Curse

EagleDelta1 · Feb 26, 2009, 08:58 PM // 20:58

Honestly, it depends on the quality of the game. For example, I've played EVE online ($15 a month) for a year - the game cost $20, with $15 monthly fee, but since ALL the expansions are free and automatically added to the game, I've spent less still than I have on GW AND with the option to allow you to buy 30-day "pilot's license" and 60-day game codes with in game money - legally too(they are expansive mind you). Then EVE's $15 dollars a month are worth it as I'm paying for my expansions in that charge right there. As for WoW, I can't say as I've never really tried more than a few hours of play. If you like a huge emphasis on team/party play and grind(which many ppl here don't & understandably so), then FFXI is also worth it - $20-30 for the game and ALL 4 expansions + a $12 monthly fee and a world that's probably twice the size of WoW - worth it, but you gotta be willing to play in parties most of the time and grind your way till you reach lvl 30-40.

That said - all this is basically my opinion and it's all up to what you like and don't like.

EDIT - another thing to look at is that many P2P games don't survive well times with bad economy. For example, while games like LOTRO and FFXI are still going strong, recent reports show that ONLY WoW and EVE Online are still steadily increasing players, which can be attributed to a few simple factors - 1. WoW is WoW, not going away anytime soon AND it is one of the simplest and easiest MMOs to get into outside of GW, 2. EVE is drastically different from other MMOs in terms of character development and gameplay, not to mention it's relatively cheap to play with free expansions every 4-6 months.

fireflyry · Feb 26, 2009, 11:09 PM // 23:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minako Sawai

I do think companies are going to have to rethink the AMOUNT they charge for some games, as $15 (or 15 pounds/euros) a month for a lot of them just doesn't make any sense when they don't have the content or features or whatever the more popular games have that keep people playing each month.

Agreed.

There seems to have been a bit of a rush from game makers attempting to cash in on the success of WoW which has been rather counter-productive to the genre.

The motivation is seemingly "Get the game out a.s.a.p and the gamers will pay the same amount for our game as they do for WoW" while completely ignoring any comparison of quality/content.

There should be no standard baseline cost unless every MMO conforms to the same baseline quality and future consistency of quality.

The majority of competitors have really done themselves no favors in releasing inferior and incomplete product while setting the price to play at relatively the same rate as the biggest MMO out there.

Unoriginality hasn't helped either imo with a large majority being "medieval fantasy" themed.Imo this has lead to over saturation, personally one "wizards, warriors, trolls and elves" game is enough for me, I'm not going to pay for 2+ no matter how good they are.

Returning to the actual cost I hope to eventually see more options for payment in the subscription model.A balanced option that allowed one to pay for actual hours online would be most appealing to me as I have outside commitments that are consistently fluctuating.If not that an option to pay weekly instead of this preset 60-90 day minimum currently in place, or punishing 30 day subscribers with raised cost.

Some weeks I might binge and get 10-20 hours gaming in, more consistently it's around 5-10 but sometimes I'm unable to play for a month or two which often means I'll be put off the current default subscription model and payment plans which force you to play within time constraints that have no bearing on how much you actually play the game.

For a hardcore player it's a sweet deal, for those working 60+ hours a week, not so much.

Red Sonya · Feb 27, 2009, 09:09 AM // 09:09

Quote:

We could never turn Guild Wars into a subscription-based game, just as Turbine could not suddenly decide to eliminate the subscription model for Lord of the Rings Online. If you decide to require players to subscribe to your game, be prepared to build a game that thoroughly justifies it.

Well you forgot FUNCOM because they started out as a pay to play model and now offer Anarchy Online and Notum Wars (1st expansion) for FREE and NO MONTHLY FEES, so, that even beats your model as you get both FREE at NO CHARGE and you only get a monthly fee if you decide to pick up the other expansions and play them. It's what I have been playing for almost 1/2 a year now. It offers much more content and a hellofalot more loot and upgrades and things to do in the game besides kill kill kill floozie.

Quote:

Quote:
People prefer to know what are they paying for and not having to care about money again.
Is that why WoW was the best selling PC game two years in a row? And why its first expansion is the 2nd fastest selling computer game in history... behind only its second expansion? And why it's the 3rd best-selling PC game in history, behind only the Sims and Sims 2?

Yea... with a terrible showing for a subscription-based game like that, people must really have a preference for pay-once gaming.

Lol that's tellin em CTB. No matter how many punys try to knock it WOW IS the most popular online mmo out there waaaayyyy beyond GWs and a pay to play game as well. So, PEOPLE don't mind paying IF/WHEN the game offers what the MAJORITY want and clearly WOW shows what the majority want. Those that are inlove with GW and rave about it most are just carebears and players who don't have enough TIME to compete with the majority of other players out there for the loot and prestige that high quality mmo's require like WOW.

I put 5 years into EQ and it is pay to play; just because it offered the largest world of all the mmo's online. Nothing is as huge as EQ and it's still growing, but, the MAJORITY have moved onto WOW and the only reason I haven't is I am against "pay to play" as there's just too many other games out there now you can play without a monthly fee besides GW. There's both Neverwinter Nights games, both Diablo's, Morrowind, Oblivion, Mount & Blade (my favorite right now), Anarchy Online + Notum Wars and these are official title games, there's 100's of independent free to play online mmo's now as well.

Plus I don't look at whether a game is ONLINE or OFFLINE or MULTIPLAYER or SOLO, I look at WHAT THE GAME OFFERS and how long it can hold my attention. They are all hack n slash or shootemups no matter what you call them. So, there's plenty more opportunities and types of fun play than WOW or GW for sure. I've put years into playing Diablo 2, still play it, doesn't mean it suks because they made a WOW or GW that's for sure. The loot content in D2 is still better than both of them in spades.

Society · Feb 27, 2009, 05:38 PM // 17:38

Quote:

Those are 'leech to play'.

Some people pay the server costs, and other play at the expense of them

Yeah, but that people may have nothing to do with game. I'm personally know such cases.

Ctb · Feb 27, 2009, 06:49 PM // 18:49

Quote:

These models dont generate the numbers of players needed to make the economics work

Everquest, Everquest II, EvE Online, City of Heroes/Villians, Asheron's Call, Lineage, Ultima Online. These subscription games would all like a word with you.

And I don't know what you're talking about with LOTRO. They just released an expansion and it's been around for, what, two years now? Doesnt' sound like an economically non-viable game to me. Warhammer is also doing fine for its niche.

Tabula Rasa failed because it was mismarketed from the get go. Age of Conan failed because it was a bad game full of nasty, childish people that nobody wanted to play with.

Quote:

The biggest of the free to play games, Habbo

Habbo Hotel isn't a game.

Red Sonya · Feb 28, 2009, 07:45 AM // 07:45

Actually another one of the biggest freebies is probably "Second Life", but, that's more of a chatumup type game with graphics. Like an AOL with graphics or Sims Online.

MithranArkanere · Feb 28, 2009, 03:04 PM // 15:04

Second Life is not a game. Call it anything else you like, but not 'game'.

And habbo is not free to play either. It is micropaid. Those that pay get things that those that do not pay will never get. And like second, life, neither is a game, although you can play inside it.

fireflyry · Feb 28, 2009, 04:32 PM // 16:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by MithranArkanere

Second Life is not a game. Call it anything else you like, but not 'game'.

Agreed.

The name says it all, due to the fact you mostly fail at the first.

Red Sonya · Mar 01, 2009, 12:48 AM // 00:48

If you PLAY something and YOU are a part of that play it IS A GAME. Read the definition of GAME. Second Life is probably the closest thing to a ROLE PLAYING "GAME" online as any other. You could say The Sims and Sims 2 isn't a game, but, it is, you PLAY it, you gain entertainment from it. It IS a game.

moriz · Mar 01, 2009, 01:12 AM // 01:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

If you PLAY something and YOU are a part of that play it IS A GAME. Read the definition of GAME. Second Life is probably the closest thing to a ROLE PLAYING "GAME" online as any other. You could say The Sims and Sims 2 isn't a game, but, it is, you PLAY it, you gain entertainment from it. It IS a game.

that just made my sick mind conjure up images that nobody should see.

RedNova88 · Mar 01, 2009, 01:14 AM // 01:14

Second Life could be considered a game, although it by itself is not a game. However, people do program their own games within SL. More or less, it's basically what it's name states. You can even make real legitimate money off of SL by selling the things you make to other people, and trade the virtual money for something real.

MithranArkanere · Mar 01, 2009, 03:39 PM // 15:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

If you PLAY something and YOU are a part of that play it IS A GAME. Read the definition of GAME. Second Life is probably the closest thing to a ROLE PLAYING "GAME" online as any other. You could say The Sims and Sims 2 isn't a game, but, it is, you PLAY it, you gain entertainment from it. It IS a game.

Second Life it's a virtual world. Although virtual, it's just a place. And places are not games.
If you play SOMEWHERE and you part of a game that happens inside such environment it's called a PLAYGROUND.
People can play in Second Life, but not everyone plays in there.

Games have game rules. Without game rules, an interactive virtual environment it's never a game, even if there are any other kind of rules.
In games, everyone plays following the rules, and those that do not play or do not follow the rules are always things like hackers, gold sellers or weird idiots.