Good riddance: The death of online gaming's monthly subscription model

<i>The Old Republic</i>'s free-to-play shift signals the end of an era.

Read the whole story

 

[Paltivar]

The Old Republic software will also be reduced from $60 to a bargain-basement $15, complete with a free month's subscription benefits, to entice more players to make the leap.

So not actually free to play, but something more like the Guild Wars model. Or the Diablo 3 model, where they still are trying to monetize after the initial sale.

 

[potato44819]

And the peasants rejoice.

TBH, my enjoyment level and monetary contributions go up with the current system, and I don't feel tied to the game like I used to.

 

[Xavin]

would allow Star Wars: The Old Republic players free access to play eight characters up to the maximum level 50 starting this fall.

I don't know where you got that from, but it's not BW. While all the story/planet leveling content to 50 has been confirmed as free, F2P accounts won't have eight character slots to start. They haven't said how many yet, but in the FAQ it mentions being locked out of some inventory, bank, and characters if you go to a F2P account from a subscription.

 

[Kyle Orland]

The Old Republic software will also be reduced from $60 to a bargain-basement $15, complete with a free month's subscription benefits, to entice more players to make the leap.

So not actually free to play, but something more like the Guild Wars model. Or the Diablo 3 model, where they still are trying to monetize after the initial sale.

Yes, technically you have to pay $15 for the game, but the "free-to-play" model refers to getting new content and access to online servers without any recurring costs.

 

[evan_s]

I don't think idea of monthly subscriptions is dead. I think the reality is that there really isn't space in the MMO market for more than 1 or 2 subscription based MMO's. Lets face it. MMO's are designed to consume a fair amount of time and you really only feel like the monthly fee is worth it when you are spending a fair amount of time in the MMO. Most people don't have anywhere near enough free time to spend enough of it in two different MMO's to warrant paying for two at the same time for any extended period of time which is why new MMO's attract a huge initial population. A bunch of people try it out and play for a few months while the content is all new and interesting while still maintaining their sub in the leading MMO (WOW currently) but after a couple months they have to decide which one they want to keep ant so far that has seen people returning to the leader. When that happens the new MMO ends up switching to free to play to try to keep people playing and to make as much money off of it as they can.

 

[UltimateLemon]

The death of the online game subscription is surely unwelcome news to some gamers, who still associate the free-to-play games with vapid, social gaming clickfests or pay-to-win schemes that kill the spirit of fair competition.

Some gamers?

 

[Leucifer]

"No triple-A, big MMO has launched yet with a free-to-play model"

That is about to change.

Article is pretty spot on though. WoW has such a huge player-base and such a head start, they can kind of "get away" with having a sub. Support for that though is slowly dwindling, especially considering recent material for the game has been lackluster.

 

[Xavin]

I think this is a good move, launching subscription in 2011 was stupid. Personally, I spend a lot more than $15 a month on F2P games.

So not actually free to play, but something more like the Guild Wars model. Or the Diablo 3 model, where they still are trying to monetize after the initial sale.

All games monetize after the initial sale. Cash shops work far better than subscriptions with human psychology.

 

[KevinM1]

Nice. It'll be interesting to see how much the game has changed since 1.1.

 

[Xavin]

Article is pretty spot on though. WoW has such a huge player-base and such a head start, they can kind of "get away" with having a sub. Support for that though is slowly dwindling, especially considering recent material for the game has been lackluster.

I suspect WoW will transition to a hybrid model like SWTOR is going to use after the rush from MoP starts dying down 6-12 months after release. A subscription model just leaves a lot of money and players on the table. It would be an especially good move for WoW, because most everyone has had a WoW account at some point or another.

 

[Tundro Walker]

I think folks are tired of chunking down a load of change for the initial game and then more for a subscription just to find out the game is lackluster. It's much easier to get new customer participation when its easy / cheap to join. And, yeah, even tightwads that play may get enticed to plunk down some cash for a convenience, like fast travel. As long as it makes sense and doesn't seem like TOO much of a cach grab. When every 2 seconds in the game you're reminded you need to plunk down some cash to get some small benefit that was obviously made inconvenient just to make you want to pay to remove the artificial barrier, then they'll end up killing the F2P model faster than a lawnmover running over field mice.

edit: side note, I'm surprised it took them this long to do F2P model. Club managers know that if you offer free cover to enter a club, folks are way more willing to plunk down for inflated booze prices. Remove obstacle of entry, then folks can come in, get into the mood/scene, ... then out comes the wallet. Before they know it they've spent way more than they expected either trying to impress friends or keep up with the jones'.

 

[szlevi]

If EA and Bioware can't seem to make the monthly subscription model work after investing over $100 million and years of development into a game with a top-tier, universally known franchise attached, it seems clear that the model just isn't viable anymore.

Did the game change in recent years or it's still the old stuff ie it is just people don't want to pay a monthly fee to be a stripper in a bar on a remote planet...?

 

[Sardonic]

I wouldn't be so quick to think this is indicative of a shift in the entire industry. This is an act of desperation to save a floundering MMO. I'm surprised more MMOs haven't adopted the EVE Online model really. In which a system is in place for other players to essentially pay people's subs.

 

[wjousts]

The Old Republic software will also be reduced from $60 to a bargain-basement $15, complete with a free month's subscription benefits, to entice more players to make the leap.

So not actually free to play, but something more like the Guild Wars model. Or the Diablo 3 model, where they still are trying to monetize after the initial sale.

Give it a couple more months and hopefully they'll drop this final barrier. Then maybe I'll give it a try.

 

[fargofallout]

I spent a lot of time playing WoW, and if you're going to spend a lot of time on one game, the monthly fee is well worth it. It's once the game started to wear thin that I couldn't justify spending that money every month.

My three curiosities (one of which was mentioned here) are The Secret World, Elder Scrolls Online, and Final Fantasy XIV. The fact that FFXIV still exists, is now charging a monthly fee, and is trying to rebrand itself, is simply astounding to me. I would love it if someone could get a good look at that game and find out how many subscribers it has and how much has been spent on its development thus far. As for ESO, I can't image they're happy with the news from The Old Republic. Thinking that their IP will allow them to charge the monthly fee is silly - I don't know that they're willing to announce free-to-play prior to launch, however.

 

[IM0001]

Funny how EVE Online is not once mentioned while it still has its Monthly Payment (Or F2P if you can make enough ingame isk). Though it sort of is like WoW how it is a Game all its own and with such a unique fanbase, design, and world that it would be really hard and more than likely a horrible idea to try and make it F2P/P2P. The design of the game cannot support it without extreme abuse cropping up from it.

Also Is it bad that I got all hyped up and actually enjoyed TOR during beta, but when it finally launched, I have not spend more than 2 hrs in the game due to time/energy/lack of interest in actually getting into another MMO. I'm sad about that.

 

[Gary Patterson]

"I think that WoW is immune [to free-to-play pressures] because it has built barriers to others' entry," Wedbush Morgan analyst Michael Pachter told Ars Technica. "The most significant is the community of WoW players, so even if a new game comes along that is rated higher by critics, it will attract only a portion of the loyal WoW community, and the defectors will feel pangs of guilt. It's sort of like why Google+ can never overtake Facebook--it might be a superior product, but without your friends on the service, Google+ is just not as fun as Facebook is."

Ah, you've got to love analysts like this. Hilarious stuff. Defector guilt as the barrier to entry for new MMOs.

I'd say you couldn't write comedy material like this, but clearly that analyst thinks you can.

 

[Kyle Orland]

I wouldn't be so quick to think this is indicative of a shift in the entire industry. This is an act of desperation to save a floundering MMO. I'm surprised more MMOs haven't adopted the EVE Online model really. In which a system is in place for other players to essentially pay people's subs.

This is not a one-off example. Plenty of other MMOs have gone free to play of late (I even mention some in the article) and they've had great results. Whether they're desperate is up for debate, but they're not the only ones to figure that free to play is thebest way to maximize revenues.

 

[Kevin McKenna]

The Old Republic software will also be reduced from $60 to a bargain-basement $15, complete with a free month's subscription benefits, to entice more players to make the leap.

So not actually free to play, but something more like the Guild Wars model. Or the Diablo 3 model, where they still are trying to monetize after the initial sale.

Yes, technically you have to pay $15 for the game, but the "free-to-play" model refers to getting new content and access to online servers without any recurring costs.

Sorry Kyle, you're wrong. Go to the free-to-play section of Steam and find me a single f2p game that costs money to get the client. There aren't any. Same with sites like freetoplay.org and whatmmorpg.com.

If the base client costs money, that's not f2p.

 

[Daros]

"No triple-A, big MMO has launched yet with a free-to-play model,"

Guild Wars. Also, in 24 days, Guild Wars 2, and that's close enough to "yet."

 

[wjousts]

Lets face it. MMO's are designed to consume a fair amount of time and you really only feel like the monthly fee is worth it when you are spending a fair amount of time in the MMO. Most people don't have anywhere near enough free time to spend enough of it in two different MMO's to warrant paying for two at the same time.

This has always been my problem with month subscriptions (and why I won't touch them). If I'm paying $15/month then I feel I have to play for it to be worth it, and I don't like feeling that way about what is supposed to be free time.

On the other hand, I don't particularly like the idea of paying real money for virtual junk either, so maybe I'm just a virtual curmudgeon.

 

[Paltivar]

The Old Republic software will also be reduced from $60 to a bargain-basement $15, complete with a free month's subscription benefits, to entice more players to make the leap.

So not actually free to play, but something more like the Guild Wars model. Or the Diablo 3 model, where they still are trying to monetize after the initial sale.

Yes, technically you have to pay $15 for the game, but the "free-to-play" model refers to getting new content and access to online servers without any recurring costs.

WTF?!? Who's definition is that?

Team Fortress 2 never charged for access to servers or new content, yet somehow managed to go "free-to-play"

Charge for game, no ongoing charges is the base model that subscriptions or free to play modify.

 

[Daros]

The Old Republic software will also be reduced from $60 to a bargain-basement $15, complete with a free month's subscription benefits, to entice more players to make the leap.

So not actually free to play, but something more like the Guild Wars model. Or the Diablo 3 model, where they still are trying to monetize after the initial sale.

Yes, technically you have to pay $15 for the game, but the "free-to-play" model refers to getting new content and access to online servers without any recurring costs.

Sorry Kyle, you're wrong. Go to the free-to-play section of Steam and find me a single f2p game that costs money to get the client. There aren't any. Same with sites like freetoplay.org and whatmmorpg.com.

If the base client costs money, that's not f2p.

It has come to mean both things over time. Either way is acceptable.

 

[Gary Patterson]

Article is pretty spot on though. WoW has such a huge player-base and such a head start, they can kind of "get away" with having a sub. Support for that though is slowly dwindling, especially considering recent material for the game has been lackluster.

I suspect WoW will transition to a hybrid model like SWTOR is going to use after the rush from MoP starts dying down 6-12 months after release. A subscription model just leaves a lot of money and players on the table. It would be an especially good move for WoW, because most everyone has had a WoW account at some point or another.

In the article, some games that went free-to-play multiplied their revenue, but since they were failing at that point it seems to me more of a last ditch effort to survive, not a solid business model. They managed to stop the bleeding and wring some money out of the players in new ways.

Applying that to WoW, which lost 2M of 12M subscriptions a year ago and has since stabilised, doesn't flow. WoW also has a defined cycle of subscribers and expansion packs - when an xpac is released, numbers skyrocket then dwindle slowly downwards, accelerating towards the next xpac when they skyrocket again.

I contend that MMOs go free-to-play because they failed to compete against the current champions (WoW and EVE) and have to do something to survive. It doesn't seem a good business model to launch with.

 

[Sardonic]

I wouldn't be so quick to think this is indicative of a shift in the entire industry. This is an act of desperation to save a floundering MMO. I'm surprised more MMOs haven't adopted the EVE Online model really. In which a system is in place for other players to essentially pay people's subs.

This is not a one-off example. Plenty of other MMOs have gone free to play of late (I even mention some in the article) and they've had great results. Whether they're desperate is up for debate, but they're not the only ones to figure that free to play is thebest way to maximize revenues.

To be fair, TF2 is not a MMO, it never had a sub.

And the other two MMOs, well, no offense but they've never been the pick of the litter either. All I see is attempts to grow a dwindling playerbase, to their credit, it has worked, as you note. Show me a new AAA MMO launching with a F2P model, and I'll believe the market has shifted.

 

[Dan Homerick]

Something the article doesn't mention (but should!) is that F2P decouples spending from time, and instead ties it (loosely) to play time. It makes for a big difference.

 

[MoonShark]

Well I might jump in this fall. $60 game + $15/mo subscription was too damn much. But $15 + no subscription is lower than I expected for less than a year after release.

I buy games on Steam sale for $5 all the time, and I'm sure TOR is at least as big as 3 of them. Of course I have no interest in microtransactions, so that's EA's loss.

 

[jandrese]

On the other hand, there is this quote:

I only play games with a monthly subscription, I can't afford the free ones.

I hate how F2P games always feel the need to monetize absolutely everything in the game. Sure the game is free to play, but if you want to be able to click two buttons at once that's a $5 upgrade. Maybe you want to be able to set yourself as looking for group, that's another $10.

What I hate most is when they let you keep the monthly subscription fee, but then start charging for all the new content anyway, like $180/year doesn't count for anything. If you're plunking down $15/month, then absolutely everything should be unlocked, even weird costume packs and other such stuff. You're paying them the same amount you would for a full AAA title every 4 months, and they're certainly not delivering that much content, so putting additional charges on top of it is just insulting.

This is actually the reason I quit City of Heroes a couple of years ago. The cash shop ruined the game for me. I've also skipped every MMO since that has a cash shop and a monthly fee, which has turned out to be pretty much all of them. I do pop on from time to time to meet up with old friends and see how much has changed (and to see if there are any new story arcs to run through), but it's clear that the studio is so deeply invested in milking their subscribers now that it's not a place I want to be anymore.

 

[Crackhead Johny]

Are you smoking rocks?
It is dead when WoW says it is dead. I do not think Titan will start out F2P.
F2P is a way to try to get money, when your game also failed to compete with WoW.
This is like trumpeting the end of closed source OSs while MS is still selling Windows.

 

[thekaj]

Funny how EVE Online is not once mentioned while it still has its Monthly Payment (Or F2P if you can make enough ingame isk). Though it sort of is like WoW how it is a Game all its own and with such a unique fanbase, design, and world that it would be really hard and more than likely a horrible idea to try and make it F2P/P2P. The design of the game cannot support it without extreme abuse cropping up from it.

Yeah, I can't see how EVE would work with a standard F2P model. The player base revolted when they tried to add in some items that could only be purchased using real money that could have an effect on in-game interactions. But as has been said, the system does allow for people to essentially play for free by earning enough in-game currency to buy 30 day extensions.

The game is also filled with stories of people who tried to buy their way into success by buying highly experienced characters and expensive ships and equipment, only to lose them in hilarious ways (and in EVE, if you lose your ship, you LOSE your ship).

But for EVE, it may be moot anyway. Their player base is bigger now than it was a few years ago. There's a very dedicated set of players, and it helps that a LOT of the content is player created and always changing. You can never actually hit a level limit on a character.

 

[Xavin]

Did the game change in recent years or it's still the old stuff ie it is just people don't want to pay a monthly fee to be a stripper in a bar on a remote planet...?

The game has changed. A few years ago gamers wouldn't have put up with cash shops, and the first few F2P examples were terrible pay to win games from Korea. Now there are plenty examples of very successful F2P games, F2P is not a dirty word anymore.

Give it a couple more months and hopefully they'll drop this final barrier. Then maybe I'll give it a try.

The $15 box price is only from now until November. Once it goes F2P it will be free. As usual, BW can't write a clear and concise press release to save their life.

 

[Paltivar]

It has come to mean both things over time. Either way is acceptable.

No it hasn't. Who else is calling "Buy the game and play it" "free-to-play?"

No one, that's who.

 

[Troublesome Strumpet]

I was concerned with the F2P model when it first started to make waves. Now I'm quite content with how it works. Having multiple titles available at low or no cost is quite exciting. I've dropped hundreds of hours and a considerable amount of my money into various F2P games.

When SW:TOR goes F2P I'll be there.

 

[Paltivar]

"No triple-A, big MMO has launched yet with a free-to-play model,"

Guild Wars. Also, in 24 days, Guild Wars 2, and that's close enough to "yet."

Guild Wars has a free trial, but is not free to play.

 

[aliksy]

I don't think the subscription is what really killed it. I think it being a game no one wanted killed it. The KOTOR fans wanted a great single player game like KOTOR, but they got a so-so game grafted onto out of date MMO gameplay. The MMO fans who wanted something other than WoW got a reskinned WoW. The MMO fans who want WoW already have WoW, or Rifts.

If they had actually made a game that did something new in the MMO space (other than stapling some single player tropes onto it), maybe it would have done better.

 

[cheftink]

I think folks are tired of chunking down a load of change for the initial game and then more for a subscription just to find out the game is lackluster. It's much easier to get new customer participation when its easy / cheap to join. And, yeah, even tightwads that play may get enticed to plunk down some cash for a convenience, like fast travel..

That's my problem with most of the subscription models. I absolutely do not want to pay $50+ with a recurring fee for a game unless it is absolutely stellar (nothing has gotten that category for me since Rift launched last year). However, I am willing to plunk down $10-20 and possibly a few months of fees for games I am less interested in (like SWTOR), or a few months of "premium" game time for something that's already free to play (DCUO).

I'm also getting to the point where paying the same price for a digital download that I do for a physical copy (or more in the case of SWTOR right now, since there are a few places you can order a physical for $20) is very irritating... I'd rather just throw my money at Steam and get 3+ titles I'm curious about for the same price of that one sub-based game I'm curious about.

 

[AxMi-24]

I wouldn't be so quick to think this is indicative of a shift in the entire industry. This is an act of desperation to save a floundering MMO. I'm surprised more MMOs haven't adopted the EVE Online model really. In which a system is in place for other players to essentially pay people's subs.

This is not a one-off example. Plenty of other MMOs have gone free to play of late (I even mention some in the article) and they've had great results. Whether they're desperate is up for debate, but they're not the only ones to figure that free to play is thebest way to maximize revenues.

Difference is that in those death means little to nothing. In eve online pay to win would kill the game as death hurts a lot.

On the other hand eve is unique in that players are the ones providing the fun content not the manufacturer. True sandbox and that might explain why it has fanatical players (I've been at it for 6 years with 4 accounts). Only such game out there. Complex and unforgiving but more rewarding than any other MMO.

 

[max4677]

Now if we could get MS to drop their sub model. Hell, I'd be happy just to be able to send and receive XBL messages from anything other than my 360. My Lumia 900 would be perfect for this type of crazy idea...

 

[UltimateLemon]

I wouldn't be so quick to think this is indicative of a shift in the entire industry. This is an act of desperation to save a floundering MMO. I'm surprised more MMOs haven't adopted the EVE Online model really. In which a system is in place for other players to essentially pay people's subs.

This is not a one-off example. Plenty of other MMOs have gone free to play of late (I even mention some in the article) and they've had great results. Whether they're desperate is up for debate, but they're not the only ones to figure that free to play is thebest way to maximize revenues.

SWTOR didn't exactly go F2P as a positive shift either. It really began hemorrhaging sub counts badly since 1.0.2 patch for both technical reasons and content.

They didn't go through 2 rounds of layoffs and some of their leads leaving the company for nothing.