#Subscription Monetization

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

wintry vortex
#

I appreciate your perspective but the whole point of their new subscription model is for it not to be pay to win. What you are suggesting is massively more pay to win.

Access to trading and auction house for a subscription is not a negative thing unless you want to avoid paying for a game you enjoy. Paying a basic subscription price to be able to enjoy everything a game offers is something that most MMO players worldwide have shown they are happy with, from WoW, FFXIV, ESO, even GW2 has trade locked behind a paywall (not a subscription) and that is praised by western players for it's monetisation.

plush sierra
#

Personally, I'd rather just have a single sub to play instead of f2p+additional subs to access basic features (like trading) and extra stuff. Especially if some of those things are locked behind the paywall in the name of deterring bots/gold selling while the game is still "free" but has gutted drops like Aion Classic did. (Not saying A2 will do what Siel's aura did, but I feel it's relevant - the game was technically f2p... For two hours, while making the experience worse for everyone.)

The only way to stay on top of gold selling/botting is to actually ban people's accounts permanently. Put chat filters (not the silly swearing filters, but all the common gold seller spam - you could edit this exact file in og Aion and never see those messages again) but that's a rant for another time.

As far as monetization goes, subs and battle passes and cash shop... Cut this stuff way back before the global release because the game isn't going to succeed if things stay as they are.

I'd rather the game be full, proper sub 2 play or buy 2 play at this point, given the track record NC has with how they treat f2p games. The game needs to make money, yes. Money keeps the lights on. But NC has proven they take that need and then go to the extreme to drive short-term gains over long term profit, and that's what hurts their games the most.

Other ideas: Project: Gorgon is b2p with a free demo that restricts free players to no trading and to their own chat channel (which normal players can access so demo players aren't cut off completely, whatever bot spam there is gets the steam account nuked quickly and it's contained to one place) and only to certain areas of the game. Astellia was b2p with a "sub" that was something like half the price of the game that functioned as a trial, of sorts.---

#

Yes, it sucks to be f2p and not be able to afford a sub or buying a game. If NC could implement a reasonable monetization model that doesn't end up like what og Aion became eventually, I'd be okay with it.

Fwiw, og Aion went f2p and did fine for a few years before NC got greedy. I think it was still a sub in other regions at that time, though?

cedar snow
wintry vortex
cedar snow
#

The fact that the vast majority of players are F2P (free-to-play) is what keeps the servers alive.

thick kestrel
#

No what keeps the servers running is money

#

There are sub and btp games with an active and lively player base, so I find the argument that a game needs f2p players to keep the server alive flawed

#

Locking a feature such as player trading and auction house which is an integral part of an mmo economy is a fair form of monetization.

#

It may not seem fair and you could definitely say that your experience as a f2p is limited but that's just it, you are playing a multimillion dollar game for free.

#

There are other forms of monetization that we can argue are predatory that we just don't have all the information on and we should speak up on but I find the first sub that "could" be around 15$ a fair form of monetization

spare raven