surprised me and didn't at the same time)) cos basically you didn't come up with any better solution than the devs already had -and this isn't surprising since in EC context there is no better solution for this issue. What did surprise me though is that you simply finally accepted the devs approach to F2Whaagh orks without going deeper into some nonsense. That's exactly what they want to achieve: 'allow for enough fun but not too much to encourage ppl to buy the game' and it's perfectly fine and fair imo. So I guess you see now for yourself there's no better way to 'pull some money from the leechers' as you called it than to let them enjoy this demo version and thus encourage them to buy the full version + provide EC with substantial numbers of the green tide that it really needs at he same time. Actually, there is NO OTHER way than that unless you totally resign from F2Whaagh and make everybody pay or implement traditional limited time demo which unfortunately wouldn't be able to provide the desired numbers of the afore mentioned green horde constantly. I'm glad that after 15 pages it seems you came to understand what many EC fans here already have. I seriously mean it now, I'm not trying to be big headed or patronizing. After voicing a clear concern about 'leechers wasting the resources and not contributing financially' you suggested the exact present EC devs solution. It's worth to discuss from time to time it seems .
Want to back that up with something solid (like I asked before and you never did)? Someone else asked you, too, but I don't think you answered him, either. I gave you a link that you cherry-picked and you didn't offer anything in reply to oppose Dancey's take. Here is another: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...roducer-subscriptions-are-still-good-for-mmos If you can be objective, you can see in that link where the benefit for players comes into effect: Stability in order to have the best chance at giving players a good experience. Now, that is not an absolute, of course. Subscription games can be unstable, just like non-sub games can be a perfect model for stability. One thing to throw in is that a subscription has the potential to drown some squeeze revenue, because there may be players who are willing to spend more than the sub allows. Cosmetics, boosters, more bank space, etc. This is why Dancey implies that hybrids (subscription + micro) are going to gain steam. His game, Pathfinder Online, will be hybrid. 1. "I". "I." "I." That's cool. Nobody is going to debate what you prefer, because it isn't wrong to like what you like. 2. "I". See above. And, again... Are you going to back up the "it will not improve the game" statement with more than a personal feeling? 3. Petty? Interesting comment considering the last two sentences of #3, don't ya think? I'm still waiting for you, Bladerunner, or anyone to let me know where we can find the part where I said EC needs a subscription. Like I said... You cherry-picked the original link: "Contrary to popular opinion seeing a game that launches with simply subscriptions that converts to a hybrid subscription + MTX model does not indicate that the game has “failed”. It just indicates that the game’s market is maturing and the developers are deploying resources to expand the footprint they use to monetize their work. The sign a game has failed is when it is closed, not when it begins to accept MTX payments." A mature market means it hit a state of equilibrium. This happens in all revenue models and it's why you see micro-transaction games constantly trying to churn out cosmetics and shifting gameplay behind the scenes in order to keep their convenience items desirable. Same issue with different ways of dealing with equilibrium. Your mistake is that you are stuck on two things: 1. I said I prefer subs for a particular reason. Me preferring subs for a particular reason has no bearing on what I think EC should do. If I thought this game needed a subscription to succeed, I would have specifically said that in my first post. Never happened. I just posted what I prefer and why. "Prefer" and "need"... One is not like the other. I don't care which model they run, because I don't judge games by the choice of revenue stream. 2. A few of you said subs do not work anymore. Me showing you info that subs still work does not mean I think EC needs a subscription. Trying to relate it otherwise is a gigantic reach. It was a direct reply to a faulty statement made by a few of you. It wasn't about what EC should do. That's why I've referred back to my quote about people reading into a statement and turning it into what they want it to be to try and help their point, instead of taking it for what was actually said. 1. That isn't an opinion. If a game is good, people play. If it sucks, people don't play. You acknowledged that. 2. I'm not trying to come up with a solution. Never offered one. It's not my job to do so. That's for Behaviour to figure out. I didn't accept anything. I'm not even sure what your point is about that. There is nothing to accept, because I go with whatever revenue model is chosen. I choose games based on the game; not the revenue model. Of course that (referring to green in your post) is what they want to do. Trials, F2P, and micro games have to do that. I understood everything perfectly about 16 pages ago: You're more than welcome to read "1." and "2." in reply to Rasczak. They apply to you, too. Now, if you want me to suggest an additional revenue stream idea... I have a one: Vanity Real Money Auction House. No power. Just vanity items. Details if you want them.
Well, it's hard not to acknowledge. It's like not acknowledging that winters are cold and summers hot (in most countries at least). But if it's only about a game being good or not and not about the business model why are you even linking this article about the benefits of subs, kinda contradicting yourself all the time? No, no, no don't try to weasel yourself out like that. You clearly said that 'F2Whaagh leechers bother you due to wasting game's resources and not contributting financially and you'd like the game to pull some cash from them' (sorry for no direct quote but these are your words). We suggested there's no better solution than the devs in EC came up with (for EC ofc) in regards to F2Whaaagh. You started rambling sth about free alt accounts and 'leeching them'. It was a completely irrational solution as either you call sth 'free' (at least partially) or you don't even offer any free stuff. If you don't like EC solution why don't you present a better one. Ofc it's not your job like it's not mine but when you criticise sth be prepared that somebody will ask you for a better soution instead, that's natural. You failed to invent one. Ofc you did accept: These are your words and this is precisely what EC devs have come up with, the same solution. Are you still gonna deny your own words while they are black on white plain clear (actually green on white )? Sorry to dissapoint you but that function is already taken by the cosmetic cash shop announced by the devs + the possibility to buy 'rare pre heresy' stuff in the founders pack. I don't think so. it's not about ME or HIM, wanna check the poll again? Besides your train of thoughts is very vague, you don't really know what you want to say and contradict yourself constantly.In addition you accuse other posters of being egoistic. One more thing, Psyctooth has already noticed that: instead of giving 'solid examples' from the past try to notice that EC will be a very different game from anything we've seen so far, so old solutions will not neccessarily fit into this new environment.
If that's the case then the game's stability doesn't really have much to do with whether it has a subscription or not, now does it? Therefore once again what the subscription claims to provide can be achieved just as easily without it, and we're back to the subscription bringing no tangible benefit to the game. It's rather easy to snatch opinion articles on the internet supporting whatever stance you would like to take. Even today you can probably still find articles claiming to "prove" that 9/11 was carried out by the CIA. Though of course if you're saying you would like me to write up a comprehensive report, 200-500 pages, 12 point Times New Roman, double-spaced, 1" margins, APA citation, forget about it. This is an internet forum, not a thesis paper. If we look at what has been happening though, subscription games are still clearly on the decline overall. Many new games that have attempted to launch with subscriptions have been forced to drop them or make them optional because they were unable to attract a sufficient playerbase at that price. I won't be surprised at all if PFO ends up going the same route as DDO, especially considering Pathfinder is an open-source system that I can already play online for free. I suppose the short version is: if a game is going to get away with having a subscription, it's got to offer something that can convince enough people that it's actually worth that much money. And that gets harder to do as the amount and quality of the stuff we can get without subscriptions grows. Countless WoW clones have found this out the hard way.
In order to fall into a contradiction, one has to say something as being absolute on one end of the spectrum, then turn around and say the opposite. Me saying that both models work well is about as far as you can get from from a contradiction. You spiced it up a bit with "bother". Bothers me? No. Here's what I said: Tough to be bothered too much about something I take full advantage of in just about every MMO I play, don't you think? What you're viewing as being bothered is the reality that you're asking me questions while injecting spin technique, and I'm giving an answer (same one over and over and over). Willing to reply about a singular reason to why I prefer subs doesn't equate to being bothered nor does it mean I think EC needs a sub. Yes, you suggested there are no better solutions. I wasn't suggesting a solution from the beginning (all the way back on page 2): Does that sound like I'm worried about proposing a solution to you? You also might want to go back and read the progression of the thread. I think you may be quite surprised to see when, and with who, the leech alts posts started as being the main topic. If you want a hint, click on your own Recent Activity. Before that, all the talk was just about some people saying subs don't work and me showing info that they are still a strong choice, but that other models work well, too. I am not surprised we're still here 12 pages later. It did start with you and Rasczak after all. At least it didn't take long for Gary to realize the point. After he did, he just didn't think it was anything to worry about. I don't necessarily disagree with him. Mind showing me where I said "I don't like EC's solution"? Is this another post you saw that I didn't post? Seeing a con within something doesn't mean you automatically dislike it. If that was the case, people would dislike most things in life. Pretty much everything has a pro and a con. No. That strategy is a given for games without a sub. You asked the question, and I stated the obvious. An RMAH is not a cash shop. Google it. It's definitely about you two. You guys insist on telling me what I mean, when I'm quite aware of what I mean. You know.... Because it's me posting it. I'm more than willing to keep posting the same answers for kicks (our TeamSpeak thinks it's entertaining - gotta do it for the fans, right?). On a different topic... No offense to EC, but it's not too different from what's been out there. Shooter combat in an MMO? Been done since early 2000's. PvP focused shooter MMO? Been done since early 2000's. Large scale combat with shooter mechanics? Darkfall Online's biggest battle in the same area was just over 2,000 players. Battles were regularly in the 100-500 range. Seamless map in a large world, too. WWII Online probably had some huge battles at its peak... 135,136 square mile seamless map. Firefall is a shooter and end game will be PvP and they mentioned being able to support around "1,000" players on the PvP continent. I see EC's success being driven by a very strong and popular IP as long as gameplay is at least decent. Hot damn! You do get it (mostly - see next comment). All models work. Did I ever say anything differently? You really have to consider two of Yoshida's quotes: "This is a question I get a lot, about free-to-play versus subscription, but it's not about which is better. There are pros and cons to each business model." And... "It brings up the question of who we're making happy in the end." (Referring to different desires of players with regard to splitting development time between content and trying to constantly come up with ideas for items to monetize. ) Both him and Dancey state that subscription models are more stable. Personally, I've seen that both models can be stable and unstable, but if I was going to bow to people in the know, it would be to people higher up in the industry; not anyone in a game forum. I haven't really noticed much difference, though. That might explain my apathy towards the model a game uses. Don't confuse forced to go F2P from choosing to go F2P. It's actually a marketing/sales technique to maximize revenue. Take advantage of demand and charge until equilibrium, then go "free". But, yes... Some certainly do go F2P out of necessity even though it hasn't worked too well for many who do. Sucky game is a sucky game. Pathfinder looks bland to me. Haven't noticed anyone in our TeamSpeak who seems to be interested in it, either. P.S. - Your link to virtual goods sales doesn't disprove subscription success. It simply shows that virtual goods are big business and is a successful model to use, too. I used some of that info in a Vanity RMAH suggestion in the past in other forums. People like to pay for stuff. Go figure.
For someone who's "apathetic", you sure do spend a lot of time posting walls of text trying to defend the subscription model until you're blue in the face. Once again: you claim that the payment model has zero impact on the game. Unless someone points out that you've said as much in your own words of course, then you start acting like subs are some kind of miracle drug whose benefits you can't really pin down, but you swear they exist. Therefore, as a customer, why pay more for the same results? Which is why my argument remains the same: a game should avoid subscriptions unless they really do have a good reason why they are worth so much money. The vast majority of games do not have such a reason, and it's not surprising because we are talking about a lot of money here. Your argument, if you really want us to take it on its face, seems to be "payment model doesn't affect the game, but I'd rather pay more for the same product". What I am doing is simply asking the obvious question: what's in it for me?
