View Single Post

Default 

December 26th, 2008, 08:47
First of all, there seems to be some confusion of ideas in the article. Their assumption appears to be that "if you use microtransactions, you won't have subscriptions." Balderdash. Their stated example, EQ2, is a subscription game that offers microtransactions. Other counter examples include CoX (costume pieces) and EVE (in-game cash and services like character appearance changes).

As for the rest, My thoughts are close to Nerfbat's.

It seems to me that the only North American / European companies releasing fully RMT-based games are the small ones looking to create or maintain a profitable niche position. Triple-A MMGs are all subscription-based, and for a very good reason; despite any claims made to the contrary by marketing departments, announcing anything other than a subscription model for a North American MMG deeply divides your potential playerbase.

Being charitable, I'll assume that most of the players won't care one way or the other. But you'd have to show me really good numbers to prove that more potential players would gain interest in a game for its use of microtransactions, than would lose interest in a game for the same cause. This stuff flies in Asia. It does not in NA and Europe.

Case in point here, the furor over the SWTOR rumor.
Stormwaltz is offline

Stormwaltz

Watcher

#5

Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 57