DC Universe Changes Pricing Structure (Possible Insight to PS2 Pricing) - Page 3

Raymac · 2011-09-20, 05:05 PM

Cute

Graywolves · 2011-09-20, 05:31 PM

All the power-sell arguements make me want them to sell power.....Because I'm honestly just starting to feel that people are more concerned about spending money than the actual gameplay or business model.

Especially when they're obviously ignoring the development team since they make their intentions very clear every time they bring it up.

Raymac · 2011-09-20, 05:56 PM

Plus, it's just a reality they are going to have to deal with, not just for PS2, but for MMOs in general. This article explains why:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...ins-to-decline

I'd like to keep things simple and just pay a subscription myself, but the industry to evolving.

Crator · 2011-09-20, 08:00 PM

Here's another really good article on the subject: Most MMOs fail?

Sirisian · 2011-09-20, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by Raymac

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...ins-to-decline

That trend is falsely attributed. The fact of the matter is the MMORPG market has stagnated for a while with no change. It's hard to get subscriptions for a generic MMORPG. So those failed games opt instead to survive under F2P systems.

Originally Posted by Crator

Most MMOs fail?

I remember reading this article years ago. It's ironic really.

According to James Phinney, lead designer of StarCraft and Guild Wars, every great game starts with one question: "What do I want to play next?". This may seem an obvious statement, but his point is that designers are often asked to make a game that is specifically designed to be "better" than a successful game from a competitor, rather than making a game that is exciting and new.

Ironic because Guild Wars was just a generally generic RPG game with creatures and a plot no one remembers and random quests which mean nothing. It found success in that though.

However it brings up an important part. (Other than trying to call GW an MMO rather than a co-op game).

Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true, you know it, and they know it. Gamers may buy the argument that your MMO requires a subscription fee, if you can tell them what they are getting for their money. This is the legacy of games like Guild Wars, Maple Story, and Silkroad Online, all of which introduced new business models into the MMO genre and were quite successful. The subscription model is still perfectly viable, but the pain threshold is very low now. It's no secret that gamers don't want to pay a subscription fee. If you can convince them that your game offers enough value to justify it, more power to you! But be prepared to defend your decision, often and loudly, and back it up over the lifetime of your game.

It's all about the price of the subscription model compared to the amount of perceived value. 5 USD for even my friend that hates MMO subscriptions is "nothing", but 15 USD for him is "not worth it". So if they even offer a subscription it just needs to be worth it.

Raymac · 2011-09-20, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by Sirisian

That trend is falsely attributed. The fact of the matter is the MMORPG market has stagnated for a while with no change. It's hard to get subscriptions for a generic MMORPG. So those failed games opt instead to survive under F2P systems.

Look dude, you can stick your head in the sand all you want and make up whatever reason you want, but the data speaks for itself. For better or worse, the future of MMOs is F2P. There will always be exceptions out there, but get used to this business model.

Sirisian · 2011-09-20, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by Raymac

Look dude, you can stick your head in the sand all you want and make up whatever reason you want, but the data speaks for itself. For better or worse, the future of MMOs is F2P. There will always be exceptions out there, but get used to this business model.

I'm not sticking my head in the sand. Using 3 data points collected from the MMORPG market for varying years and trying to create a trend is extremely naive. Even if you do that you're ignoring hundreds of variables to the market and why people made such choices. Even then you read the data wrong.

In 2010, MMO subscriptions amassed $1.58 billion. Very good. But not as good as the year before - five per cent less.

Compare that to growth of 10 per cent in 2009, and growth of 21.6 per cent in 2008, and you can appreciate why Screen Digest believes 2010 to be a pivotal year.

Okay so that gives us comparing year and percent increase in revenue.

2008, 21.6%
2009, 10.0%
2008, -5%

But wait...

The report found that money made by micro-transaction games had, on the other hand, increased sharply. In 2010, micro-transaction MMOs made $1.13 billion - 24 per cent more than in 2009.

So that means subscriptions might be going down, but it's not because it's a failed system. It's the developers choice to change a game from subscription to micro-transactions. That's why you're seeing the drop in revenue for subscriptions. Not because it's a better system for customers as a whole. But because for one reason or another (greed) it has more incentive for companies.

You're being manipulated by companies to believe allowing F2P into a game will make it better for everyone. You're targeting the wrong problem. If the subscription rate was too high then solve that. 10 USD would work for such a game. Don't try to be clever and allow for a game to be corrupted by the F2P ideas in hopes that you can push the cost onto others since it'll just end up backfiring for greed if you don't define a fixed value for the game. (SOE isn't there to break even).

Crator · 2011-09-20, 10:09 PM

So, you're saying we should all just boycott the gaming industry then?

Raymac · 2011-09-21, 12:21 AM

Originally Posted by Sirisian

You're being manipulated by companies to believe allowing F2P into a game will make it better for everyone. You're targeting the wrong problem. If the subscription rate was too high then solve that. 10 USD would work for such a game. Don't try to be clever and allow for a game to be corrupted by the F2P ideas in hopes that you can push the cost onto others since it'll just end up backfiring for greed if you don't define a fixed value for the game. (SOE isn't there to break even).

Dude, I'm not going to get into an economics debate with you because I could give 2 shits. I really don't care if F2P is right or wrong. My only point is that it is a popular trend that IS happening, so either boycott it, as Crator says, or just deal with it.

I stopped trying to "fight the system" a long time ago. See ya in Guild Wars 2, I guess.

Sirisian · 2011-09-21, 12:49 AM

Originally Posted by Crator

So, you're saying we should all just boycott the gaming industry then?

*Dons a Tin Foil Hat* Nah man it's too late. They know it doesn't matter. Speaking of boycotting though I was sitting the #boycottPS2 channel on planetside-universe's IRC server for a while.

I wasn't directing my words at anyone in particular. I was just ranting.

Originally Posted by Raymac

See ya in Guild Wars 2, I guess.

Didn't really consider playing that game what with Rage on Oct 4th and then Skyrim on Nov 11th. Gaming already cuts into work and school as it is.

I know two developers on GW2, and it still bothers me that they try to sell the game as an "MMO". Irks me how people skew that prefix since it has no real definition.

Legion · 2011-09-21, 02:12 AM

Personally, I would rather have a great Planetside 2 with a subscription than a F2P Planetside 2 that doesn't capture the magic of the original. The article by the Guild Wars developer was telling in that games like guild wars, F2P, have players who return often because there is no barrier to coming back, there is no need to resub. However, the other spectrum has WOW and EVE Online that are both successful.

Yet, Planetside 2 is not a traditional MMO. It is an MMO FPS and thus the market is not flush with competitors like the MMO RPG market. There are not a lot of alternatives to Planetside 2. So while making Planetside 2 a F2P game is very attractive in many aspects, the way they go about making it F2P could make our break the game.

Before hearing that Planetside 2 would be F2P, I had fully expected to pay a subscription fee. I was ok with that considering I knew I would get a great game. However, upon announcing that the game will be F2P, I no longer have that expectation to pay a subscription fee, but I do still have that expectation of a great game. If Planetside 2 has a payment model similar to DC Universe then I will be disappointed in both aspects. Firstly, I will be disappointed that the F2P version is not the same game as the subscription version. Secondly, I will be disappointed that I expected a F2P game, but in stead I was really given the option between subscribing or playing an inferior game.

I sure do hope that Planetside 2 is not going to be like some of you had previously posted speculations on. I hope that the F2P version doesn't have some kind of BR limit or other limit that effects how well I do against a subscription user when we are facing each other down the barrels of our guns. Maybe a resource limitation or an offline training limitation may be more reasonable. Who knows. If that does become the case then at least I can be confident that there will be lots of F2P players as fodder for me while I pay the subscription.

edit for typo

Crator · 2011-09-21, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by Legion

Secondly, I will be disappointed that I expected a F2P game, but in stead I was really given the option between subscribing or playing an inferior game.

Blasphemy

Originally Posted by Legion

I sure do hope that Planetside 2 is not going to be like some of you had previously posted speculations on. I hope that the F2P version doesn't have some kind of BR limit or other limit that effects how well I do against a subscription user when we are facing each other down the barrels of our guns. Maybe a resource limitation or an offline training limitation may be more reasonable. Who knows. If that does become the case then at least I can be confident that there will be lots of F2P players as fodder for me while I pay the subscription.

edit for typo

I don't quite understand this logic. So someone who pays real money (monthly sub.) verses someone who doesn't pay anything should be equal? Why?

Legion · 2011-09-21, 12:38 PM

I can see how you would not want someone who doesn't pay for a subscription to get the same benefit of BR as someone who does. However it goes to my point that once they announced this game was F2P, I don't want those kind of limitations on the F2P client. I would much rather prefer limitations such as no offline training, limited resources, or extended training times. Maybe even limitations such as 1 character per server or limited customization options.

Also, what happens in a situation where you have a BR limit for F2P accounts. Take a client who pays for a subscription, takes their character all the way to the top of the BR limit, 25 for instance. Then that client decides they do not want to or cannot pay the subscription anymore. Does their character lose those BRs that they earned?

A system where the limitations I suggested would be much more amenable to players exiting and entering the subscription base. Their offline training could simply be suspended, their customization options no longer selectable, etc.

This is all just speculation, and I do think they should give more benefit to a subscription player than a F2P player if they go that route, but I think limiting BR or weapon selection would just result in a segregated battlefield where some players have access to everything and others are left inferior. Certainly the F2P player is getting the benefit of playing a great game for free, but do you want those players on your squad?

Look at a game like battlefield bad company 2, which the dev team has said they draw inspiration from. Playing as a level 1 player is terrible, the game only gets really fun when you have unlocked everything. Do you want to place those limitations on F2P players? It may very well result in people playing F2P for a few months and quitting. Just some musing I guess, I hope they can find the sweet spot between rewarding those that pay and those that do not, if they do adopt such a system.

Crator · 2011-09-21, 12:58 PM

I see what you are saying about BR limitation to F2P. I asked myself the same question about if someone who already has a character above the BR limit and wants to go F2P. I see the sub vs. F2P systems working in a way that allows the F2P player to buy things piece-meal from the cash shop. Things that they would normally be allowed to obtain for free if they were subbed. Also some sort of item degradation system would have to be in place for this to work so that the F2P players would have to re-buy or buy repair items for it. So if the subbed player with BR above F2P cap limit switches to F2P all the limitations would still apply to them and the certs/items/etc. that they have that required the higher BR would no longer work and they would have to fall back on the cash shop options.

I'm not 100% on if they should gimp the F2P players in some ways vs. subbed players. It really depends if F2P players produce more revenue over subbed players I would suppose.

Raymac · 2011-09-21, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Legion

Yet, Planetside 2 is not a traditional MMO. It is an MMO FPS and thus the market is not flush with competitors like the MMO RPG market. There are not a lot of alternatives to Planetside 2. So while making Planetside 2 a F2P game is very attractive in many aspects, the way they go about making it F2P could make our break the game.

You raise a good point, but I think you have it reversed a bit. PS2 is not a traditional MMO indeed. Being an FPS, it's true there are not MMO competitors, however there are many many many many many FPS games out there, and 2 pretty major franchises coming out soon. Out of all of those FPS games, I don't think any of them require a subscription.

Thats the main reason why PS2 needs to be F2P. FPS players simply do not pay subscriptions for games. Fortunately, we got to see a trial of this in PS1 with the Reserves program, and it brought in many new players. While it had its drawbacks (i.e. hackers) those hurdles are not insurmountable. The 1 thing that Planetside 2 needs more than anything is alot of players, and that cannot be achieved by a subscription only since it is an FPS.