45 replies to this topic

[Green Mamba]

If it was Subscription Based people would naturally expect Considerable and Regular Monthly added Content.It would have forced PGI to meet Expectations and Goals which would have kept the Player Base in general happy.I think it would have been good for the IP.I would be willing to pay $15 a month so for an evolving storyline and regular influx of Maps and Mechs (Yeah I know they don't have a problem with Mech because they can get MC for those) .
I think a lot of others would have been happy with a Sub. also as long as there is Regular Content with a Story Line that keeps Developing as the Months go on . It would have kept everyone interested as long as it was done right.I have played some of the older Subscription Based MMOs and they were fun Pre WOW.Much more Sandbox than games now.

This could have been a Better move for PGI long term ,I know it wouldn't fit the Minimal Viable Product philosophy but I think the Longevity of the Game would be much better

[EyeOne]

I hardly play this game for free (Founder, Overlord+saber, Summoner pack, tons of MC). but I really really don't like subscription based games. I prefer it the way it is.

Edited by EyeOne, 17 August 2014 - 05:20 PM.

[MAXrobo]

I certainly wouldn't still be playing if it was subscription based.

[Green Mamba]

EyeOne, on 17 August 2014 - 05:19 PM, said:

I hardly play this game for free (Founder, Overlord+saber, Summoner pack, tons of MC). but I really really don't like subscription based games. I prefer it the way it is.

Well the most of the MMOs I have played before " in the old days" had Monthly updates and people expected new Quests and Dungeons etc.Its just a way of putting a goal t a developer that they have to stick to or there will be outrage.Positive reinforcement

MAXrobo, on 17 August 2014 - 05:22 PM, said:

I certainly wouldn't still be playing if it was subscription based.

I am talking about them meeting their Goals like they promised over the time line ,not at all like the game is today

[Ardney]

Don't have a problem with the way it is. Wouldn't have a problem with a sub based model. What I've spent ytd works out to a 12~ dollar per month sub anyway.I imagine plenty others are in the same boat.

Also, it should be noted that a sub does not preclude micro-transactions. It would certainly change the thought process behind their inclusion though. Or should, at any rate.

Edited by Ardney, 17 August 2014 - 05:30 PM.

[Mechteric]

We probably wouldn't even have the game to play at all otherwise. Different times man.

[Mycrus]

Change in monetization method won't un-paul the game.

[LORD TSARKON]

Nope... This game would have been done and gone if it was subscription based.. especially by PGI (they do not have the resources that a subscription mode demand)...

[CN9 ACE PILOT]

Nan, PGI would still lie, and not yield results, only difference would be is people complaining they are paying and PGI responding they are not forcing anyone to stay.

[Green Mamba]

Oh Well I guess people don't want a game structure that locks the Developers into performance basis to success of the game. Eve Online does it; maybe those days are gone

Mycrus, on 17 August 2014 - 05:29 PM, said:

Change in monetization method won't un-paul the game.

Yes it should because if Dev's can meet expectations they are Fired (In other Games and Businesses of course) not here so far

[BLOOD WOLF]

I don't think a Subscription model based game would have forced them to meet "Expectations, and Goals". The model they have now does a good job of checks and balances. Obviously somebody or enough people have had to have been paying continuously for this game to still be a float. I wish I had the monthly sales projections, that would make this easier. The same events would have transpired either way.

EyeOne, on 17 August 2014 - 05:19 PM, said:

I hardly play this game for free (Founder, Overlord+saber, Summoner pack, tons of MC). but I really really don't like subscription based games. I prefer it the way it is.

I put money in the tank from time to time and I like that I can put money in when I want to and not when the time is up. A subscription game would definitely hinder newer players from coming into the game. Unless they have the means or somebody to pay for them.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 17 August 2014 - 05:35 PM.

[Green Mamba]

Well PGI(Russ) has to be held accountable

Edited by Green Mamba, 17 August 2014 - 05:36 PM.

[EgoSlayer]

MAXrobo, on 17 August 2014 - 05:22 PM, said:

I certainly wouldn't still be playing if it was subscription based.

Me either.

F2P is a curse and a blessing. Curse because they have to nickle and dime everything, blessing because you are not paying a monthly charge for something you are not playing. With a subscription model, I don't think many people would take breaks and return later; they would just cancel and move on.

At least F2P you can come back and check if things have changed enough to warrant spending any money - subscription you would just have pay the fee and hope there were enough changes.

Now if they would have got more money and done more with a subscription? Who knows. Games Industry seems to think F2P is less risk and more profitable, so it's all just conjecture on if it would have been better or more one way or the other.

Edited by EgoSlayer, 17 August 2014 - 05:39 PM.

[ManDaisy]

Sadly battletech is a little too niche market. After mechwarrior 4, the IP was really on its last legs. If PGI had gone the subscription route I doubt they would have had anywhere near the success they had now. To many other (polished turds) shiny distractions for this lost generation of gamers. Right now, because its free its getting exposure.

Even if it had been subscriptions there would still be the same amount of expectation from the fan base for a new camelot. IT just would have just been that much worse when the $hit hit the fan.

Edited by ManDaisy, 17 August 2014 - 05:45 PM.

[Impyrium]

Mycrus, on 17 August 2014 - 05:29 PM, said:

Change in monetization method won't un-paul the game.

I disagree. Much of the balancing and changes placed into the game are because they need to make it 'fair' all round in order to avoid people whining over their purchases not being what they thought they'd be. Ironically they still do anyway.

With a subscription model, the developers could focus on making a fun, high quality MechWarrior game, rather than a F2P platform designed to make consistent money with MechWarrior wrapped about it.

[Mycrus]

Green Mamba, on 17 August 2014 - 05:35 PM, said:

Well PGI(Russ) has to be held accountable

Accountable to who? He founded pgi..
I'm pretty sure that translates to ownership...

As long as he looks in the mirror and is happy with himself it's all good.

[Livewyr]

Regular Schedule of content?
Being forced to meet deadlines?

Why would they?
Why would they when they have free reign to do whatever content they want (not-so-micro transaction material) and only do enough core and required material to maintain the "Minimally Viable Product" label.

There is a reason F2P business model is getting so popular. (I think) It actually makes more money than subscription based.
(Free = wider audience not immediately put off by subscription requirement)
(Wider audience = bigger pool with which to find people to by $500 pixels and such.)

[Thorqemada]

No, there be not enough Players paying to lose.

[Green Mamba]

ManDaisy, on 17 August 2014 - 05:42 PM, said:

Sadly battletech is a little too niche market. After mechwarrior 4, the IP was really on its last legs. If PGI had gone the subscription route I doubt they would have had anywhere near the success they had now. To many other (polished turds) shiny distractions for this lost generation of gamers. Right now, because its free its getting exposure.

I hope this isn't the case. I have played most of the Video Games (never played the TT) and MW is easily in my top 5 Video Game franchises. I enjoyed them for many years.If not this game ,maybe when another Developer makes this game again somewhere down the road when can have that experience again

[darkkterror]

Generally speaking, I prefer a subscription model over F2P in games. I feel that subscription-based allows the developers to focus entirely on making a fun game where as F2P forces them to always be thinking about what else they can create in order to sell. In F2P developers might feel pressured to design new game mechanics specifically in a way that they can monetize it or that they always have to have a portion of their team dedicated to simply making new things to sell. The subscription model, to me, seems like developers would have more freedom to simply pursue making a better game rather than making more ways to monetize it or more things to sell.

That said, I don't think subscription would have done much to change how MWO turned out.