Aubrielle has written an opinion editorial about why she feels subscription-based MMOs have a lot going for them compared to F2P MMOs.
More information.
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2006
- Messages
- 11,223
RPGWatch Feature - In Defense of the Subscription-Based MMO
- Thread starter Myrthos
- Start date
I'm not a MMO-player, still an interesting read.
I play online Shooters (L4D, Farcry series, CoD, etc.) sometimes.
Coop Shooters like L4D are much more fun if you can play with gamers you know.
Anonymous partners can be annoying sometimes.
I play online Shooters (L4D, Farcry series, CoD, etc.) sometimes.
Coop Shooters like L4D are much more fun if you can play with gamers you know.
Anonymous partners can be annoying sometimes.
Bah I'm a lone wolf and it will stay that way as I told you before. I have what they call hate other players in my game syndrome, and I can't help it.That's why we recommend everyone join the Watch's DDO Guild so you can play with people you know!!
Anyway thanks for another good article Aubrielle.
Last edited:
Humanity has risen!
SasqWatch
This article is exactly right and what I always thought about this situation, although I don't really play MMOs.
It's obvious that it's more desirable to have a subscription based game for consistent revenue and it means more quality, consistency, and polish. When one becomes free to play, it's an undesirable option to extract more revenue, not a desirable one.
Free to play games are about as sleazy as an underground Indian reservation casino. It encapsulates everything that is wrong about gaming.
It's obvious that it's more desirable to have a subscription based game for consistent revenue and it means more quality, consistency, and polish. When one becomes free to play, it's an undesirable option to extract more revenue, not a desirable one.
Free to play games are about as sleazy as an underground Indian reservation casino. It encapsulates everything that is wrong about gaming.
Carnifex
SasqWatch
I've paid for my Everquest since 1999, and wouldn't want it any other way. There's a free version, but it's not for me, so I stick with what works. Not sure if I'll ever invest in another online game like I have with Everquest 1 and 2, but I must say that the raiding aspect has appealed to me for years, there just isn't anything quite like it elsewhere. I've tried other online games, WoW held my attention for 5 days, Vanguard for almost a year, but I always come back to EQ.
Last edited:
I also prefer subscription based MMOs, if only so that it serves as a filter for the troves of tweens and teens playing. I know, it's not perfect, but at least it's something.
I've been playing MMORPGs since the beginning (or had, I've pretty much stopped since modern MMORPGs suck).
Sub-based is the way MMORPGs should be.
F2P is trash. It's a system designed to maximize profits and it's marketed to stupid people to make them think it's doing something for them when it's not. F2P games are lower in quality and more importantly, the experience of playing a F2P MMO is of far lower quality.
Good sub-based games are successful. Bad games are not. Derp. F2P is just a way to extract MORE money from players than they can get via subs, and in today's corporate world where everything has to be monetized and must involve maximum profit extraction, what we get are super crappy MMORPGs, often F2P, purely designed to make money, and gameplay be damned.
As a side note, I think FFXIV the author mentions is a terrible MMORPG. It has too much console influence and ties (weak simplistic graphics, an ungodly amount of loading screens, simplistic character/skill system, weak gear system with 1 weapon per class and no choice, 20+ levels of tutorial out of 50 as if everybody who plays is a complete idiot, the fate grinding BS is just xp welfare for people who are too lazy to even do solo idiot mode questing, and so on. It's pretty even though the graphics are simplistic. SOME of the group content is good. Personally, I didn't last the free month since I capped and was doing endgame so fast and found the endgame to be pretty lame and had enough quickly.
I miss the days when MMORPGs were all about grouping - always - and about challenge and danger. The new style of MMORPG that tries to be everything to everybody, goes for wider appeal, and is mostly solo with tiny bits of optional grouping is garbage. I own a ton of games, most of which have excellent single player. I don't play MMORPGs to solo next to idiots named "xXLegolasXx", I play MMORPGs because they offer the unique opportunity to do complex content WITH other people.
To me there are several benefits of the sub-based model.
For one, all players have the same potential. How well you do in the game depends on how well you play and how much you play. Not how much cash you're willing to throw at the system. You all pay a static fee, you all have access to the same everything, you all have the potential and same ceiling. With F2P, you are often gated by cash barriers or there's little hope of ever playing the full game without throwing down cash, and quite possibly more cash per month than you'd ever pay in a sub-based game.
Secondly, the players tend to be of higher quality and take the game more seriously. MMORPGs when done well require a significant time investment. This isn't a bad thing, it just IS. The attempts to make this hardcore genre less hardcore, more mainstream, more wider appeal, more casual, have just resulted in a lot of really crappy games. Players who are committed and playing a sub tend to take things more seriously because they're firmly financially invested. With the more casual F2P games, players are expected to come and go, to not take things seriously, to have less permancy, and so on.
The casual come and go thing works great for soloists who probably shouldn't be playing MMORPGs anyways but it's bad for the more serious players who want to take on the beefier content that requires groups. It's hard to keep a guild together, or do raiding, or even do regular small group adventuring when the people in your circle of friends only show up randomly every other day/week/month. With subs, people tend to play more consistently. With F2P, you may never see them again.
Hell, it's hard to meet or get to know people to even attempt to forge the relationships to build guilds or regular groups when you may never see the same person twice or see them over time. Between F2P and solo emphasis the social element that used to be core to MMORPGs barely exists any more. Now it's a bunch of preteens or adults acting like children yapping incessantly about stupid crap in public chat - that's the new social, or socially retarded, in MMORPGs.
Third, F2P with MMORPGs is pretty much going to involve pay to win, which is pretty much cheating. A core concept of any RPG is gaining stuff and growing. You gain loot and better gear. You can achievements. You gain xp and level your character. You acquire STUFF. If you can buy that stuff in a cash shop or grease the wheels with perks thru the cash shop you undermine the very core of RPGs.
Anything you can obtain for your character SHOULD come from playing the game, be it a new weapon, piece of armor, a vanity clothing item, a mount, etc. If you can buy it for cash in the cash shop, you undermine the whole reason for playing. If you can buy boosters to increase the rate at which you get xp, loot, magic items, etc, you are undermining the core of the game too.
For MMORPGs, even selling service type of stuff like bank slots, bag slots, character slots, etc, is iffy too, since a lot of that can be tied to earning your way thru the game as well.
Take all of that away and what then could they sell in cash shops to pay for the games and profit? Not much, really. So they sell pay to win.
Worse, increasingly more, games are now selling cash for gold, which previously WAS bannable cheating in sensible MMORPGs. It was the "chinese gold farmer" real money trading thing that people would get banned for. Some F2P games have been selling gold for cash and now even premium games WITH SUBS are selling gold, like WildStar. Oh, they market it well, and they wrap it in BS, but ultimately, players are paying cash for gold, which is the ultimate in pay to win as far as depth and flexibility. Want that costly new mount? Cash > gold > mount. Too lazy to harvest your own mats for crafting? Cash > mats > done. And so on.
In the mixed games where you can earn stuff or buy stuff for cash, why should anybody play to earn? Part of the enjoyment of earning your stuff in RPGs is the sense of accomplishment from doing it. But that is kind of robbed when the guy next to you has all the same stuff you have, except he paid cash for it. Kinda pulls the rug out.
With subs, you have to earn your way. Sure, there's bad design and bad management that allow for 3rd party gold to play a big part (poor design that makes gold a large part of success leads to people cheating buying it). Poor design often allows higher level characters to babysit and play the game for lower level characters (powerleveling and such), but those kinds of issues COULD be minimized to keep the playing field level and the games more pure, if designers wanted to.
Part of the problem is, though, who knows what designers really want to do? MMORPGs cost a ton to build, so they fall under the umbrella of corporate gaming, and corporations only care about one thing. Money. How do we maximize profits. How do we pay and give people less to produce crap we can overcharge other people for more? So maybe there are MMORPG designers who'd like to create quality games that provide the best possible MMORPG experience, but we'll never know it, because the corporate bean counters are pushing design now, and they're only interested in creating cheap, TV-like mind candy for the masses that pulls in the most profit.
Sub-based is the way MMORPGs should be.
F2P is trash. It's a system designed to maximize profits and it's marketed to stupid people to make them think it's doing something for them when it's not. F2P games are lower in quality and more importantly, the experience of playing a F2P MMO is of far lower quality.
Good sub-based games are successful. Bad games are not. Derp. F2P is just a way to extract MORE money from players than they can get via subs, and in today's corporate world where everything has to be monetized and must involve maximum profit extraction, what we get are super crappy MMORPGs, often F2P, purely designed to make money, and gameplay be damned.
As a side note, I think FFXIV the author mentions is a terrible MMORPG. It has too much console influence and ties (weak simplistic graphics, an ungodly amount of loading screens, simplistic character/skill system, weak gear system with 1 weapon per class and no choice, 20+ levels of tutorial out of 50 as if everybody who plays is a complete idiot, the fate grinding BS is just xp welfare for people who are too lazy to even do solo idiot mode questing, and so on. It's pretty even though the graphics are simplistic. SOME of the group content is good. Personally, I didn't last the free month since I capped and was doing endgame so fast and found the endgame to be pretty lame and had enough quickly.
I miss the days when MMORPGs were all about grouping - always - and about challenge and danger. The new style of MMORPG that tries to be everything to everybody, goes for wider appeal, and is mostly solo with tiny bits of optional grouping is garbage. I own a ton of games, most of which have excellent single player. I don't play MMORPGs to solo next to idiots named "xXLegolasXx", I play MMORPGs because they offer the unique opportunity to do complex content WITH other people.
To me there are several benefits of the sub-based model.
For one, all players have the same potential. How well you do in the game depends on how well you play and how much you play. Not how much cash you're willing to throw at the system. You all pay a static fee, you all have access to the same everything, you all have the potential and same ceiling. With F2P, you are often gated by cash barriers or there's little hope of ever playing the full game without throwing down cash, and quite possibly more cash per month than you'd ever pay in a sub-based game.
Secondly, the players tend to be of higher quality and take the game more seriously. MMORPGs when done well require a significant time investment. This isn't a bad thing, it just IS. The attempts to make this hardcore genre less hardcore, more mainstream, more wider appeal, more casual, have just resulted in a lot of really crappy games. Players who are committed and playing a sub tend to take things more seriously because they're firmly financially invested. With the more casual F2P games, players are expected to come and go, to not take things seriously, to have less permancy, and so on.
The casual come and go thing works great for soloists who probably shouldn't be playing MMORPGs anyways but it's bad for the more serious players who want to take on the beefier content that requires groups. It's hard to keep a guild together, or do raiding, or even do regular small group adventuring when the people in your circle of friends only show up randomly every other day/week/month. With subs, people tend to play more consistently. With F2P, you may never see them again.
Hell, it's hard to meet or get to know people to even attempt to forge the relationships to build guilds or regular groups when you may never see the same person twice or see them over time. Between F2P and solo emphasis the social element that used to be core to MMORPGs barely exists any more. Now it's a bunch of preteens or adults acting like children yapping incessantly about stupid crap in public chat - that's the new social, or socially retarded, in MMORPGs.
Third, F2P with MMORPGs is pretty much going to involve pay to win, which is pretty much cheating. A core concept of any RPG is gaining stuff and growing. You gain loot and better gear. You can achievements. You gain xp and level your character. You acquire STUFF. If you can buy that stuff in a cash shop or grease the wheels with perks thru the cash shop you undermine the very core of RPGs.
Anything you can obtain for your character SHOULD come from playing the game, be it a new weapon, piece of armor, a vanity clothing item, a mount, etc. If you can buy it for cash in the cash shop, you undermine the whole reason for playing. If you can buy boosters to increase the rate at which you get xp, loot, magic items, etc, you are undermining the core of the game too.
For MMORPGs, even selling service type of stuff like bank slots, bag slots, character slots, etc, is iffy too, since a lot of that can be tied to earning your way thru the game as well.
Take all of that away and what then could they sell in cash shops to pay for the games and profit? Not much, really. So they sell pay to win.
Worse, increasingly more, games are now selling cash for gold, which previously WAS bannable cheating in sensible MMORPGs. It was the "chinese gold farmer" real money trading thing that people would get banned for. Some F2P games have been selling gold for cash and now even premium games WITH SUBS are selling gold, like WildStar. Oh, they market it well, and they wrap it in BS, but ultimately, players are paying cash for gold, which is the ultimate in pay to win as far as depth and flexibility. Want that costly new mount? Cash > gold > mount. Too lazy to harvest your own mats for crafting? Cash > mats > done. And so on.
In the mixed games where you can earn stuff or buy stuff for cash, why should anybody play to earn? Part of the enjoyment of earning your stuff in RPGs is the sense of accomplishment from doing it. But that is kind of robbed when the guy next to you has all the same stuff you have, except he paid cash for it. Kinda pulls the rug out.
With subs, you have to earn your way. Sure, there's bad design and bad management that allow for 3rd party gold to play a big part (poor design that makes gold a large part of success leads to people cheating buying it). Poor design often allows higher level characters to babysit and play the game for lower level characters (powerleveling and such), but those kinds of issues COULD be minimized to keep the playing field level and the games more pure, if designers wanted to.
Part of the problem is, though, who knows what designers really want to do? MMORPGs cost a ton to build, so they fall under the umbrella of corporate gaming, and corporations only care about one thing. Money. How do we maximize profits. How do we pay and give people less to produce crap we can overcharge other people for more? So maybe there are MMORPG designers who'd like to create quality games that provide the best possible MMORPG experience, but we'll never know it, because the corporate bean counters are pushing design now, and they're only interested in creating cheap, TV-like mind candy for the masses that pulls in the most profit.
D
DArtagnan
Guest
Good article with which I mostly agree.
While I don't necessarily think F2P games are crowded, and indeed I know many that aren't, they do - because of this business model - invite people who're not necessarily inclined towards enjoying the game much at all. This means they might get bored and start spamming chat with endless bullshit that's not relevant to the game at all.
However, that's not uncommon with subscribers or die-hard fans either. F2P just makes this problem significantly worse.
My main issue with F2P is the way it's usually implemented. Nearly all MMOs that have gone this way have implemented a cash-shop. Now, if we look beyond the basic immersion breaking aspect of having a big fat "shopping" button on our interface, and endless spammed advertisements each time we login - it doesn't take a genius to figure out where a lot of development resources will be headed.
I promise you, if a suit financing an MMO hears from his market analysts that he can earn a decent profit by making his artists cook up a nice new shiny hat or pair of glamourous new shoes, do you think he'll tell his development team to focus on doing real content that takes ages to create - and endless hours of playtesting?
Of course not. They HAVE to do real content on the side, but it will NEVER be the focus, as long they have people paying for something trivial that takes no effort at all.
This mindset slowly creeps into the entire team - and it will soon be a matter of figuring out how to optimise development in such a way that you give players just enough to keep them hooked, and then focus on the easiest way to fleece them. The editorial touches on this as well.
I find it tremendously sad that people, who don't seem to understand the basics of human psychology or the primary motivation behind financing a huge project like an MMO, consider F2P a better solution.
F2P will mean a lesser game, and it will mean a lot of people who're not there to support the game, they're just there to get their free stint and then move on.
By supporting F2P and by wishing for F2P for sub-based games - you're actively working against not only your own interests, but the interest of all the fans trying to support a game that's not yet there.
People are very selfish creatures, so many won't care. Why should they? If they can get a free ride, why care about the long-term future of a game? Why care about fans of the game? There's really no reason in a world that's so centered around the needs of the individual.
As such, I don't really see a way around F2P today.
Games like ESO might have a small chance to stay subscription based, but that will depend on the console launch - and I doubt we'll ever see it. Even if we DO see it, I'm not seeing a heavily story-oriented MMO that demands so much attention from the player be a huge hit with the console crowd.
Anyway, nice to see an editorial like this. We don't get nearly enough MMO related pieces - so I commend that initiative.
Can't say I often agree with Aubrielle, but I certainly do in this case
While I don't necessarily think F2P games are crowded, and indeed I know many that aren't, they do - because of this business model - invite people who're not necessarily inclined towards enjoying the game much at all. This means they might get bored and start spamming chat with endless bullshit that's not relevant to the game at all.
However, that's not uncommon with subscribers or die-hard fans either. F2P just makes this problem significantly worse.
My main issue with F2P is the way it's usually implemented. Nearly all MMOs that have gone this way have implemented a cash-shop. Now, if we look beyond the basic immersion breaking aspect of having a big fat "shopping" button on our interface, and endless spammed advertisements each time we login - it doesn't take a genius to figure out where a lot of development resources will be headed.
I promise you, if a suit financing an MMO hears from his market analysts that he can earn a decent profit by making his artists cook up a nice new shiny hat or pair of glamourous new shoes, do you think he'll tell his development team to focus on doing real content that takes ages to create - and endless hours of playtesting?
Of course not. They HAVE to do real content on the side, but it will NEVER be the focus, as long they have people paying for something trivial that takes no effort at all.
This mindset slowly creeps into the entire team - and it will soon be a matter of figuring out how to optimise development in such a way that you give players just enough to keep them hooked, and then focus on the easiest way to fleece them. The editorial touches on this as well.
I find it tremendously sad that people, who don't seem to understand the basics of human psychology or the primary motivation behind financing a huge project like an MMO, consider F2P a better solution.
F2P will mean a lesser game, and it will mean a lot of people who're not there to support the game, they're just there to get their free stint and then move on.
By supporting F2P and by wishing for F2P for sub-based games - you're actively working against not only your own interests, but the interest of all the fans trying to support a game that's not yet there.
People are very selfish creatures, so many won't care. Why should they? If they can get a free ride, why care about the long-term future of a game? Why care about fans of the game? There's really no reason in a world that's so centered around the needs of the individual.
As such, I don't really see a way around F2P today.
Games like ESO might have a small chance to stay subscription based, but that will depend on the console launch - and I doubt we'll ever see it. Even if we DO see it, I'm not seeing a heavily story-oriented MMO that demands so much attention from the player be a huge hit with the console crowd.
Anyway, nice to see an editorial like this. We don't get nearly enough MMO related pieces - so I commend that initiative.
Can't say I often agree with Aubrielle, but I certainly do in this case
Anyway, nice to see an editorial like this. We don't get nearly enough MMO related pieces - so I commend that initiative.
Can't say I often agree with Aubrielle, but I certainly do in this case
Hah, yeah.
Actually, Dart, I almost gave you a heads up that I'd be writing this. I'd seen you talk rather passionately about the subject on occasion.
Just to be contrary to Dart (who me??) In DDO, while they do produce cosmetic crap, they have also produced some fantastic content since they went part F2P. Some of the quest chains they've released in the last couple of years are excellent. Sure some are not as good as others, but there has been a LOT of really good and fun content released and certain things have been upgraded for the better, so it's not all bad!!
In DDO, while they do produce cosmetic crap, they have also produced some fantastic content since they went part F2P. Some of the quest chains they've released in the last couple of years are excellent. Sure some are not as good as others, but there has been a LOT of really good and fun content released and certain things have been upgraded for the better, so it's not all bad!!
D
DArtagnan
Guest
Just to be contrary to Dart (who me??)
I'm not saying F2P = bad game. I'm saying Sub > F2P.
Just imagine if all the fans were willing to subscribe, and how many more quests might have been there. Imagine if the cash-shop was gone and developers had to create real content to make money.
Imagine if the game hadn't been designed around excessive repetition to achieve the most powerful characters.
DDO has many good features, but the way they expect people to "TR" their characters over and over again to maximise efficiency is, frankly, sick.
The real secret to why you're having so much fun could be the Watch community more than the F2P implementation of DDO.
Quick question does any still play the original Guild Wars? I liked how you paid once and got access for as long as the game is running on their servers.
I stopped playing for two years and finally logged on. My data was still on the servers, and I can't say the say about WOW, and other large MMO's.
I usually end up getting notices of inactivity, and your account will be deleted.
I stopped playing for two years and finally logged on. My data was still on the servers, and I can't say the say about WOW, and other large MMO's.
I usually end up getting notices of inactivity, and your account will be deleted.
Yes, but don't forget that DDO began as a sub only game and nearly folded. It was only the influx of F2P players (many of whom have become sub players) which kept the game alive thus allowing for all this new content. Both system work well together there and now that the level cap is 28 not 20, with all the tons of new epic content the need to TR has been lessened.
Quick question does any still play the original Guild Wars? I liked how you paid once and got access for as long as the game is running on their servers.
I stopped playing for two years and finally logged on, and my data is still on the servers. I can't say the say about WOW, and other large MMO's.
I actually just reinstalled GW on my system...hmm...maybe a couple weeks ago? I got nostalgic for it. It doesn't seem to have the huge numbers of people it used to, but people still play...^.^
Quick question does any still play the original Guild Wars? I liked how you paid once and got access for as long as the game is running on their servers.
I stopped playing for two years and finally logged on. My data is still on the servers, and I can't say the say about WOW, and other large MMO's.
While I still have it on my PC I haven't played it in more than 2 years. I haven't played GW 2 in over a year either!!
D
DArtagnan
Guest
But do you think that's because F2P DDO is a better game, or because so many people don't want to play something if they have to pay to try it?
It's very true that F2P meant more cash for Turbine. As for the game "folding" that's something Turbine told you. Same with LOTRO - which was also "folding".
Maybe that's true, or maybe they simply smelled more cash with F2P. We don't know.
It's interesting, though, that most LOTRO fans agree that the game was much better before F2P. I mean, if they really earn 3 times the cash - how can it be worse? Something doesn't compute.
As for TR, I'm not really going there. To me, it's the most extreme example of character grinding I've ever seen - and I've seen a lot more than you ever will when it comes to MMO grinding, trust me
Sadly I never bothered with Guild Wars 2 as it was completely different than the first game. Some of the new changes do sound interesting though.
I may have to try a free trial when it's offered again.
Yeah I noticed that as the hubs are pretty empty compared to a few years ago. At least they still have the AI companions to hep fill in on some quests.