One of the arguments I see often in favor of the subscription model is that it’s “affordable”. This is often paired with an argument that a movie and a dinner is more expensive, or that a $50 game has a mere six hours of gameplay, and that MMOs offer more than either of those options for a lesser price.
That may be true for some, but not as a universal constant.
The trouble is that “value” is a variable. More than that, it’s a derived variable, a function of cost, time and personal preference.
See, I can afford 15 dollars a month for gaming on the whole. I’m not rich by American standards (though by worldwide standards I’m most certainly above the median), but I am blessed sufficiently to make enough to take care of my family, prepare for the future and have a little left over. Some in my position spend that money on fishing or hunting or some other hobby, some spend it on booze, I choose to spend it on games. A bit of discretionary spending is a luxury I’m grateful for… though it might be noted that I have enough games to keep me entertained for a lifetime already, given the replayability of many games, both digital and traditional. I need not spend more money on games, and indeed, as I spend more and more time creating games, the balance shifts further.
However, according to some loan sharks, I can also afford a new car and a $300,000 house. Though I can afford those luxuries according to some calculations, there is little wisdom in making purchasing decisions based on what I can afford. That’s a rather nasty trend that has had significantly negative repercussions for the national and world economy. I prefer to look at value.
I happily pay for things I can use when I please, for as long as I please. I’ll even pay a premium for that right. It’s why I bought my car outright (used, of course) rather than lease. Yes, it cost me $3200 up front, which might be a year or so worth of a lease on a comparable (if newer) vehicle, but I own that car. I need not finance it further (other than feeding and care, of course). I intend to drive it to the ground, and in the long run, I will get a great deal of value out of that purchase. Even counting inevitable repairs (and ignoring feeding costs since a new or leased car would eat just as much), that car will cost me less than purchasing a new car or leasing a car for the duration of time that I’ll be using it.
…and that’s the key behind why MMO subscriptions are of very low value to me. They are a price for access granted for a chunk of time. I do not get many hours of MMO play in a month. Some do, and for them, certainly, the price per unit of play approaches nicely low numbers to give a sense of value for their purchase. For me, however, when I can spend $15 on something like Recettear that gives me easily 40 solid hours of play or more, which is naturally spread out over perhaps six months, a subscription doesn’t even come close to comparing. World of Goo, a game I purchased on sale for $5, has given me and my family hundreds of hours of play over more than a year.
Yes, it could easily be argued that those are different games, but then I look at Guild Wars, also purchased for $5 on sale, and note that I have gotten dozens of MMO-ish gaming hours over a year, and at no further recurring cost. In many ways, I even consider Guild Wars to be a superior game when compared to something like WoW or LOTRO.
So while I can technically afford a subscription to something like WoW, LOTRO or EVE (the three most likely games I’d sub to), such a purchase would not give me good value for my money. Undoubtedly some do get good value out of a sub, but I do not.
I believe that the further splintering of the MMO industry into various business models is a Good Thing for the continued health of these games, as the demand curve is padded out and more customers bring in revenue that would not be captured at a single price point. The business model inevitably affects the game, and just as item shop games have warts, sub games have warts… they are just different ones. No game will be a perfect fit for everyone, but if the market on the whole has sufficient variety, nearly everyone can find something they like and are willing to pay for. Smart devs will find niches that aren’t served well and make a fair living. That’s a healthy market. A smart game will diversify itself across that demand curve, like Puzzle Pirates or Wizard 101 do.
I think that the MMO industry cannot afford not to diversify. We’re seeing it already. Doubtless we’ll see more. Just as the actual game design has to keep changing, the business has to keep changing. It has to reach out to the spectrum of valuation and affordability, rather than try to shoehorn everyone into the same mold. Individual games would also be well served by spreading out across the demand curve. Arguably, that’s what DDO did, and did well with, and LOTRO and EQ2X are angling for the same dynamic.
Tish Tosh Tesh 
Guild Wars and DDO are fine examples of non-subscription “free to play” or whatever we want to call them models that work.
Interestingly Turbine did not do nearly as well making LOTRO a F2P game. I think by default it is not as well suited for a F2P model as DDO, but I could not test it myself yet, LOTRO EU F2P has been delayed for whatever reasons. But instead of giving players incentives to buy more contents or boosts like DDO does, LOTRO rather has a nagging approach to remind you that you are not a subscriber. So far I see a lot of problems playing LOTRO without subscribing in the max level range that I am playing. It starts with paying Turbine points for fast travel (1h fast travel unlock), but well, before I start ranting I will wait till LOTRO EU goes F2P and check if it is really like that. It is a great way for new players to test the game, but at its core it still seems heavily leaning towards a subscription.
I have not heard good things about EQ2X, but I can’t say much about it as I honestly do not want to play EQ2, free or not.
I wonder what payment model Cryptic will use for Neverwinter Nights. The game has the instanced world with lobby to gather a party for the instanced adventures in common with DDO and GW1, so I would wonder if they really dare to come along with a sub+shop model for this one.
As for payment models, I am all for Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. Does not really matter what payment model a game uses, as long as I like the game and I can live with the payment model. Not every game is suited for a subscription, but unfortunately many F2P games got a bad reputation as cheap crap that often gets associated with the whole idea of a F2P game as well.
The issue I have with F2P is that /I don’t know/ how much it might cost. I can budget for a monthly sub, and although I could budget an amount for a F2P game, I’ll be cautious of getting too attached to that game because what do you do if you’re deep into endgame and the developer decides to arbitrarily charge extra for some must-have minmax item?
Aye, Longasc, I’m not terribly impressed with the LOTRO conversion. It’s almost like the WAR perpetual trial. That’s not exactly a bad thing, just not quite what I was hoping for. Neverwinter will be interesting. Sub+item shop doesn’t seem quite… kosher… for a lobby multiplayer game. I also maintain that SWTOR could sell like Guild Wars. 😉
Spinks, that’s why I’ll always try to buy content, like GW or the DDO/W101 content packs. For me, that’s the best bet.
I’d note that the risk changing monetization is present in any “live” game, but you’re right, charging for minmax items is indeed a much more significant risk in an item shop as opposed to a sub game. A sub game, on the other hand, might make a particular endgame raid require specific potions or buffs, which can be a significant time sink… and time costs money. On a larger scale, keeping up with the “endgame” might mean buying expansions in any model.
I really don’t think there’s a Best Model for everyone. That’s sort of the point. There are downsides in all situations, we just have to pick our poison.
My own rule of thumb is that I’m willing to pay up to 2 euros per hour on entertainment. Anything below that is a good deal. Occasionally I’ll be willing to spend over budget but that’s exceptional.
Given the slightly skewed *cough* dollar/euro exchange rate used by game publishers across the globe my box purchase and subscription fees are usually the same in euros as they would be in dollars. Effectively we Europeans spend 30 to 40% more on digital entertainment than our American counterparts.
Anyhoo, a boxed game for 50 euros is cost-effective to me when I get 25 hours of play from it. A game that takes 6-12 hours to complete better have great replay value then. But subscriptio MMO’s tend to have a good Bang for my Buck ratio since I’d have to play less than 7.5 hours per month (25 during first month) to fall foul of my entertainment budget.
F2P games are a bit trickier as Spinks points out. When I’m topping up my Second Life allowance I don’t have a good view of whether or not I’ll be getting good value for my money. SL as a virtual world is even trickier than F2P games since you mainly pay for user created content rather than for the service of keeping SL up and running. Ironically, I tend to spend more than 15 bucks a month on SL unless I’m very active in an MMO and the latest Bioware game came out this month 🙂
I am all for price differentiation. But in your case you really do not need item shops or the like that have dire consequences on the actual gameplay.
It were enough if you could buy a 24 hours sub, or a 6 hours sub, or a 1 hour sub…
I’ve argued before that designing a game around paying for time is pretty dire as well. It naturally leads to time sinks and grind to pad out gameplay and keep people paying. It also benefits highly from addictive design. It stifles innovation, as that might scare off veterans invested in the status quo.
Yes, if I’m paying for time, I’d be happier with the sort of thing Puzzle Pirates does with their Captain badges; they are good for thirty days, but only decay in one-day increments if you log in that day. I’ve made a single Captain’s badge last more than a year.
That’s still paying for time, though, where I’d much rather pay for content.
I think the price issue with MMOs is an interesting one and, for myself, I personally don’t consider a barrier of entry into the genre.
You’re completely right in that, ultimately, it’s all about what an individual is willing to pay and that’s always going to be subjective and relative. I had an interesting argument with a colleague at work a few months ago who insisted that houses and appartments in the UK weren’t worth their price because they had become so more expensive than the base sum of their parts. My perspective was that worth and value are two seperate things and the value of something is how much people are willing to pay, not a mathmatical sum of materials. The best example of this is art.
Anyway, I’m waffling, but I guess my point is that, yeah, it’s always going to be personal choice about whether or not one should pay the subscription fee.
I agree with you that we don’t always get the full value of our subs time in WoW, but then I compare it to what I used to pay for games every month in the past, before WoW, and that was a lot more for a lot less time spent (also fun time spent). I appreciate the diversity of things I can do in WoW and they kinda satisfy several genres for me. I do also not pay for the whole ‘hardware factor’ like I used to with consoles, so all in all I feel I got the better bargain with a subs-based MMO.
The issue I got with some of the free MMOs and RMT models is that the temptation to buy a lot of items is rather big; once you got the ingame market at your disposal, you end up buying stuff not because you need it, but because you can – or at least that’s an issue I perceive for myself. I’m pretty certain I would end up spending a lot more cash on this than in a subs-based MMO that I can budget. RMT also has more potential to be classist than subs-based models that way.
I love it when I see advertisements that say: Save 25% off X or 30% of Y. – OR – I can save 100% and just not spend anything.
I don’t really have anything productive to say, just wanted to get that one off my chest.
Gronthe, sales really do wind up triggering funny things in buyer psychology. Steam is a great example of that.
Syl, I readily concede that subs are a great way to stick to a budget if there’s a tendency to slip into spending in a nonsub model. I don’t need that fence to stick to a budget, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing for those who want it.
Gordon, the thing for me is that it’s not really a pure cost barrier, it’s a value barrier. I don’t get good value out of a sub, so it’s not a purchase I’ll make. That’s barrier enough for me… and I think the market is showing I’m not alone.
Oh, and Lani, thanks for chiming in! I think my big problem with an entertainment budget like that is that if I blow it on an MMO for a month, beside that whole “paying for time” thing I don’t like, I’ve also blown the budget for that month, and can’t pick up a really good Steam or Impulse sale that pops up. MMOs lock their players into monogamous monetization, and I’m just not wired that way… and in fact, I’m often resentful of needing to get my money’s worth by playing while the clock is ticking, rather than when I darn well feel like it.
I play these things to have fun, not try to maximize my return. When the clock is ticking, it’s a persistent annoyance.
Myth of cheap entertainment again, treating gaming hours as if they are a possitive.
Think of it this way – a game has 500 fun rating. Say it takes 5 hours to complete/soak in all that fun.
Okay, second game has a 500 fun rating. Say it takes 10 hours to complete/soak in all that fun.
The current gaming ‘wisdom’ is that the second game is better value. When really you take twice as long to get the exact same amount of fun. Current gamers call it twice as good, when really it’s half as good as the first game!!
Judging a game by hours of play is a crap way of judging the product, yet all pervasive.
Okay, more on topic – subscriptions. Yes. It’s alot like having food in the fridge that you paid $15, but you let it slowly rot and end up throwing some of that food away, simply because you let it rot. With a sub, each hour you don’t play, your throwing away some of that $15. It’s basically a set up where you can’t do anything but badly handle your money.
A consumerist society loves people who buy food, then throw out some of it. And it loves people who spend money on something, then don’t all of what they paid for. Screw using the whole buffalo, aye!
If I look back upon the heady days of my youth I would easily spend up to around a £100 a month on games. I’d buy games here and there and in many cases not even finish them as I’d have bought some more and be playing those. With MMOs I have one and pay for that subscription and don’t often buy games anymore, no more than around 5 a year I’d say. This means that I have a drastically reduced spend, of course there are other things I spend my money on now but my video games budget is reduced and I am therefore happy to lay down a tenner a month to play a subs game. That may change in the future though and I may move to trying to get the most out of the non-mmo games I have. Having a sub means I feel like I have to play to get value from that sub, whereas a game like Mass Effect I can play over time because the initial cost is all up front and doesn’t keep going. if TOR goes subscription though…. I’ll start saving for a lifetime option, just in case.
My son and I played LOTRO over the weekend. When I first played it a few years ago I wasn’t terribly impressed. It looked great and now looks even better (amazing the difference a GeForce 8800GT makes over a 6500CE, or whatever it was I had at the time) however, the animation of the models didn’t thrill me so much. It seems like they’ve tightened that up now, too, though…or maybe that’s my graphics card again 😛
I liked it so much that I decided to throw Turbine a bone by buying two copies of Mines of Moria. That gets you VIP status for 1 month, then a downgrade to Premium forever (or until the lights go out) but that’s still a step up from F2P, and all for just $10: http://www.amazon.com/Lord-Rings-Mines-Moria-Collectors-Pc/dp/B001FS8XAK/
Callan, that’s one way of looking at it, but IMO your argument seems to rely heavily on the premise that games not only have a finite amount of a consumable we shall, for want of a better word, call Fun™, but that each game also possesses an equal amount of Fun™.
The funny thing about Fun™ (Pun intended) is that it’s both Objective and Subjective.
Is little Jimmy having Fun™ playing Game1? He’s smiling, sometimes giggling, occasionally laughing, and at times is wriggling uncontrollably in his seat. Either he’s having Fun™, or he badly needs to use the restroom. But is he having more Fun™ than earlier when he was playing Game2? At that time his brow was furrowed and his expression was serious, at times he winced or grimaced and sometimes he growled or yelled and sometimes he muttered under his breath, but to an experienced Gamer little Jimmy was still having Fun™.
Fun™ is Objective in that you can see it and hear it, but Fun™ is also Subjective in that it’s difficult to measure. It’s hard to tell if little Jimmy had more Fun™ or less Fun™ playing Game1 than Game2.
It could even be argued that Fun™ is Objective, but binary. Are you having Fun™? Yes, I am. No, I’m not. How much Fun™ are you having? Um…well…I…don’t know.
Alternatively, we could measure Fun™ in Fun™/Hour or Fun™/minute, or seconds if you’re into Drag Racing (or suffer from Premature Ejaculation…which probably isn’t that much Fun™ at all). If someone plays Game1 for five hours and has Fun™ while doing so, then they’ve had as much Fun™/hour as someone else who had also Fun™ playing Game2 but who played for 10 hours. However, Player2 has experienced 10 Hours of Fun™ compared to Player1’s five hours, and thus has had twice as much Fun™ as Player2.
Obviously that should have said that Player2 has had twice as much Fun™ as Player1, not twice as much as himself 😉
I’ve never seen focusing on the ultra-budget market a good thing. That approach bred us the dollar store, and the hastily translated korean F2P MMO.
Tbh I’d say to you not to even bother playing MMOs under that limited a playtime (40 hours of play over 6 months.) Stick to recettear and bargain bins: you’ll get a better experience with less grinding and more of a sense of accomplishment.
Because focusing on the players like that are going to give us a bunch of hasty, shoddy games that don’t really care about long term players since they barely log on anyways.
Capn John,
Your injecting subjectivity into the example. I didn’t say game one is 500 fun to one person and game two is 500 fun to another person. Your modifying the example to make your point.
To one person – to you, if both games give you the same amount of fun, but one takes twice as long to give you that fun, are those extra hours really great?
If I get a beer and water it down to half strength so it fills two bottles, it’s not better than one bottle of beer now cause there are two bottles. But this is what gamers assume – that more bottles/hours ==== better.
[…] Callan hits an interesting point in the comment section over at Tesh's musings about the value of his time. […]
Ahh, okay. I see what you’re getting at. The watered down beer example helped 🙂 And yes, that does make sense.
[…] What can Tesh afford? A lot. What will he buy? Very little. […]
[…] been a fan of the subscription model. I find it to be abusive and detrimental to game design, even though I can technically afford a sub these days. What’s more baffling to me are those who reflexively defend the sub model as being the One […]
[…] I Can Afford It […]
[…] big purchases and emergencies. I have the time codes (and one unscratched card), ready to use, already paid for, but the flubbernuggin’ time-limited monetization scheme still doesn’t feel like good […]