Subscription Games and Piracy

[DaveW]

I've noticed subscription based games have been getting more popular. Typically you fork out 40-50 bucks a game and then get charged 12.99 a month to play it. I typically get hooked on 3-4 games at a time, so I can easily see me one day paying 50 bucks a month (or 600 bucks a year) just in subscription fees. These 12.99/month fees are just for starters. Once it becomes more accepted 14.99 a month won't be uncommon, then maybe even 19.95 a month one day.

What I want to know is, what happened to the age old excuse that software piracy causes the cost of games to be so high? The idea that if games were uncopyable then they would cost less? These subscription based games are basically uncopyable. I mean, you can copy them, but without paying the monthly fee it won't do you any good, since they are entirely multiplayer based games. So the software companies are in a position where they can assume almost no piracy of a title, so what do they do? they rip us off!

The excuse is that your 13 bucks a month helps pay for state of the art official servers to host the games. I don't buy this. EA runs a hundred or so servers for BF1942 without charging subscription fees. I don't have any problem finding servers for 1942 or UT2003 with a 30 milisecond ping. Internet play doesn't get much better than that. It takes 50 miliseconds for the speed of light to make a round trip across Northern America anyway! Plus server space and bandwidth is cheap these days. There is no way that more than 10% of your subscription fees are paying for servers.

Any other thoughts?

[The Baron]

Actually, I KINDA buy the server excuse.

Persistent worlds have very different requirements than individual game servers, a la BF1942. You have to back up persistent worlds constantly, they need to have incredibly fat pipes (compared to merely fat pipes for the individual ones), they need to be redundant, and there has to be a team of people dedicated to keeping those servers going. So yeah, the monthly fee for that makes a bit of sense.

[StealthHawk]

These massively multiplayer games use a LOT more bandwidth than traditional multiplayer games do. I really doubt it costs Sony, or whoever $13 bucks a month per person to support a server though.

Another valid use of the money is the time a company must spend doing upkeep. They neex to fix bugs, rebalance the game, add new features, etc, etc. So where a normal game is finished, ships, and gets patched a few times a year, a massively multiplayer game is getting constant attention from the developers.

Pay to play is quite frankly bull****. Greedy corporations like Sony are just gouging consumers out of their money....and these stupid sheep gladly fork over the cash, so we won't see prices decrease or stay the same, they will just steadily increase over time.

[nin_fragile14]

I understand there might be a need for users to pay a monthly fee, but 12.95 is definitely not it. Not only that, but old online games such as EQ and Ultima Online are still raising their monthly subscription. You can't tell me that they really need that extra money to support all these "new" players. Hell, they've made they're profit by now; if anything, the older online games should be having price drops, not raises. EQ has made over one hundred million dollars in fees, assuming that there have been 300,000 subscribers (if not more) paying 9.99 for the past 4 years. I doubt maintaining servers have cost more than a fraction of that revenue.

Compaines are greedy. However, there hasn't been a successful massively online game since Dark Age of Camelot, and the success of that is certainly questionable. If you can back up your 12.95 game with content and enjoyment, no one is going to play it. Just look at AC 2, Shadowbane, NFS Online, Anarchy Online, WW II Online and Earth & Beyond. With all the recent failures, publishers will hopefully wake up and realize that people aren't going to shell out that kind of money unless it's truly addictive. And even then, they're ripping us all off.

[Edge]

Actually, I've found many MMORPGs to be VERY bandwidth friendly. In Earth&Beyond, it was transfering an average of 500 bytes per second! Though I can see a lot of games being very...inefficient, so those might require more bandwidth (though if it does require a lot it's the developers own fault). The fee is, in reality, just pretty much there to make the developers more money. Server costs are fairly high, but there's no way it's anywhere near $13 a month.

That's one of the reasons I wait until MMORPGs are around $20 before I buy them, spending $50 for 1 month of a game and then never being able to play it again without putting down more money just seems wrong...but maybe that's just me. Not to mention the number of issues that arise in those games early on, if I played Anarchy Online earlier I probably would've been turned off by it, but since I played it after patches made it...well...playable I actually though it was kinda fun.

Oh, and off-topic, don't you just hate it when you find out other people are using the same Avatar as you?

[CaptNKILL]

Hey, I just got an Idea.....

What if all MMOGs cost (to buy the game) the monthly fee to buy? For example, go to EB and see every MMOG there for a measly $9.99? You get the first month "free" when you buy the game... more people will buy the game, less people will return it (because "it was ONLY 10 bucks!")...

This way, EVERYONE BENEFITS. MANY more customers will try the games when they are so cheap, so this could introduce lots of people to really fun games (that they would have otherwise ignored because they didnt want to spend $50 plus a monthly fee) and it gets the companies more money because more people will play. I wouldnt bitch about MMOGs if this was how they were sold. In fact, I would probably get one! Right now, the cost is the biggest turn off for me, since the games cost $50. By the time my "free" month is up, I cant return it if it doesnt stay interesting! There goes my $50!

Anyone else think that this would work?

[StealthHawk]

Well, most MMORPGs already give you the first month "free." As said above, it doesn't cost them $13/month to pay for servers and provide content changes/upkeep of the game. They are greedy. Stupid people happily pay $40-$50 for the retail copy of a game they later have to pay $13 for.

The problem is not that these companies charge so much. The problem is that the players are ok with it. Now obviously, I think new, less popular games will probably not get away with charging $13/month unless they are high quality. But titles like Star Wars Galaxies and EverQuest2 will be able to charge $13 at launch and most likely increase that cost later.

I really doubt that the $50 retail cost turns off that many people from buying the game either. I think new, unestablished games that aren't popular off the bat may try to lower the retail price...

OT: I really wanted to play EQ2, because it looks so damn cool. But $13/month is ridiculous...I will never support such customer extortion.

[vampireuk]

I am paying around £3 a month for a fun little RPG that I play, and it was free to get too:D

[PsychoSy]

I don't purchase or support in any fashion subscription based games and never will. Granted, this means that there's quite a bit of games I'll never experiance. Like PlanetSide - wouldn't mind trying it out but since you have to pay monthly to play it, screw it. I'm sure the publisher will put the "you're missing out on great games" spin but I say they're the ones missing out on profit because their suscription-based status automatically alienates certain gamers.

[vampireuk]

Well the one I am playing started out as free but the designer eventually had to charge for the game. The good thing is he still keeps a free version of the game running on a tonne of servers. The members game for those who pay a couple of bucks a month has constant support and is always having new things added. Thats how subscription games should be done:cool:

[deejaya]

I have played quite a few MMORPG's before, never for very long though. They weren't any better than SP/MP games really, except they had more players? More players don't always make a better game to me.

I would definitely think about paying for one on a full-time basis, if the subscription added up to the price of a game over the course of a year. Like £4 a month or something. I think that's fair. The amount of dev work can't go up much with more players, and I doubt bandwidth is the big beast most companies make it out to be cost wise. And after all, more players == more profit.

BTW what game is that vamp? A mate was trying to get me to play an RPG that sounded similar (free + P2P) but I lost the bookmark for it :p

[stncttr908]

I'll never play a pay-to-play game. This is going to be increasingly difficult as Star Wars Galaxies draws near, but I'll fight it somehow. I pay for a game, I own it. That's like buying a car in cash and still having to pay a lease.

If it really costs that much to maintain the game world, then charge us $100 for the game, a one time deal, and find ways to cut costs.

[The Baron]

Meh, from what I hear, SWG is not shaping up to be that great. At least not at launch--if they add content, it'll be fantastic in 4 or 6 months, but not yet.

Kinda curious to see World of Warcraft myself.. if it does well, I fully expect a MMO Diablo game :D

[vampireuk]

I'm playing Runescape (http://www.runescape.com) dodgy graphics but its quite fun:D

[adv1]

Originally posted by PsychoSy
I don't purchase or support in any fashion subscription based games and never will. Granted, this means that there's quite a bit of games I'll never experiance. Like PlanetSide - wouldn't mind trying it out but since you have to pay monthly to play it, screw it. I agree with that 100%. Planetside sounds like a cool game but if I have to keep paying a fee just to play it I'm not going anywhere near it.

[nrdstrm]

On Paying : I pay to play. I loved EQ and DOAC. Now I'm loving Galaxies (DAMN THAT GAME IS PRETTY! One of the best looking games I have ever seen! Will have plenty of screen shots and videos when the NDA drops...

On SWG : Some people have negative views. And out of them, many of them got into SWG beta as a random choice. Some of them are also HARD CORE "WOW" fanatics (world of warcarft). I am having a blast testing myself, and so is my buddy.

On EQ2 : Can't wait to give it a try. Got to watch the interactive demo at E3 (will post video of it soon). The graphics are quite impressive! If it mixes great graphics with "better than EQ1" gameplay, I'll be hooked!

On Planetside : Graphics are decent - but I didn't find the game enjoyable. Honestly, I'm not a big FPS fan. I have like a few like MOHAA and Postal was fun for a while.

On Cost : One thing no one mentioned is CONTENT. In MMORPG's, content is CONSTANTLY added through patches. Think A few a week in the initial release, then after a few months maybe 1 ever week or two. This means developers continue working on the game all throughout the life of the game. Then there are expansions (wich you have to pay for but often times worth it!). They can include HUGE updates to content and graphics engine. (Look at SWG, they announced "Space Expansion" a long time ago, and the game isn't even out yet. Space Expansion will be twitch based too! Sweet!)

Anyway - Thats just my 2 cents...
Nrdstrm
P4 2.66
1 GB Kingston HyperX 370DDR
FX5900Ultra (EVGA)

PS. Other interesting upcoming MMORPGs :
WOW
Matrix Online
Middle Earth Online

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by nrdstrm
On Cost : One thing no one mentioned is CONTENT. In MMORPG's, content is CONSTANTLY added through patches. Think A few a week in the initial release, then after a few months maybe 1 ever week or two. This means developers continue working on the game all throughout the life of the game. Then there are expansions (wich you have to pay for but often times worth it!). They can include HUGE updates to content and graphics engine. (Look at SWG, they announced "Space Expansion" a long time ago, and the game isn't even out yet. Space Expansion will be twitch based too! Sweet!)


Actually, I did mention content as one of the cost factors in monthly subscriptions. But it sure as hell doesn't cost them $13/month! Otherwise Sony would not be posting such huge profits with EQ....

I think the consensus is that a monthly fee in and of itself is not bad, but that a monthly fee of $13 is highway robbery, and even with $10 pusblishers would be making a hefty profit.

[vampireuk]

Seriously a couple of bucks a month from players would keep everything running nicely, but nope they have to bend us over a table:mad:

[wysiwyg]

what about people like me that do not have credit cards or a way to pay monthly? (im blacklisted)

[nin_fragile14]

Star Wars Galaxies... 14.99 per month. They have to be joking :mad:

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/27008

[vampireuk]

Originally posted by wysiwyg
what about people like me that do not have credit cards or a way to pay monthly? (im blacklisted)

Read up a bit with another one of my posts, the game I play has a free version which does not have as much content as the other but still has lots of servers.:cool:

[DaveW]

Originally posted by nin_fragile14
Star Wars Galaxies... 14.99 per month. They have to be joking :mad:

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/27008

hehe... I saw that one coming.

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by nin_fragile14
Star Wars Galaxies... 14.99 per month. They have to be joking :mad:

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/27008

Nope, because they can get away with it :p :( :mad:

But...if I was Sony I would do the same thing, what an easy way to make money :rolleyes:

[nrdstrm]

For people with no CREDIT/CHECK Cards. Most MMORPGs have something called GAMECARDS. These are cards you can purchase from EBgames, GameStop, etc that act as your credit card for a set duration (think of a phone card, same type of thing). So a credit card is not really necessary.
As to 14.95 for SWG? I'm happy to pay it. Do you guys honestly think that server costs are the same for an MMORPG as they are for an FPS? With an FPS, the servers arn't actually doing the work of the game. They match people, and one person playing is hosting as the server. In an MMORPG, all info is kept on the server, and thousands of people are playing at the same time. Actually, the servers arn't 1 server, but often are server CLUSTERS (4 or 5 servers hosting 1 "server".) Now add in that the dev's DON'T leave the game when it comes out. They stay on too add new content and create expansion packs. Now add to that that in SWG's case, they have to pay Lucas Arts royalties. This adds up. I don't think that $2.00 over what all of the other MMORPGS get per month is alot. It's a cup of coffee for christ's sake.
I think most MMORPGers understand this, but non MMORPGers never will (unless they try one)...
Nrdstrm

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by nrdstrm
As to 14.95 for SWG? I'm happy to pay it. Do you guys honestly think that server costs are the same for an MMORPG as they are for an FPS? With an FPS, the servers arn't actually doing the work of the game. They match people, and one person playing is hosting as the server. In an MMORPG, all info is kept on the server, and thousands of people are playing at the same time. Actually, the servers arn't 1 server, but often are server CLUSTERS (4 or 5 servers hosting 1 "server".) Now add in that the dev's DON'T leave the game when it comes out. They stay on too add new content and create expansion packs.

Sony basically shot down your idea. EverQuest(MMORPG) = $13/month. Planetside(MMOFPS) = $13/month. Hmm, they are the same price, from the same publisher! Yet by your own logic the FPS game should be cheaper.

Regular FPS games(non-MMOFPS) that have company hosted servers have been absolutely free in my experience.

Now add to that that in SWG's case, they have to pay Lucas Arts royalties. This adds up. I don't think that $2.00 over what all of the other MMORPGS get per month is alot. It's a cup of coffee for christ's sake.
I think most MMORPGers understand this, but non MMORPGers never will (unless they try one)...
Nrdstrm

The obvious logical fallacy here is that you are assuming that other MMORPGs are not currently overpriced. How much was the Star Wars license from LucasArts? Is it an on-going thing where they share a percentage of the profit, or was it a one time lump fee?

Sony has made HUGE profits from EQ. Where do all these profits come from? They come from the monthly fees. It should be painfully obvious to anyone that they didn't need to hike up the rates from $10/month or whatever it was to $13/month. They didn't need the extra cash :rolleyes: They increased the rates because they can.