Ordellus, on 04 March 2014 - 03:06 PM, said:
They need to players BECAUSE THE PRODUCT SUCKS.
Games like EVE and WOW can afford a subscription plan BECAUSE THE GAME IS WORTH PAYING FOR.
You draw the wrong connections here.
The main reason why they are still subscription based is because the games are not designed for F2P and would require a massive overhaul. And luckily they can still survive without taking such high risks and effort.
Blizzard says that totally official:
http://www.eurogamer...rld-of-warcraft
WoW subscription numbers are declining and they are currently living from their past success and still huge playerbase.
So you can expect their next MMO Titan to be F2P:
http://www.geek.com/...on-mmo-1564270/
And Hearthstone already is F2P. With a reason.
The signs are totally clear: Subscription is as good as dead with only a few exceptions and this has nothing to do with the quality of the games. If CCP would create EVE today, it would be F2P for sure.
The only crux is to design a F2P game fair enough to walk the small line between profitability and fun.
Many games failed at that and gave F2P a bad image, but there are also quite good examples like LOL, Team Fortress 2, Card Hunter, Dota2, Path of Exile and YES, even MWO.
Any of this games can be played perfectly for free or with only minimal investment and also have no or only insignificant P2W elements. I invite you to prove me wrong, but beware it won't be easy and you will need real arguments.
Ordellus, on 04 March 2014 - 03:06 PM, said:
I didn't realize that a cell phone game could be compared in any manner to a MMO PC game aside from that they are both played on electronics.....
They totally can be compared. Tell me what's really different between a mobile and a PC game other than the controls and screen resolution.
And in case you don't realized: We are talking about monetization. And in terms of that there is no difference in mobile and pc. Both markets have 'pay upfront' as well as F2P games and both work very similar. And on both platforms there are good and evil F2P games.
I can play XCOM on my freaking cellphone in the same quality as on my PC. And wargaming is currently developing a mobile version of WoT.
Ordellus, on 04 March 2014 - 03:06 PM, said:
Oh I could see it costing 5 million or so to run the game for a year.
But they made that in a month.... so can we address actual topics now.
True, they made that in a month. And then? They won't get that much money every month, that's a huge difference.
I don't see them coming up with new special packs every month to make that much money regularly.
In fact last year we saw 2 packages, project phoenix and the clans. I bet both have not sold as well as the founders packs, especially the clan pack whose announcement was timed quite badly and content/price wise they have been quite stretchy.
With luck, both packs together let them keep on for another year.
So they need additional monetization like premium accounts, colors, mechs and such.
Ordellus, on 04 March 2014 - 03:06 PM, said:
Everything else you've said can be countered with:
If they produce a solid, quality product.. .they will make money.
The blatant greed and money grabbing is evidence of nothing other than the disrespect, and callousness of whoever is in charge.
That kind of behavior should not be tolerated, much less defended and encouraged.
I have yet to see any REAL argument from you where PGI is greedy and money-grabbing.
- Gold mechs are none. They are a bit disgusting in terms of price and... well... that they are golden. But they does not spoil the free players experience in any way.
- Hero mechs are none. They are not overpowered, the other case is more true (i'm looking at you, Golden Boy and Pretty Baby). So again, they don't spoil the free player's experience in any way. There are lots of great free mechs to choose from.
- Premium is none. The grind without is not the shortest one possible, but very doable and compared to many other games neither totally boring (like farming mobs in MMORPGs) or insanely long (like in WoT or many online card games).
- Colors are none. I hope i don't have to write why.
- Requiring premium for selecting maps and game-modes in private matches is honestly only affecting very few players.
One member in each team most probably has premium.
And if not having random maps and game-modes in private matches is not the end of the world. We will still have lots of fun.
And BTW: i have not read anything yet that voting for the next map is off the table for _public_ matches.
We likely get this anyway for free when pugging. So i see not much to really rage about.
I almost have more fear that PGI is _too fair_ monetizing their game (now that's a shock, eh?) and not netting enough to keep on. Especially with all those whiners and haters who see every way to finance the game as pure evilness and which then scare away players with their unrealistic view on what is a fair monetization.
Oh and yes, a developer is totally allowed to gain profit without investing everything right back into the game. Maybe they want to create another game someday and expand. Building additional main pillars to secure the future of the company. Only fools are putting all eggs in one basket in the long run. And there is nothing evil about this, it's basic business 101.
So i really advise to get more realistic and address the real problems of the game like matchmaking which puts new players together with vets or the lack of features to enable pugs to self-organize. Those are the things which spoil the fun for everyone including the whales, not the monetization.
Edited by Daggett, 05 March 2014 - 11:26 AM.
3
Chris Roberts has missed deadlines too. Promises broken. 
I wonder how many more before he is vilified like PGI is? You sure talk about what a great game SC is! But how would you know since it isn't playable? I am sure the designers of The War Z hyped up their game too. 
