Why subs-based MMOs have a future

Mythic founder senses shift away from F2P.

An F2P-only future for the MMO genre is anything but a foregone conclusion, reckons Mythic founder and former CEO Mark Jacobs.

Jacobs, who was lead designer on Dark Age of Camelot and Warhammer Online before he left Mythic in 2009, admitted to Eurogamer that the traditional subs-based MMO industry "is in the worst shape ever" with free-to-play clearly in the ascendancy.

However, he speculated that some players are slowly starting to turn against the system, due to the low quality of many of the titles on offer.

"I think we're starting to see a shift," he said.

"I think that shift is not going to happen over night but you can start to hear it in forums and among the players, that part of the problem with free-to-play is that a lot of time the games are crap. Just like free mobile games are.

"Publishers are just throwing something out and want to make some money off RMT, but in order to do that they've had to keep the production costs way down.

"I think some players are starting to get tired of it. They're willing to pay a little bit more. Are they willing to pay $5 a month? $10 a month? $20 a month? I don't know yet but I think we will see a shift from free-to-play back to a model where it isn't one size fits all."

Another reason why we might see a swing back to a more traditional payment model, Jacobs argued, is that more dedicated gamers don't want to have to put up with the mischief inflicted by interlopers checking out a game by virtue of the non-existent barrier for entry.

"I think there is a good percentage of people who are willing to pay for quality and are willing pay for a good experience," he explained.

"You go into these games and you see a lot of the same crap you've seen for decades. There has always been ways of enticing people to play - hey, it's free until level 20, you get 20 days free, and so on - and you're seeing people running around cursing and being silly, because there's no penalty.

"There are a lot of people who don't enjoy that and are willing to pay to have good servers and not to have to deal with some of the nonsense you have to deal with."

That said, Jacobs added that any MMO that does launch with a subscription model will have to step out of World of Warcraft's shadow and try something different if it's going to have any chance of success.

"If you look at the MMOs that have come out since WOW, how many have tried to be different? How many have just been clones?" he asked.

"If you have a game that is just a WOW 1.5, it's going to be a really tough sell on a subscription basis. People are going to say 'why should I pay you $20 a month to play the same game I played in WOW but I have to start all over again and I don't have my friends?'

"People would like something different. That's one of the things we tried to do with Warhammer. Obviously there were some things in it that were very much like WOW, but we tried with some things to be different.

"And it's hard. Innovation is difficult and sometimes innovation doesn't work. But to come into this space now with a very high-priced WOW game would just be tough. I think the industry needs to shift itself a little bit. We need to be willing to go out there and take some risks."

So, what of Star Wars: The Old Republic, EA's big-budget subs-based MMO due out in December? Jacobs argued that if that does well, we could see other publishers giving subscriptions another chance.

"When people come out and say something is dead I laugh my arse off. Come on! Everything is cyclical. Change is part of the human condition. We're born, we change, we die, we change.

"I look at subs the same way. Right now they're not that hot, they're not that interesting. But then look at The Old Republic. Let's say it makes the numbers that EA has said publicly. If they make their numbers as John [Riccitiello] has said in his earnings calls, in their words 'that's a good business to be in'.

"If he's proven right, the games industry will react. They'll react by doing the same thing that the movie industry does. You've seen it. One type of film does well and the opposition runs out a clone. If EA is right and it's successful then other publishers or developers will look at the space and go 'see, you can make money selling subscriptions'.

"And if it doesn't do well, that would be an argument for saying that free-to-play really is dominant. It will be an interesting few months."

As reported earlier this week, Jacobs has just set up a new studio, City State Entertainment, which will focus on social and mobile games.

Comments (27) Latest comment 6 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Red930 #1 8 months ago

    Hang on have we not only just shifted to FTP on most of the big ones? Microtransactions being rammed down our throats etc?

    Going by world of tanks FTP not a good move for the consumer for sure. Pay or loose.

    What we need is REASONABLE subs.

    I have seen both extremes (EVE, Planetside and WoT) and neither of them is palatable, especially in this climate.
  • Chelladox #2 8 months ago

    This guy's a turd. I played free apps which are very good. Also, no mention of GW2 for his convenience, or what?
  • LazyDan #3 8 months ago

    The problem with free-to-play is that while you're in the game, you're forever made to feel like you're getting an inferior experience unless you pay for literally everything. Generally, you're not even expected to pay for everything, but if an incentive isn't attached to absolutely everything that is sold, what's the point of buying it? Hence the feeling.

    Subscription is a heavy gate, but once you're in then that's that until your subscription expires. That's the main attraction over F2P for me.

    In lieu of a third option (i.e Guild Wars 2,) removing the barriers to subscription sounds like the better compromise. Simple cancellation, 1-click renewal, renewal by SMS (charged to your bill,) renewal by Paypal... That kind of thing.
  • Kami #4 8 months ago

    Depends on the game LazyDan. Personally, I've fallen in love with Hellgate: London all over again. Sure, there is a store with premium items. But they are also given away at key points and times, or can be bought with in-game currency through the auction system. It is the best of both worlds, and I for one think that is a fair F2P model that doesn't punish people who prefer to work for their keep.

    That said, many F2P games that are doing well also have subscription options, opening up content for a relatively small outlay and as long as you remember to cancel a subscription when you have had your fill, that's also a reasonable model to live by.

    There are of course many bad F2P games. But there have been many bad subscription-based MMOs in recent years. The industry itself is expanding and finding it at times difficult to settle into any one groove. I think the future is one where people are given the option between subs and F2P in the same game, with the ability to change whenever a user feels like it, and bad games can be shafted out because everyone offers similarly flexible options.

    Ultimately, it is how the developers run it though that provides the lasting legacy. Age of Conan lost subs very early on because they couldn't make their game stable, or less buggy. Rift has become so top-heavy that it's in real danger of collapse already. WoW, as we all know, is losing a lot of subscriptions too.

    And subs-based or F2P, a game in trouble is a game in trouble. It's how they run it from behind the scenes. And no amount of choice in payment options will really help on that front.
  • dutzan #5 8 months ago

    "However, he speculated that some players are slowly starting to turn against the system, due to the low quality of many of the titles on offer."

    Actually he's half right. Players are aware of the fact that most f2p are low quality, but they also have no where to turn. Turn to sub-based mmos? They're turning into f2p one by one faster than ever. Why? Because they were low quality in the first place. The only new mmos that are going to have any kind of success with subs are the big time ones such as GW2 and SWTOR.
    Cause GW2 would be more successful with a sub than any mmo launched in recent years. It will simply blow away all mmos such as DCUO, CO, Star Trek online, AoC and probably LOTRO too (not that it was bad) in terms of quality. Oh, and also his mithic games too especially that highly successful Warhammer online.
  • dagas #6 8 months ago

    The way I see it.
    PAID: For games I really like and plan to play at least several days a week.
    F2P: For games I'm unsure about or like to play every now and then, but not enough to warrent paying every month.
  • bobfish09 #7 8 months ago

    He's right, there is room for both payment models and SWTOR will demonstrate that subscription games can still work if the product is good enough.

    Though I think the dominant model in time will turn out to be a hybrid model, like LOTRO uses, where it is free to play or you can pay a subscription to get the most from it.
  • haruvister #8 8 months ago

    "We're born, we change, we die, we change."

    That should be: We're born, we change, we die, we rot.

    I don't buy the argument that subs mean fewer bellends. WoW was sub-based, and when I played that I was pwned by immersion-breaking nonsense every second I was online.
  • Flipper79 #9 8 months ago

    F2P is a very deceptive model when it comes to success. It only works because of the high attrition rate in mmo's. People move from others for a change, they initially enjoy the new game, spend a bit of money, get bored and move onto the next one. That works in the short term, but in the long term there aren't enough new players or games coming into the mmo market to sustain that cycle.

    At some point those that make mmo's need to realise there is far too much focus going into the payment model at the moment rather than innovation.
  • Spekingur #10 8 months ago

    He is only right when dealing with F2P MMOs that do things 'badly' - overprice stuff, for example. The F2P model in general seems quite successful and I feel like he is just blindly stabbing against something he doesn't really understand.
  • Gearskin #11 8 months ago

    I don't mind FTP models if the base game (the free part) is good, and the things that can be purchased are worthwhile. That said, if I was to purchase a lot of worthwhile content one month... I could, technically, end up paying more than the £8.99 sub of old. So why not just keep the sub?

    I buy far too many games, usually at £40 a pop. If I got stuck into an MMO, and abandoned everything else, I'd end up saving money even with a monthly subscription.
  • Averice #12 8 months ago

    Still worried about GW2's cash shop. But we'll get more info on that shortly after release so I can decide whether to buy it or not then, definitely not a first day buy though. I wouldn't mind more payment options for full access either. Sub's in the West are $15 take it or leave it, while in the East you can get full access for a couple days for a couple bucks; or a couple hours of full access for a buck or two.

    I just don't see why we aren't getting more sub options that cater to consumers life styles better. Not to mention that MMO's themselves are rather boxed into this designed for extended weeks of play back to back in order to accomplish anything, which is a whole nother issue. I'm rather looking forward to GW2 for a fix to that, their PvP is log in and play, much like LoL or SC2; but they're still an MMO.
  • George-Roper #13 8 months ago

    No serious gamer is happy with F2P conversions, Guild Wars 2, being built from the ground up to be F2P will hopefully have an attractive solution but you only have to look at games like EQ2 to see how badly most F2P conversions are done.

    If a game is good and supported well, gamers will pay a sub. Fact, WoW supports this.
  • johnson81 #14 8 months ago

    I still don't understand why anyone would want to pay to play one game. I do play any old shite and will play literally anything but if I paid to play the same game over and over it would drive me up the wall.
  • Captain_JMac #15 8 months ago

    Here's my idea for a new subscription model:

    Charged by the hour, say 25p an hour, then when you hit a certain cost (say £7-8, around the normal subscription prices), then you can play for free for the rest of the month.

    That way no one pays more than the current subscription model, but it doesn't scare away lighter players who don't want to stump up a load of cash up front for a game they might not play that much.
  • WinterSnowblind #16 8 months ago

    @George-Roper
    Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 aren't F2P. You buy the game and buy the expansions.. This means the developers can get a steady income from that, while still selling cosmetic costumes and whatever on the store, but without having to try and force people to spend as much money as possible on microtransactions.

    It's a much more appealing model than either F2P or subscriptions, and I'd love to see more games follow that trend.

    The subscription model is never going to be successful again, for as long as they're so expensive. Most MMO's do nothing to justify the cost.. Hell, Guild Wars has just had several smaller scale expansions that were completely free, where as most sub based MMO's would be expecting you to buy things like that in a cash shop. Arenanet understand value.. Subscription based MMO developers (for the most part) don't.
    Edited by WinterSnowblind at 05/10/11 @ 10:19
  • Flipper79 #17 8 months ago

    @Captain_JMac

    I like the idea, but I suspect the company involved would have little interest in footing the admin costs of collecting so little at a time from such light users, especially when a reasonable percentage of those players would likely be willing and able to pay the full sub if they enjoy the game and there was no other choice.
  • Tiedemann #18 8 months ago

    Why can't they just give us both? Have a market for those who don't want it all and subs that gives you everything.
    I like subs and I have had more fun in games with subs than any F2P game.
  • FortysixterUK #19 8 months ago

    As long as your game is WOW or SWTOR right?

    Want more people to sub to more games? Make 'em £3.99 per month, or a licence for 1 year £39.99.
    I for one would then stagger my MMO subs and pay one a month happily and not feel guilty about not playing something I had paid for.

    I would then gladly maintain subs on WOW, AOC, SWTOR, STO and DCUO.

    Greed is the motivating factor, Blizz are greedy, EA are greedy. They are not your friends.
    If you charge more than a fiver a month for your MMO...you are greedy and are fleecing the customers. CNUTS.

    Anyway, back to wow, and occasional sojourns into the F2P MMOs...
  • deano2099 #20 8 months ago

    Wait are people actually saying "eff-two-pee" now? Given that it says An F2P at the start of the article... because it's no faster to say than "free to play"...
  • geeza2020 #21 8 months ago

    "- and you're seeing people running around cursing and being silly, because there's no penalty."

    The horror, the horror....
  • Jimiz #22 8 months ago

    I agree with him 100 %. If the game is good enough, I'd *much* rather just cough up the monthly fee and enjoy the game, instead of constantly being forced to play the "Online Shopping Minigame", having to weigh whether this or that is worth the asking price. So yeah, here's my money, now give me all the content, *including* the fluff.

    I used to play LOTRO, but the F2P bullshit is just a major turnoff these days. Especially since it's done in such an incredibly tacky way. There you are, adventuring around in Middle-Earth. "Yeah man, this is cool. Hey, there's Gandalf!" and in ten seconds time your screen will be filled with loading screens that shout "BUY SHIT FROM WALMART" and every single button in the game is accompanied with a link to the cash store. BUY CONSUME SALE 20% OFF GET GET GET. The biggest joke is that even if you do pay the sub (or are a lifetimer), you pretty much get just the quests, all the other stuff you still need to buy separately. (some of which is really darn useful and advantageous to have)

    This is one of the reasons why I find Rift so enjoyable at the moment. I give them money and they give me content and I don't have to worry that I'm missing out on something. All of this is also why I was incredibly happy to hear that SWTOR was going sub-based. Here's to hoping that they can resist the temptation of giving in to the cash store lure. "It'll just be purely cosmetic. Convenience, not advantage!" ... and so it begins...
    Edited by Jimiz at 05/10/11 @ 12:52
  • George-Roper #23 8 months ago

    This is one of the reasons why I find Rift so enjoyable at the moment. I give them money and they give me content and I don't have to worry that I'm missing out on something.

    This.

    Exactly this.

    LOTRO whilst being the better of most F2P MMOs at the moment is, as has also been said plagued with in-your-face adverts. The one that really did me in was quite close to the start where a quest could only be completed by buying an item from the store using Turbine Points granted. Just to nudge the player into the store, albeit at the cost of totally breaking game immersion.

    Here's the deal, I don't want to play a game and then be faced with 'real life' decisions like cash shops. That's what hurts F2P the most, the constant nagging at the player to GET GET GET and BUY BUY BUY their way through. A proper turn-off.
    Edited by George-Roper at 05/10/11 @ 14:19
  • DrowJones #24 8 months ago

    "and you're seeing people running around cursing and being silly, because there's no penalty."

    Because, yeah, you never see anything like this in subscription-based games.
  • jimr9999us #25 8 months ago

    I 100% agree with Jimiz and George. I will ONLY play sub based mmogs because the $15 a month ironically allows me to forget how broke I am in real life.

    Lotro f2p? End game raiding in LotRO was costing me $30 a month before I quit out of disgust last April...now it seems the store has even more clever ways to take your $.

    If sub-based mmog's ever go away completely I will as well from them.
  • iokthemonkey #26 8 months ago

    The one that really did me in was quite close to the start where a quest could only be completed by buying an item from the store using Turbine Points granted. Just to nudge the player into the store, albeit at the cost of totally breaking game immersion.

    -----

    That would be the OPTIONAL quest that serves as a tutorial on how the store works.
    Edited by iokthemonkey at 07/10/11 @ 18:50
  • Hakster #27 6 months ago

    The new City of Heroes Freedom model is, in my opinion anyway, the ideal way to do things. Play as completely free, get only one or two character slots, no access to the crafting systems, no access to the chat systems other than a general "Help" channel, and no rewards.

    Pay the $15 a month subscription, get hundreds of character slots, a server only available to subscribers, full access to the crafting and endgame power systems, and a story arc exclusive to VIPs every month. On top of that, get access to character power sets only otherwise available if purchased outright, and a "Reward token" every month used to get extra unlockables - ingame vanity pets, costume pieces, experience boosters, etc.

    The F2P method is basically a non-restricted demo of the game, giving the illusion that you're experiencing lots of content, whereas what you're getting is the game as it was 3 or 4 years ago, and only able to use a single character for it. When players see their friends who got them into the game running about with all the good stuff they bought on the in-game auction house, they are more inclined to consider getting it themselves, as they're already experiencing the product.