The subscription business model is still dead, and those two announcements don't change anything.Tobold and I don't always agree. But when we do, he's right. He's more harsh about it than I like to be, but then he generates far more traffic, as well.
~Tobold Stoutfoot.
Honestly, the only thing any of us finds interesting about the F2P/Subscription debate is which side benefits each of us personally. And we smell "victory" with every official pronouncement. But I have seen several people, like Mogsy, put forth the idea that these announcements reflect at the very least a hope on the part of the devs/publishers to get a bit of revenue before the inevitable conversion to F2P. Or, as the more cynical among us will say, a "Money Grab."
I think for some the Sub model still works. I also believe that some people even though they like the F2P model they have issues with the way its presented in games, by having gates or closed off content and other crazy restrictions that force you to have to buy a sub in order to enjoy yourself in a game.
ReplyDeleteGames like GW2 don't hit you over the head with situations that say you need to spend money to enjoy this game, where as, games like LoTRO make it impossible to enjoy because at every turn you see areas closed off or quests you can't do unless you pay X. A world in an MMO should be open and extras, like classes, character slots, races, extra bag and banks space, should be something you can spend money on, but as a whole I think the world should be accessible to those who pay a sub and those that don't.
ESO however, doesn't think they can build a game that only asks you to pay for extras like bag space and mini pets, they want money now to probably pay for their past dept and their hopes of having a greener future. I think that this is a mistake in this particular market of over crowding MMOs and F2P models that don't restrict world access like GW2.