Why are people so against monthly fees?

BETAOPTICS

Zephyr wrote: »

The pay to win idiots are console kids. With 15$ a month, per person, they are only making 6.50$ not including what they pay their staff. So for that 15$, very little goes to their pockets. With a server game, it isn't like a console game. It is ever expanding, therefore, they are always working on it. You physically can not just pay one time and expect free content for life as well as perfect server maintenance and all that. Though I guess the free to play children would much rather take Mommy's credit card and buy endgame items so they have a chance against real players.

Yep because the best way to win people over is to mock them in the first sentence. Skills.

Anyways I personally used to be against it because to me, games that I buy should be accessible at any time I so desire without myself having to spend additional money for the game I already bought and rightfully own.

Then I started thinking the reason behind a subscibtion fee and realized that it is actually quite decent to be honest. I mean many free to play games make me spend that money monthly because I want to, because they are good games. I also researched and came into founding information that covered how much more expensive MMO games really are.

Add to the fact that players should then get ALL content made for free, even the cosmetic ones and everyone should be able to experience the same content for free as long as the game has subscibtion fee.

Now whether or not 15$ per month is the necessity or if it is because people are OK with it and they want to make as much money as possible is whole another debate but it actually isn't that bad.

Don't be mistaken though. Cash shop is only acceptable in games if they give you the option to buy the other edition pre-release bonus content trough them. That is fine, absolutely so but any other content, be it visual content, armor and weaponry, player houses, mounts etc. is off limits.

Unless you are going to drop out subscirbtion fee. You can only have one, not both.

Sarenia

Zephyr wrote: »

The pay to win idiots are console kids. With 15$ a month, per person, they are only making 6.50$ not including what they pay their staff. So for that 15$, very little goes to their pockets.

Why does somebody always end up fabricating numbers?

Cepeza

This is not about the 15 bucks (sure thing you spend more a month on cigarettes or whatever consumables you're in), but about getting good value for money!

If I have my own expectations for a specific value of a specific thing when I go and spend money on thatt, but I realize it is just not worth it, I'd rather decide to spend my money on something else. That is what this all is about, and nothing else. Each personal evaluation of value for money. You should ask yourself is that what ZOS delivers for 15$/month worth it or not? For me I decided it is NOT (yet).

cromica81_ESO

I prefer p2p you tend to get a better quality game but ESO is the exception to that.

WalrusKing

I have a personal preference for P2P. I wouldn't go so far as saying that it acts as a gateway for younger or poorer players, so much as it provides a uniform gaming experience for monetary investment. Either everyone can pay a little and have access to the same content given comparable time investment, or a few people can pay large sums to achieve a notable advantage over so-called "free players." Granted, there are hybrid models, but anecdotally, I find MMOs using a F2P model, subsidized by a cash shop promoting cosmetic items or expedient content unlocks, have a tendency to stagnate on the content development end; Even if said game is enjoyable for the content it does have.

KerinKor

Zephyr wrote: »

Why are people so against monthly fees?

Why do so many steal music and movies and colleges block P2P?

Same reason, many people are freeloaders.

jircris11

Sarenia wrote: »

Shimond wrote: »

Spectral_Lord wrote: »

No idea, but I think that we'd eventually end up paying more than $15 if it would ever go F2P.

Agreed. In my experience "free to play" is more expensive than subscription.

No kidding. And while you play you have to deal with that constant fear of something else popping up and saying "GIVE US MORE MONEY?"

Want an extra bag slot? Give us $10. Want a mount? Give us $20. Want to unlock a "prestige" class? $10 each. Want to unlock levels beyond 20? That's just $15! We added new areas - unlock them for $25? We know this dungeon is impossible, but you can buy a power up potion for just $8 and finish it! If you want to craft "elite" gear you can, just buy these crafting materials for $5 each.

Playing F2P games is like browsing the internet without an ad blocker.

BEST example of this is SWTOR....there is NO SUCH THING AS FREE on there >>. Great example thanks for posting it

SadisticSavior

Zephyr wrote: »

The pay to win idiots are console kids. With 15$ a month, per person, they are only making 6.50$ not including what they pay their staff. So for that 15$, very little goes to their pockets. With a server game, it isn't like a console game. It is ever expanding, therefore, they are always working on it. You physically can not just pay one time and expect free content for life as well as perfect server maintenance and all that. Though I guess the free to play children would much rather take Mommy's credit card and buy endgame items so they have a chance against real players.

I agree. I like the pay model...it makes it expensive for Gold Farmers for one thing. F2P is also vulnerable to the P2W cash shops which kinda ruin the game for me. The Pay model is more likely to put everyone on equal footing.

F2P can work, but I prefer just paying a monthly fee.

Raice

My big issue with F2P is that I'm paying for at least 5 other people to voice their opinion about what sort of content the player base would like to see added... and my opinion doesn't count because the other 5 players I pay for are vocally more impressive.

It's a total crock.

demendred

Zephyr wrote: »

The pay to win idiots are console kids.

Who plays Xbox 360, PS4, XBOX1, which requires a monthly sub.

Crumpy

zaria wrote: »

darkkterror_ESO wrote: »

Do you honestly have to ask why people prefer things to not cost them money?

Has you ever played any F2P MMO in the endgame?
Do you think they run them as an public service

I think you missed the point of the post to which you were replying.

Jeremy

Crumpy wrote: »

Um.... cos it cost like, er, money?

lol

This would be my guess too as to why they are against them.

Elencha

Darlantan wrote: »

...Oh and also do not want a M rated game changed to a G rated game because "we have to think about the children".

Amen. Please no. Pretty please with sugar on top.
*shivers*
Sorry, topic, right. To answer the question posed in the original post, my answer at least, is that I'm against subscription fees because I don't want the things that make the subscription justifiable.
Is $15 a more than fair price to ask for maintaining a 24/7 server with access to millions of players all over the world? Of course it is. I don't want those things though, so I don't want to pay for them. I'd have easily paid the 90 dollars for the Imperial Edition and then another 30-60 when the expansion pack came out if that had been an offered option.
Don't get me wrong, I love the game, I'm playing it, and my subscription stands and will stand, but it still feels like paying for something I don't want.
Imagine you hate pickles. You go to a sandwich shop and they have this magnificent sandwich that looks twelve different levels of delicious,except it comes with pickles. And it costs extra specifically because it comes with pickles. You tell them you don't want the pickles and they say "We don't sell this sandwich without pickles. You are free to take the pickles off of the sandwich, but you must still pay extra for the pickles."
It's like that.

antmck2011rwb17_ESO

I would prefer a single one of lifetime subscription fee like they did with Star Trek Online. Then I never need to worry about it again. I play as much or as little as I want. I can even take a break for a month or two and come back. In the long run a one off fee is cheaper then monthly payment. Especially with the exchange rate. I think the Aussie dollar is something like .9 at the moment. So we pay slightly more.

jircris11

heh id pay 299 for a life time..i did on LOTRO and STO. never bothered me after that

rager82b14_ESO

Im not vs mothly fees if the game was worth having a monthly fee for. That means.

They have a team that is two contents ahead working, because monthly fee=need a steady flow of content.

game at least work how it should, right now that is not the case.

A way to deal with massive bots and cheaters

less exploits with combat.

This game has none of that it feels like.

Pretext

Most players are now used to MMOs being F2P, anything else really gets up their nose. B2P is bad enough but P2P makes them grind their teeth.

Selstad

I've never been a fan of the F2P module, only Runescape have actually managed that balance, the other F2P games with micro transactions have in essence become Pay 2 win games, every single one of them.

Take Rift per example. Some people praise it like a game that manages the F2P module very well. I strongly disagree. On the Rift store you can purchase XP potions, per example, that increases your XP gain, and at times it's actually necessary. I did all the quests in one zone and yet I was 3 levels away from recommended level for the next zone. So I did an experiment, I created a new character and bought a couple of XP increase flasks. When all the quests were done, I was exactly the level recommended for going to the next zone.
Another thing about Rift store is that you can purchase weapons, armour and other essentials that will give you a clear advantage over the rest. Rift is essentially yet another Pay 2 Win game.

The worse case scenario comes from Star Wars: The old republic. Now that's quite fun, being an EA brand game, naturally, the "micro" transactions is everywhere. Even down to the option to have you helmet off or not. Yes I had to pay credits - IRL money - to check the option "Hide helmet". Ludicrous.

What is worse is that gamers in an essence say that it's OK that they do this, they cough up the money and pay. They spend a whole lot of money on this, that's clear, as they manage to keep the game going. Yet a lot of the same players won't pay the monthly fee on a sub game because it apparently is "too expensive". You might be the one that don't pay anything, but a whole more pay a lot, even more than sub modules cost per month.

Had it only been cosmetics it wouldn't be a problem, but it's not. The games are pay 2 win games, and that's a strategy to lure people to buy the items in the first place. That's why I rather like the sub module, I pay a fee per month to play the game yet get the whole game experience there and then. It's the same reason I pay for per example Netflix and HBO, I get the series I want to watch and it doesn't cost me that much per month. I exchange currency for entertainment. You exchange sub modules all the time, every day, yet in an MMO it's suddenly become "bad". Not sure when this mindset came into play, but I sure hope that some games stick to their sub module and keep the Pay 2 win items far away from the game.

jakethefat1_ESO

Why are so many people against a monthly fee? Pc users might be acustom to paying $60 plus $15 a month but they're not thinking about console. Us console users have to pay a game fee plus your dumb monthly fee plus a fee for online service (unless you own a ps 4 which i dont really prefer). The monthly fee is just zenimax's way to suck money from you, i did'nt see them charging people to play skyrim, and dont say that its not the same because it is. They dont need the monthy fee it will just drive all the people that want to enjoy the game on console. And guys i know sounds like im really hating on the game but im not in fact i had alot of fun playing the beta despite its problems and i have always loved the elder scrolls series thats why i say this. But guys just understand what i say, i really want to play this game more but not if i have to pay a monthly fee and im sure other people feel the same

knightblaster

It's just the market.

Most old school MMO fans like the P2P model because it is familiar and it is thought that it keeps out riff raff and pays for new development.

The issue is that pretty much no new MMO has been able to sustain this model in the highly competitive MMO market of today. There are simply too many games, and the market is too fragmented, and so few of them are P2P, that it is very hard to sustain.

Essentially what the market is saying is that in order for a game to retain a substantial number of subscribers, it has to offer players something they perceive they cannot get somewhere else -- something unique, in other words, in a sea of B2P and F2P offerings. WoW does this because of the time invested there and the social ties there and the focus on endgame mechanics group content there -- people are willing to pay for that, because no other game can provide that to them in the same way that WoW does (I know we all hate WoW and think it's a total crap game, but a large number of MMO player still seem to think it offers something that other games don't such that they are willing to sub WoW and not other games). EVE does this because there is no other game that offers internet space ships sandbox full loot PvP -- it's a niche of one game, so it attracts that niche and retains it very well due to pretty much no competition at all.

The newer MMOs can't generally sustain a sub because they don't offer players something that they highly value and which they perceive they can't get somewhere else, generally speaking. Of course, all MMOs offer that to *some* players -- each game has its core fans that will sub it. The issue is one of scale, and pretty much no new MMO has been able to scale that willingness to sub more than a month or two in a larger sense beyond the fanbase and into the "regular MMO player" base, which is what is needed to sustain a sub over the long term.

Tl;DR: The broader MMO market, beyond a specific game's fanbase, will not sub unless the game brings something to the table they both highly value and think can't get elsewhere -- pretty much no new MMOs fulfill those conditions, so they don't sustain subs once the non-fanbase players leave.

Cepeza

Scrap all other explanations and excuses. People are not against monthly fee in general, but against a monthly fee for something they think is not worth it.

halflight2

If it gos free to play it will ruin the game just like it ruined secret world/rift/tera/lotr/ and so on if you are 1 of these people that want it for free there are plenty of free games that are simpler to this game you can play, go play those and wast 100 dollars a month having to buy everything you need rather than pay they 15 to play this game. granted they need to fix things but that's every game, stop with the I need instant gratification now stuff. and if you cant than just stop complaining (unless its about bug's and problems with the game because they cant be fixed unless they now about them ) .

jakethefat1_ESO

Halflight2 you don't quite understand what I'm saying I'm not against paying the $60 just not monthly they don't need to keep charging people. An example of this is GTA online their not constantly charging people I will gladly pay the up front fee but not monthly for console your already paying for online services

rager82b14_ESO

It is almost worth 15 a month.

The combat exploit.
The buggy quests lots of buggy quest
The skills being bugged make it not at this point.

Yasha

Zephyr wrote: »

The pay to win idiots are console kids. With 15$ a month, per person, they are only making 6.50$ not including what they pay their staff. So for that 15$, very little goes to their pockets. With a server game, it isn't like a console game. It is ever expanding, therefore, they are always working on it. You physically can not just pay one time and expect free content for life as well as perfect server maintenance and all that. Though I guess the free to play children would much rather take Mommy's credit card and buy endgame items so they have a chance against real players.

GW2 says hello- just saying.

Eris

The title is incorrect. It should read Why are some people... note the some. The reason, I'm not at all against a subscription fee. People have it so good now, it's sad. In the good ole days of telnet and text adventuring, Gemstone on the GEnie network cost $9.99/hour + subscription fee to GEnie. So consider how good you have it with $15/month.

Consider this... on a 30 day subscription for $15 you get 43,200 minutes of potential game time. Yes, I know you cannot actually use those all because of sleep, work, etc. Still you can use as much of that 43,200 minutes as you can.

If you go to a 3 hour movie that is 180 minutes for which the ticket costs about $12.50 or so depending on where you live. So for $2.50 more you get another 43,020 minutes of entertainment.

Ohioastro

MMO players tend to want a ton of things to do and also want to be able to run through them extremely quickly. This combination is expensive to achieve, and you have to pay for it one way or another.

A few high-profile recent launches, and struggling older games, have gone the micro transaction route. This does not imply that all games need to do so, nor does it make it superior. The so-called-free to play approach soaks people for more, on average, than a subscription fee - which is why companies like to do it. The entire design of the game ends up being built on ways to make you pay for things, and the development resources are devoted to the cash shop. If it's too easy to get around the cash shop they make it more obtrusive. The incentives for a sub fee game are different - namely, the designers have to come up with reasons for you to play the game, not to pay in the shop.

So I'm rooting for the sub fee approach to work. This is in no small part because the cash shop approach is so destructive - and I simply refuse to play any game with that approach.

knightblaster

Ohioastro wrote: »

A few high-profile recent launches, and struggling older games, have gone the micro transaction route. This does not imply that all games need to do so, nor does it make it superior.

What was the last big MMO that had an exclusively sub model last for more than a year?

knightblaster

Yasha wrote: »

Zephyr wrote: »

The pay to win idiots are console kids. With 15$ a month, per person, they are only making 6.50$ not including what they pay their staff. So for that 15$, very little goes to their pockets. With a server game, it isn't like a console game. It is ever expanding, therefore, they are always working on it. You physically can not just pay one time and expect free content for life as well as perfect server maintenance and all that. Though I guess the free to play children would much rather take Mommy's credit card and buy endgame items so they have a chance against real players.

GW2 says hello- just saying.

I agree, but GW2 was built from the ground up as a B2P game. This impacts the whole design. In GW2, the drops you get/find are usually not great for you. So you sell them on the global AH (the trading post) to generate cash to buy stuff that other people have posted, and if you don't have enough cash ... you buy some from Anet in the gem store via buying gems and then converting into in-game gold. That supports their revenue stream as a B2P game without a sub. It works, but it also has design implications. Due to the gear equalization (for the most part, leaving aside Ascended gear, which is not really needed and not a huge disparity, and in any case something that can't be easily purchased), it isn't really buy to play, but the drop system encourages people to buy gold so that they can gear their character. The design and revenue model are linked.

That doesn't mean it isn't a fun game -- I've had fun in it, as well. But doing the B2P thing in a way that is NOT an easy slapdash P2W model takes some up front design and planning, rather than patching it in if the sub model "goes wrong".

SadisticSavior

jakethefat1_ESO wrote: »

Why are so many people against a monthly fee? Pc users might be acustom to paying $60 plus $15 a month but they're not thinking about console. Us console users have to pay a game fee plus your dumb monthly fee plus a fee for online service (unless you own a ps 4 which i dont really prefer).

Um...how is that different from PC users?

ISP + Game + Sub...thats the same on both platforms.

Sounds like console users are mostly kids who can't afford the fees, and thats why they like F2P. Which to me is just another argument for why P2P is a good thing.

jakethefat1_ESO wrote: »

The monthly fee is just zenimax's way to suck money from you, i did'nt see them charging people to play skyrim, and dont say that its not the same because it is.

How much new content has Skyrim seen? How many people can play in the same gameworld at once?

It's not the same at all. MMOs need to be maintained far more than single player games.

jakethefat1_ESO wrote: »

They dont need the monthy fee it will just drive all the people that want to enjoy the game on console.

So? How does that affect us? There was not even going to be a console version originally.

I personally don't see how an MMO can really work on a console anyway. If they can make it work, more power to em. But I won't lose any sleep over it if they can't.