Troll mode activated, knew you'd go down that route eventually. It's funny you should say that actually as a lot of the WoW addicts are the people with no jobs, spending dole money on subs.
Goodnight sweet prince.
*** Official Elder Scrolls MMO Thread ***
- Thread starter LateX'Dog
- Start date
Troll mode activated, knew you'd go down that route eventually. It's funny you should say that actually as a lot of the WoW addicts are the people with no jobs, spending dole money on subs.
Goodnight sweet prince.
Soldato
Shut up the pair of you! 
I'm really looking forward to this MMO, but i've just found out you can sign up to the beta for PS4 & Xbox One!?
I'm really looking forward to this MMO, but i've just found out you can sign up to the beta for PS4 & Xbox One!?
Soldato
It only works if you have a solid, flawless game from the start.
Before, a game would be fine if it had a few issues so long as it was fun and had enough content to keep you occupied, WoW came along and turned it upside down. Now gamers expect that level of content and polish from newly released games if they're not free, and subscription based models are hit the hardest because people will give up after a few months if they don't see that level of content and polish from the game. In turn the revenue generated for that game won't be high enough to keep up with releasing new content and fixing bugs to keep the current player base happy, which then causes them to become frustrated and quit too, which causes even less revenue generated, which causes less development, which causes more people to leave, and it goes on and on and on until the game dies.
GW2 has the right idea, 1 off fee and then in-game COSMETIC items. They charge for the game itself and then get people to spend more money on cosmetics which don't unbalance the game, which in-turn keeps everyone happy. People can come back without paying anything, may get hooked again, spend more time in-game playing, maybe buy something from the store. Either way the hardcore will keep funding the games development, along with the original box sales.
If you don't agree with the subscription based model of games then the solution is really quite simple... Don't play it!
There's plentry of free to play games out there that will take you mind off those pesky "money-grabbing" companies who want to produce a polished game, with regular updates and patches and still be able to afford the salaries of all it's employees a few years down the line. HOW VERY DARE THEY!
As people have already pointed it out the £15 a month or whatever is way more cost effective in terms of cost per hour than things such as movies and your monthly Sky subscripion
There's plentry of free to play games out there that will take you mind off those pesky "money-grabbing" companies who want to produce a polished game, with regular updates and patches and still be able to afford the salaries of all it's employees a few years down the line. HOW VERY DARE THEY!
As people have already pointed it out the £15 a month or whatever is way more cost effective in terms of cost per hour than things such as movies and your monthly Sky subscripion
Nobody in the thread said they wanted something for nothing, you lack any comprehension. We would just prefer a one off fee of buying the game.
As people have already pointed it out the £15 a month or whatever is way more cost effective in terms of cost per hour than things such as movies and your monthly Sky subscripion
Well that failed as I pointed out a one off fee is far more cost effective per hour
Strange that they have gone down the Subscription route given the recent failures of the AAA titles that started life as a sub based MMO (but then again Wildstar & FF have done the same). It doesn't make any difference to me as the game itself is utter dog **** and I wouldn't have picked it up at release even if it was some sort of f2p model.
Arguing over a sub or not is retarded though, other single player games & MMOs without a sub have shown that you can have just as an effective entertianment to cost ratio, just as some sub based games have shown the same.
Arguing over a sub or not is retarded though, other single player games & MMOs without a sub have shown that you can have just as an effective entertianment to cost ratio, just as some sub based games have shown the same.
Soldato
If you don't agree with the subscription based model of games then the solution is really quite simple... Don't play it!
There's plentry of free to play games out there that will take you mind off those pesky "money-grabbing" companies who want to produce a polished game, with regular updates and patches and still be able to afford the salaries of all it's employees a few years down the line. HOW VERY DARE THEY!
As people have already pointed it out the £15 a month or whatever is way more cost effective in terms of cost per hour than things such as movies and your monthly Sky subscripion
You say that as if it's the consumers problem. It's the companies problem if people don't spend money on the game, not the consumer. Consumer has choice, companies have to make the consumers have an interest in their service.
No-one is saying monthly fee's are for money-grabbing companies, so I don't know where you're pulling that quote from, aside from out of your ass. Companies cannot produce a polished game if they don't have the revenue, and in this instance, they won't get the revenue if people don't pay the monthly fee. Monthly fee for a lot of people is an instant turn-off which is going to effect their sales, there's no point trying to justify how many cars you can buy if you don't eat dinner for however many years, because it doesn't work like that, it's an additional outgoing to what you already have outgoing each month, and people will see it as such.
I'm sorry but if you can't afford a premium product, then you should move along. You wouldn't walk into your neighbours house and run a wire from there Sky service, because you feel your entitled to it. Gaming is a luxury.
Free to Play MMO's harbour an incredibly horrible community, a pick up and drop mentality and it ultimately hurts the MMO genre.
Forcing a sub (from my 10+ years of MMO gaming) creates commitment and less negativity, because people want to play and want to help improve the game.
I've been gaming with a friend for 8 years, he's a serial F2P player and he just drifts from 1 F2P to the next without spending a single penny. So tell me, how is he not stealing entertainment?
Suarez7, the Sky analogy is fine, you keep saying its flawed, but i actually think your grasp on analogies is flawed. Sky is a premium entertainment service along with sub based MMO's.
F2P creates monetization of fundamental basic features of MMO's to generate revenue, this negatively effects game play. But because your getting it for free, you don't care and as such, this reflects in the players attitude in game.
Free too Play is a blight upon MMO's and it's sad to see people claiming its the "only" route MMO's should take.
Last edited:
Every AAA MMO released since WoW, up until GW2 had a sub and yet they all counter your argument. You're going to have to try harder to justify a sub I''m afraid.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,456
Well then you continue to play your premium MMOs alone, while the rest of us enjoy whatever we can get for free to sample, and then to pay for expansions/contributions.
It may not be 'premium' in your eyes, but I find LOTRo great fun, and have done since its release, where I bought the founder prepay, and haven't paid for anything but expansions since. It moved to F2P and the income the company generated tripled. Their expansions are now faster and their content higher. The 'blight' saved that MMo.
I can still dabble from time to time now also, without having to worry about being a hardcore dedicated must play x hours a month to make my sub worth it style player.
It may not be 'premium' in your eyes, but I find LOTRo great fun, and have done since its release, where I bought the founder prepay, and haven't paid for anything but expansions since. It moved to F2P and the income the company generated tripled. Their expansions are now faster and their content higher. The 'blight' saved that MMo.
I can still dabble from time to time now also, without having to worry about being a hardcore dedicated must play x hours a month to make my sub worth it style player.
Not at all, as explain above, if the game fails to provide the content, then you loose your subscribers.
Thats the reason why most AAA MMO's have failed, not because of the sub model.
And actually Lineage 1 generates more turnover then GW2 and it was released in 1998 and is sub based.
Last edited:
You pay £30 for the game and you get a month to try it. I'm sorry but that is your "free sample". If you need longer then a month, then you need to pay or move on.
WoW is a sub based MMO with extremely fast content turn around, I'd argue they produce better quality content faster then any other F2P MMO.
Wasn't one of your arguments that a sub based game provides the content because they are able to spend more?
What about the bad community aspect, negativity and commitment issues? All the sub MMO's 'Ive tried have had these in spades. Once again, WoW, a sub based game has one of the worst communites in the genre.
This has been one of the biggest excuses for sub fluctuation in WoW given by the devs.
I'm sure once GW2 launches in the Asian market it will blow everything out the water.
You're joking right? the pace of content release has been one of the biggest criticisms of WoW prior to MoP, and since they upped the pace the content delivered has been very poor.
Last edited:
People decide in a month if a MMO is worth there time or not. In a month i'd be very surprised if ANY company could provide content off the back of launching a product.
WoW has 8million players, you need to take into account proportions, what % of WoW players a morons and what % of F2P players are morons. It'll never happen, but i'd wager you'd have a larger concentration on the F2P then in WoW.
Yeah they unsub, play the crappy F2P MMO, realise its nothing on WoW and go back.
Now your letting your bias rule here.
I stopped playing WoW in Wrath, but 1 and a half year expansion turn arounds with new raids and dungeons thrown in and constant class tweaks.
Lets look at WoW launch:
7 November 2004 is launch
18 December 2004 1.2 patch with 1 dungeon and 2 events and bug fixes
7 March 2005 1.3 patch with 1 dungeon and 2 raid bosses with bug fixes
8th April 2005 1.4 patch with PvP system introduced with bug fixes
7 June 2005 1.5 patch with battlegrounds introduced
12 July 2005 1.6 patch with 1 raid, new event and 2 class revamps
13 September 2005 1.7 patch with 1 raid, 1 dungeon, 1 event and 1 new battleground with hunter class revamp.
10 October 2005 1.8 patch with 4 raid bosses, completely revamped zone and druid revamp.
So in the space of a year, WoW added:
3 Dungeons
8 Raids
3 Events
PvP system
Battlegrounds
4 Class revamps
1 Zone revamp
I'm sorry but WoW's content has very rarely been lacking. And this is just skimming.
Last edited:
Any mmo worth their salt will provide numerous class balancing fixes, additional instances/dungeons, raid encounters etc in their 1st year to 18 months. ToR for example provided just as many 'deep' patches, so did Rift, GW2 etc. Since vanilla WoW has settled down into 4 'major' patches every expac cycle. That isn't a huge amount by anyone's standards, so what additional content do u get for your money over a FTP title? None
Blizzard are ******* terrible with patches and content. Just look at D3.
I'm not saying they make bad games but don't try and say paying a sub gets you more as it doesn't. GW2 has had loads of content added within the 1st year and I don't even think it sold that well tbh.
I'm not saying they make bad games but don't try and say paying a sub gets you more as it doesn't. GW2 has had loads of content added within the 1st year and I don't even think it sold that well tbh.