WebShaman wrote...
Why are Social Websites like Facebook for free?
And why can't a MMO be totally free to play? If one can have Social Websites like Facebook for free, then shouldn't it be possible to do so with a MMO?
Now, I hear things like "operational costs", etc could be used as an argument. But huuuuuge sites like Facebook find ways to get around that, without burdening their userbase with costs.
As others have said, advertising and selling of data. Yeah, if you started seeing ads for Naga Razers or something in-game the subscription cost might go down or disappear. I'm bribing Blizzard $0.50 a day to avoid seeing such ads and selling my personal information.
WebShaman wrote...
What I basically want to know is, why and how could anyone prefer WoW on a pay to play basis vs WoW on a free to pay basis. Keep in mind that I know that there are WoW worlds out there that basically do that (I believe they even have a "name" that has been applied to them, in this day and age).
Are you referring to something besides illegal WoW private servers?
And the main answer is because F2P really means "we get the money from advertising, selling data, or making it so you have to pay real life money to get anywhere in the game anyway." F2P games do stuff like sell items which increase your experience gain by 1000% or something, or let you get the best items in the game by paying some real life money.
WebShaman wrote...
I personally think that the reason WoW is kept as it is, is because hordes of Chinese (and other low wage countries inhabitants) are actually making money off playing WoW - enough that it is worth the monthly fee. I begin to suspect that they make up probably the real "base" of WoW - with others who are just playing probably on the fringe - doing clan stuff, etc.
The Chinese actually pay by the hour to play WoW
'>
And it's something crazy like $0.06 an hour I think.
That said, the Western world makes up over 5 million subscribers, Korea/China/other Eastern countries make up the rest. So at the absolute most China may make up like half of the playerbase. But it's probably more like a third or less.
Pstemarie wrote...
The banter between Lazarus and MM reminds me of when I was a kid and played a game called Rock-Em-Sock-Em Robots - no matter how many times their foolish heads popped up, we'd just push em down and keep playing... [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/grin.png[/smilie]
And before either of you start claiming I called you both foolish - note the smiley and accept that it was just some lame humor at your expenses - ZING!
I AM DEEPLY INSULTED AND DEMAND AN APOLOGY. PLUS COOKIES. CHOCOLATE CHIP COOKIES. WITH EXTRA CHOCOLATE CHIPS. ACTUALLY FORGET THE APOLOGY AND SEND MORE COOKIES.
(P.S. Thanks for the help in the Cleric domain bug thread)
Frith5 wrote...
I think WoW is kept 'as it is' because it produces a LOT of money for Blizzard. Why? Because a LOT of people feel it is worth it to pay to play. That is their opinions. As for me, no thanks to WoW. But that does not mean I'd never pay to play any game, ever. 'Course I would, if it were awesome enough and nothing else offered what it did. Why do folks pay monthly phone charges to have fancy iPhones, Data plans and such, when they could borrow a friend's phone, use the payphone (note the word 'the'), not call anyway, or use a cheap GoPhone for a fraction of the cost? They pay, willingly, each month, because they feel it's worth it. Same with Wow.
NO. IT IS A SCAM. THE FACT THAT IT IS A SCAM IS AN ESTABLISHED FACT. YOU, SIR, ARE WRONG!
MrZork wrote...
I think that's the key question with regard to what WoW is doing well enough to stay in the P2P business and what some other MMOs aren't doing that well. Whatever speculation about 'scams' and 'suckers', I haven't seen anything to indicate WoW players are being tricked or bamboozled out of their subscription fees (which, one must note, is very different from them choosing to pay for something that some of us wouldn't choose to pay for). So, as a non-WoW player (never even tried the free month or whatever; I just don't have the time), I have to suspect that WoW comes with enough new content, slick interface, a social environment, stable (crash-free) gaming environment, enjoyable modes of game play, and who-knows-what-else that people freely choose to spend their money on it.
AND NOW WE HAVE ANOTHER IDIOT WHO CANNOT SEE THAT IT IS CLEARLY A SCAM. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?
MrZork wrote...
As to why the "free" models don't seem to have worked well, I don't know. But it's probably worth stating the obvious: None of this is really free. It's just that some of it is payed for by others - some paid for by advertisers, some of it is funded by players paying for game-related things that aren't subscriptions, and so on. Even in the case of NWN PWs, things are only "free" in the sense that others are picking up the tab, both in terms of direct costs like servers/hosting and indirect costs like time (definitely the more significant cost, IMO), both of which are costs someone has to pay in order for PWs to be viable. So, one problem the commercial F2P MMOs may face is that they are making up their costs in ways that gamers find too high to pay, even if the cost isn't a direct subscription fee.
Enterprises like facebook make money by monetizing ad space and they put a huge effort into vigorously data mining every click people visiting the site make in order to better serve their ad-revenue model. (Hint: even if you don't have a FB account, if you have visited, then there is a profile of you with your IP and data on the pages you visited, the ads you did and didn't click on, the albums you browsed, etc.) I suspect that the gameplay environments just visually aren't as well suited to hosting ads, at least not in the everpresent way they exist on FB or most ad-funded sites that actually make a profit from the ads. I suspect someone has tried the ad-funded model and more attempts will be made as more effort is put into making F2P games viable.
This. All of this.
MrZork wrote...
I think the reality is that the P2P MMOs, particularly WoW, are offering a service that people are willing to pay the subscription price to get. They know what they are getting and it's worth it to them.
CAPS LOCK TIME AGAIN. YOU ARE WRONG. BECAUSE I SAY YOU ARE WRONG. STOP BEING WRONG.
MrZork wrote...
I am curious if those more familiar with MMOs know: Do any of the MMOs use a fee system with tiered rates according to monthly playing time? I mean something along the lines of: Less than X hours per month is free; between X and Y hours per month is Rate1; and (optionally) over Y hours per month ("unlimited") is Rate2. Every player gets full access to the goodies, but it's free to people trying it out or just dinking around and anyone who actually plays much is paying something. Obviously, there would likely be some sort of unlimited first month or something to get people started and hooked.
It seems like that model would have some promise. The "free" tier would both be an enticement to people who worry that they are signing on to a monthly subscription to something they may not like and it would lower the barrier for players who worry about getting bored or busy in RL or whatever but have a hankering to play. If it's free to come back and play for a while again, some fraction of wayward players will come back knowing it may not cost them anything, and some fraction of those will become regular players (at one of the paying tiers) again.
The paid tiers could accommodate players who are at the expected level of playing time. And, the optional highest tier would provide good value for the hardcore gamers who really spend time on the servers. It might be smart to make that tier a good bargain for those gamers, since they play a key role in evangelizing the game and adopting expansions and so on.
Anyway, the real appeal of such a system is that it gets past the reservations of people who might be interested in the game but who feel bad signing up for yet another *bleeping* monthly charge for a game they may not like much or may be bored of after the first month or two. It's a "no obligation" model, similar to pre-paid mobile phones.
It could work.
On one hand, I can see companies preferring to charge by the hour instead, up to a maximum amount per month. That way players don't feel "I've played as much I paid for, guess I need to log off" and instead think "Okay, I've already spent the time I decided I'd play this month...but what's another hour, really? Gotta finish this quest!"
On the flip side, actively paying a set amount on different tiers may make people feel "obliged" to cap out their hours and feel like they're wasting their money otherwise.
An interesting psychological problem, I'm not sure which would be better.
However, there is a benefit of the flat subscription rate. Everyone feels more equal and no one has to worry about how much or little they use. Would you want to pay for a certain amount of TV per month if you could save $5 a month or something? Is that small amount per month worth the "hassle?" Do you want to worry that you might run out of TV time when you really want to catch a show or something?
*** WE NOW RETURN TO ROCK'EM SOCK'EM ROBOTS! ***
Lazarus Magni wrote...
Actually, it's not a threat. It's just a fact, the law here states that's my right. And if you haven't guessed by now, I am not too big of a fan of someone saying they are (or are going to) (hack)ing my bank account, or (break)ing into my house.
A fact can be a threat. Imagine I was was a master hacker (I'm not). If you said something I didn't like and I responded "You know, I could hack into your bank account and steal your life's savings...just saying..."
that would be a threat. And a fact.Likewise, there is *zero* reason to
talk about being able to kill me unless you are making a veiled threat.You are the one who needs to understand the difference between a joke...
"Hah! I hacked everyone's bank account and *forced* everyone in the world to pay for WoW and other P2P games to impose my opinion on them!"
and a veiled threat...
"You know, the law here says I could kill you if you broke into my house...just saying..."
Lazarus Magni wrote...
And yes I would have been happier, because then you would not have been taking me out of context to mis-construe the meaning.
Whatever floats your boat. I've changed it.
Incidentally, are you a native English speaker? It seems you're often missing nuances and sarcasm.
Now let's go back and try something again for the fourth (fifth, sixth?) time.
Say Blizzard charged $5 for WoW and $0.10 a month as a subscription fee. Over eight years, this would be $14.60 total spent. In other words, far less than what you paid for NWN back when you bought it. If that was the case, would you be willing to subscribe to WoW if you liked the game or would you refuse because there's a subscription?
Show me the common courtesy of actually answering *one* very simple question.
Modifié par MagicalMaster, 24 août 2012 - 04:22 .
