www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
Friday, January 11, 2008
Pirates of the Burning Sea is too expensive
Pirates of the Burning Sea is a game with many good points. Keen and Graev just pointed out one, the great ability to search a PotBS database in game by pressing F1. I keep liking the economy game and the ship-to-ship combat. But then I hear that Flying Lab Software has announced the subscription price scheme, and one month of PotBS costs $14.99 (with the usual reductions for longer subscription periods), the same as World of Warcraft. Only PotBS is no WoW!
Warcry had a recent editorial about The Year the Subscription Model Died. They say that post World of Warcraft new MMORPGs with a subscription business model failed to attract more than a quarter of a million subscribers, while free games like Club Penguin, Second Life, or Habbo Hotel attract millions of players. Doh! Stop the press! Headline: "People prefer free stuff over having to pay for it!"
If you have two restaurants sitting right next to each other, and one is offering high-quality meals for $15, and the other is offering greasy junk food for the same price, the junk food restaurant will suffer. That does not mean that the restaurant model of demanding money for cooked food is dead. That does not mean the junk food place should give away their food for free and try to finance themselves by selling brand T-shirts or putting advertising on their walls. It simply means that the junk food place needs to adjust their prices to correspond to the quality of their food. Given the choice between a steak for $15 and a greasy burger for $5, enough people will opt for the burger.
MMORPGs aren't much different. As I said, PotBS has many good qualities. But to pretend that it is as good as WoW, that it has as much content, is as polished, and offers as much variety of gameplay is really stretching the truth. In a one-to-one comparison it is obvious that World of Warcraft is the better game. And while of course not every MMORPG player is price-sensitive (often time is the restricting factor), Pirates of the Burning Sea would be better served with a lower price tag reflecting that lower quality. Who says you can only either ask for $15 or nothing? Why not a $5 per month subscription, which would attract a larger number of players?
- posted by Tobold @ 11:42 AM Permanent Link
Comments:
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
The irony of it is that Blizzard could probably reduce their subs to €5 per month ans till rake in a hefty profit from their 9M+ subscribers while games with only 100k subscribers need €15 per customer per month just to stay above water.
Heck if Blizzard decided to tie their game into advertising (splash screen ads / in game ads (shudder)) they could probably give it away fo r free and still make buckets of money.
Heck if Blizzard decided to tie their game into advertising (splash screen ads / in game ads (shudder)) they could probably give it away fo r free and still make buckets of money.
POTBS should offer the first few months free otherwise the monthly fee will scare away potential customers (like myself) before giving it a chance.
And if the game doesn't have more than a few months of play value then it shouldn't be charging $15 per month anyway (unless the retail price of the box is only $5).
IMO, the only way to get someone to pay $15 per month is to hook them on the game first.
I got into WoW because back when it started I had the free time to participate in the beta.
I don't have that free time anymore and I'm not going to pay $40-50 for a game box and another $15 per month to find out if I even like a game. Additionally, I am no longer in college, and thus do not hear about games as much by word of mouth.
And if the game doesn't have more than a few months of play value then it shouldn't be charging $15 per month anyway (unless the retail price of the box is only $5).
IMO, the only way to get someone to pay $15 per month is to hook them on the game first.
I got into WoW because back when it started I had the free time to participate in the beta.
I don't have that free time anymore and I'm not going to pay $40-50 for a game box and another $15 per month to find out if I even like a game. Additionally, I am no longer in college, and thus do not hear about games as much by word of mouth.
# posted by 
: 11/1/08 15:40
: 11/1/08 15:40
Not to mention, many people hold multiple subscriptions.
I call it the, "I'll keep my WoW subscription until something vastly better comes along."
So while you may be able to justify having a 15 dollar and 5 dollar one. It's harder to justify holding a 15 dollar one and *another* 15 dollar one.
I call it the, "I'll keep my WoW subscription until something vastly better comes along."
So while you may be able to justify having a 15 dollar and 5 dollar one. It's harder to justify holding a 15 dollar one and *another* 15 dollar one.
I think tobold is dead on. Not a single game in the last 2 years has been anywhere near as good as WOW was when it launched. I'm not saying wow was perfect and didn't have any bugs but the games are releasing feel like they have the skeleton in place and are just starting to be fleshed out.
That's not going to work anymore the paradigm has changed and either they'll have to drop thier prices or put out something with the depth and polish that blizzard has set as the new standard.
I think the day of getting players to work out your beta bugs while they pay you for the privilige is dieing.
That's not going to work anymore the paradigm has changed and either they'll have to drop thier prices or put out something with the depth and polish that blizzard has set as the new standard.
I think the day of getting players to work out your beta bugs while they pay you for the privilige is dieing.
Is PotBS a part of the Sony Station Pass? If it is, it might hurt their model to offer it for anything less than $15 per month. Many people are still upset that they raised the price on the pass to $30. I would not pay $30 for the pass if I can pay $20 for EQ2 and PotBS.
# posted by : 11/1/08 16:51
: 11/1/08 16:51
Good observation, Arkimet. PotBS is in fact on the Sony Station Pass. But then other games that cost less than $15 are on the pass too.
Nevertheless I did read some blog comments of the type "I'll play PotBS, because I have a Station pass anyway", so the fact that PotBS for them was cheaper clearly made a difference in the decision to play it.
Nevertheless I did read some blog comments of the type "I'll play PotBS, because I have a Station pass anyway", so the fact that PotBS for them was cheaper clearly made a difference in the decision to play it.
Tobold and I don't agree on a lot of stuff, but this is one topic where he and I are totally in agreement.
I absolutely cannot stand it when indy developers and self-stylized prophets like Koster run their mouths about free-to-play, low-quality games being the new wave of the future.
Do they make money? Sure they do. Twenty years from now are they going to be dominating the market? No. They're a niche game in an interesting era where people have relatively unmonitored internet access at work and can engage in diversions like Rune Quest.
It especially pisses me off when the MMO prophets claim that MMO success is almost entirely up to luck. No it isn't! A good game will do well and a crappy game will fail. WoW is king because it's a very well-done game. Vanguard and the rest of the tripe out there do lousy because they are poorly conceived and executed. The fact of the matter is that these MMO know-it-alls are developers who cut their teeth on small-scale MUDs and have failed when it comes to MMO design.
People always internalize success and look for external reasons for failure. Raph Koster seems to blame his failures on luck rather than poor design and (mainly) execution. He is a wonderful writer, artist, and visionary. Unfortunately the empirical evidence shows that he either doesn't know what he's talking about or doesn't know how to turn his ideas into a mass success.
I absolutely cannot stand it when indy developers and self-stylized prophets like Koster run their mouths about free-to-play, low-quality games being the new wave of the future.
Do they make money? Sure they do. Twenty years from now are they going to be dominating the market? No. They're a niche game in an interesting era where people have relatively unmonitored internet access at work and can engage in diversions like Rune Quest.
It especially pisses me off when the MMO prophets claim that MMO success is almost entirely up to luck. No it isn't! A good game will do well and a crappy game will fail. WoW is king because it's a very well-done game. Vanguard and the rest of the tripe out there do lousy because they are poorly conceived and executed. The fact of the matter is that these MMO know-it-alls are developers who cut their teeth on small-scale MUDs and have failed when it comes to MMO design.
People always internalize success and look for external reasons for failure. Raph Koster seems to blame his failures on luck rather than poor design and (mainly) execution. He is a wonderful writer, artist, and visionary. Unfortunately the empirical evidence shows that he either doesn't know what he's talking about or doesn't know how to turn his ideas into a mass success.
What we have here is failure to compete. WoW is the undisputed market leader. To compete with it for subscribers, you have to either offer something that's either truly different (e.g. EVE), fundamentally better, or else offer a more attrative pricing model. It should be obvious that asking the same price as the market leader for an inferior cookie-cutter MMO will end in financial failure. You may get a burst of initial subscribers because of the sheer novelty of a new product, but in the long term most of them will flee to the better game.
Cutting cost is one of the most obvious way to compete. I'm not sure why MMO publishers are so blind to that. I would argue that any new MMO that comes out should do its utmost to capture and retain subscribers. That means eliminating the boxed game fee and reducing monthly fees, among other things.
Cutting cost is one of the most obvious way to compete. I'm not sure why MMO publishers are so blind to that. I would argue that any new MMO that comes out should do its utmost to capture and retain subscribers. That means eliminating the boxed game fee and reducing monthly fees, among other things.
# posted by : 11/1/08 17:31
: 11/1/08 17:31
Perhaps the finance guys behind PotBS believe that the way to maximize their revenue is to indeed charge $15/month. Sure, you'll get fewer subscribers than say $5/month, but you'll have greater per subscriber revenue and lower costs.
It seems misguided to believe that $15/month will maximize revenue, but they know more about their costs and capabilities than any outside observer does.
It seems misguided to believe that $15/month will maximize revenue, but they know more about their costs and capabilities than any outside observer does.
# posted by : 11/1/08 18:36
: 11/1/08 18:36
That WarCry article was totally misguided. WoW is an anomaly, not the industry standard. WarCry fails to factor in that no game has come remotely close to WoW sub numbers before it's release either. It's hands down one of the more accessible MMOs out there, can run cross-platform unlike every other MMO, and frankly is a lot more appealing to you non-computer RPGer. To equate it's unparalleled success with the death of the subscription model is plain wrong.
Free-to-play games are 99% garbage, and even a AAA title like Guild Wars which is an anomaly in its own right in the free-to-play market because it's a fun game with some character--simply lacks the breadth and depth of even the more lackluster subscription based MMOs.
I would never play a game with microtransactions. That's not a game, it's buying your way to a certain point rather than the fun and challenge of getting there on your own merits.
People are always going to flock to free-to-play (because people are cheap) and to microtransactions (because they're lazy or simply lack the leisure time to devote X number of hours to a game).
I totally agree with most of Blachawk's sentiments above--especially in regard to the MMO prophets who should put all the energy they spend on intellectualizing and philosophizing towards creating a game that's actually entertaining.
Free-to-play games are 99% garbage, and even a AAA title like Guild Wars which is an anomaly in its own right in the free-to-play market because it's a fun game with some character--simply lacks the breadth and depth of even the more lackluster subscription based MMOs.
I would never play a game with microtransactions. That's not a game, it's buying your way to a certain point rather than the fun and challenge of getting there on your own merits.
People are always going to flock to free-to-play (because people are cheap) and to microtransactions (because they're lazy or simply lack the leisure time to devote X number of hours to a game).
I totally agree with most of Blachawk's sentiments above--especially in regard to the MMO prophets who should put all the energy they spend on intellectualizing and philosophizing towards creating a game that's actually entertaining.
# posted by : 11/1/08 18:43
: 11/1/08 18:43
Tobold may be correct in that WoW has more polish and content, but that isn't everything. Some of us like game mechanics. In this case PotBS has far superior mechanics than WoW. The Diku MUD people will not like PotBS, and claim it is inferior to WoW. Those same people won't like EvE too much either. Gone are the days of "LFM need healer". Keep that crap if you want it, I'm done.
Also, if PotBS got a quarter million subscribers (the warcry statistic), Rusty and co. would laugh all the way to the bank.
Like your restaraunt analagy, if the "quality" meal isn't something I like to eat, I'd probably pay the $15 for junk food. Everyone is different and has different tastes. PotBS will be niche, and will be quite profitable with a very small fraction of the numbers WoW has.
Also, if PotBS got a quarter million subscribers (the warcry statistic), Rusty and co. would laugh all the way to the bank.
Like your restaraunt analagy, if the "quality" meal isn't something I like to eat, I'd probably pay the $15 for junk food. Everyone is different and has different tastes. PotBS will be niche, and will be quite profitable with a very small fraction of the numbers WoW has.
One thing that no one has mentioned is the cost of the back end architecture involved. It doesn't really invalidate Tobold's main point, which is still absolutely correct in my opinion, but it's a major factor in the price point that an MMO can afford to charge. It's influenced by many factors - the hardware vendors the developer chooses, the location of the data centres, economies of scale, and above all game design. If your MMO encourages lots of players in small geographical areas and does not do a good job of distributing the load, then your MMO will have a higher running cost per player.
An MMO is a server based application. How much your back end infrastructure costs is a complex question, it's not a case of buying X machines since you have Y subscribers. Some MMOs require more server to run fewer players, if the bandwidth per player is higher (i.e. you must push more information to each client). Some MMOs have higher database backend costs, depending on the vendor they went with, the level of redundancy they wanted built in etc. There are also questions of economy of scale, etc.
Now, PoTBS runs on the station pass, but that doesn't mean its hardware and support running costs will be identical to all the other SOE games. In fact, Flying Labs back end architecture is quite interesting - lots of smaller, distributed game services instead of monolithic back end servers.
Just another thing to consider, is what I'm saying. The development cost is just one factor, the ongoing running cost is more important in the long term profitability.
An MMO is a server based application. How much your back end infrastructure costs is a complex question, it's not a case of buying X machines since you have Y subscribers. Some MMOs require more server to run fewer players, if the bandwidth per player is higher (i.e. you must push more information to each client). Some MMOs have higher database backend costs, depending on the vendor they went with, the level of redundancy they wanted built in etc. There are also questions of economy of scale, etc.
Now, PoTBS runs on the station pass, but that doesn't mean its hardware and support running costs will be identical to all the other SOE games. In fact, Flying Labs back end architecture is quite interesting - lots of smaller, distributed game services instead of monolithic back end servers.
Just another thing to consider, is what I'm saying. The development cost is just one factor, the ongoing running cost is more important in the long term profitability.
Here's an idea for indie MMO developers, then, based on the difficulties of dealing with multiple data centers and huge player bases: limited geographical release.
# posted by : 11/1/08 19:59
: 11/1/08 19:59
I think turbine nailed this issue dead-on. They are currently offering "holiday pricing" for LOTRO at $9.99/month (granted for 3 months at a time). It seems perfectly logical that they would lower the subscription to survive customer drops that will surely occur with new 2008 releases on the horizon. LOTRO currently has plenty of content for me, even as i work on leveling another 50. However, with a limited amount of playing time as a full-time student, I see no reason to pay 50% more for developing end-game content or new arena gear that WoW offers, but i would never experience.
I thoroughly enjoy LOTRO in its current state, and while new content is always great, imo it is not vital to retaining customers. The true key for retention is a high enjoyment:expense ratio for the gamer
I thoroughly enjoy LOTRO in its current state, and while new content is always great, imo it is not vital to retaining customers. The true key for retention is a high enjoyment:expense ratio for the gamer
# posted by : 11/1/08 22:29
: 11/1/08 22:29
Without the Sony Station Pass I couldn't even consider PoTBS. It's a decent game but doesn't warrant $15. I have station pass and haven't bought the game because overall, I'm not convinced it's worth the box price either. I'm at my limit for having bought and subscribed to games that didn't hold my interest long enough.
# posted by : 11/1/08 23:59
: 11/1/08 23:59
One thing to consider is that no company can afford to promote the concept that WoW is 'premium' content and costs $14.99/month and they offer 'junk food' content for $9.99/month (or whatever).
If you tie the monthly cost to the quality of the game, any company that offered their game for less than $14.99/month (which has been the standard for mmos for years now) is immediately advertising 'hey, our game is crappy!'
Furthermore, MMOs do require a certain minimum level of income to maintain at a healthy level. Maybe PotBS could survive on $5/month, but I doubt it would be done without cutting customer service, content development, and all the other things we expect from mmos [insert obligatory jab at how this explains Blizzard's buckets of profit].
Most likely for PotBS to survive at $5/month they'd have to add an alternate revenue stream, such as in-game advertising or micro-transactions, and neither idea fits the game concept.
Claiming that they'd get more subscribers at $5/month would only be true if the box was free. A person unwilling to pay $15/month would also likely be unwilling to pay $50 for the game in the first place.
If you tie the monthly cost to the quality of the game, any company that offered their game for less than $14.99/month (which has been the standard for mmos for years now) is immediately advertising 'hey, our game is crappy!'
Furthermore, MMOs do require a certain minimum level of income to maintain at a healthy level. Maybe PotBS could survive on $5/month, but I doubt it would be done without cutting customer service, content development, and all the other things we expect from mmos [insert obligatory jab at how this explains Blizzard's buckets of profit].
Most likely for PotBS to survive at $5/month they'd have to add an alternate revenue stream, such as in-game advertising or micro-transactions, and neither idea fits the game concept.
Claiming that they'd get more subscribers at $5/month would only be true if the box was free. A person unwilling to pay $15/month would also likely be unwilling to pay $50 for the game in the first place.
# posted by : 12/1/08 00:23
: 12/1/08 00:23
I am paying $15 for City of Heroes now and I was willing to pay the same price for Lineage2 and LoTRO, if only they could keep me :-)
And I will pay to play PotBS as well. Those MMO games are expensiv to make and maintain, so rather than shelling $50 for a console game which will not last longer than 30 hours, I would pay to play MMO games that can last for years. The bottom line, people are willing to pay to have fun.
Maybe MMOs are not that expensive, but Tobold is just cheap,lol
And I will pay to play PotBS as well. Those MMO games are expensiv to make and maintain, so rather than shelling $50 for a console game which will not last longer than 30 hours, I would pay to play MMO games that can last for years. The bottom line, people are willing to pay to have fun.
Maybe MMOs are not that expensive, but Tobold is just cheap,lol
# posted by : 12/1/08 00:34
: 12/1/08 00:34
Graktar has it spot on, "our game sucks, but at least it's cheap!" isn't going to work as an advertising point, see Price as Signal from Joel on Software.
If WoW can charge $15 a month then I don't see any reason why PotBS can't. The value of a product is only that which someone is willing to pay for it - as you detailed with your burger analogy.
I wouldn't pay any amount of money to play WoW. I WOULD however happily pay $15 for PotBS.
It could be reversed. A subscription to EVE costs $15. To a lot of people WoW is a "better" game. Should WoW then be $20 a month? Is it twice as good a game? Should it be worth $30 a month then?
Honestly if EQ, EQ2, LOTRO, WoW, SWG, CoH, DDO, EVE, Lineage 2, and almost every other monthly subscription based game can justify charging $15 a month then I don't see why PotBS can't join the party.
In my opinion NO mmo should be this much money per month, but as long as everyone is doing it I don't see how it's justifiable to call out PotBS.
I wouldn't pay any amount of money to play WoW. I WOULD however happily pay $15 for PotBS.
It could be reversed. A subscription to EVE costs $15. To a lot of people WoW is a "better" game. Should WoW then be $20 a month? Is it twice as good a game? Should it be worth $30 a month then?
Honestly if EQ, EQ2, LOTRO, WoW, SWG, CoH, DDO, EVE, Lineage 2, and almost every other monthly subscription based game can justify charging $15 a month then I don't see why PotBS can't join the party.
In my opinion NO mmo should be this much money per month, but as long as everyone is doing it I don't see how it's justifiable to call out PotBS.
# posted by : 12/1/08 04:56
: 12/1/08 04:56
So what, they should charge $5 now and up the price to $15 when there's more content? The game could directly stimulate the release of dopamine into your brain and people wouldn't stand for that. It's a ridiculous idea.
# posted by : 12/1/08 11:16
: 12/1/08 11:16
That WarCry article was totally misguided. WoW is an anomaly, not the industry standard. WarCry fails to factor in that no game has come remotely close to WoW sub numbers before it's release either. It's hands down one of the more accessible MMOs out there, can run cross-platform unlike every other MMO, and frankly is a lot more appealing to you non-computer RPGer. To equate it's unparalleled success with the death of the subscription model is plain wrong
I think that anyone in the game industry that buys this kind of thinking is in for a huge dissapointment. For good or for bad the game industry is exactly where hollywood was when Jaws, and StarWars came out. When those movies came out and big business saw the amount of potential profit they bought up hollywood lock stock and barrell and the suits started interfering in all but the most prestigous directors films.
The game industry is going through that pain right now. For good or for bad every big company that buys up a game studio is going to want thier Big WOWlike success.
WOW changed the rules. The only question is how many companies will be run out of business before they realize it.
I think in a fairly short time that the only studios still making games for smaller audiences (at least in the MMO world) will be privately owned studios. And those are becoming very rare.
I think that anyone in the game industry that buys this kind of thinking is in for a huge dissapointment. For good or for bad the game industry is exactly where hollywood was when Jaws, and StarWars came out. When those movies came out and big business saw the amount of potential profit they bought up hollywood lock stock and barrell and the suits started interfering in all but the most prestigous directors films.
The game industry is going through that pain right now. For good or for bad every big company that buys up a game studio is going to want thier Big WOWlike success.
WOW changed the rules. The only question is how many companies will be run out of business before they realize it.
I think in a fairly short time that the only studios still making games for smaller audiences (at least in the MMO world) will be privately owned studios. And those are becoming very rare.
"They say that post World of Warcraft new MMORPGs with a subscription business model failed to attract more than a quarter of a million subscribers, while free games like Club Penguin, Second Life, or Habbo Hotel attract millions of players."
I honestly don't CARE if [insert free MMO here] has "millions of players." The question is how they monetize those players, and how much each one is worth to them. From a business perspective, a subscriber is worth a fair bit more than a free player. A subscription MMO frankly doesn't need "millions of players" to be successful.
I don't think it necessarily makes sense to directly compare the "quality" of WoW with PotBS. Ultimately, to a person who is thoroughly burned out on WoW, a subscription to PotBS may be worth considerably more than a subscription to WoW. One should also consider that not all PotBS players are coming from a WoW background. There seem to be a lot of former SWG players (likely disenfranchised crafters), roleplayers, and folks from other older games in the pre-boarding crowd, at least. Given that there's really nothing else like it in the market at the moment (ironically, Eve is probably the closest thing), I predict that they have the potential for a small but very loyal niche following. I would argue that the greatest danger to the game's success, at the moment, is that while the game design does an excellent job of allowing players to control the amount of risk they are facing, crashes and network drops drastically hinder a player's ability to control her risk, and can result in losses devastating enough to cause a newer player to simply quit the game. The last thing you want is for a network hiccup to cause your first big shipment of goods to end up in Davy Jones' locker. I hear that Jones fellow doesn't pay very well.
I honestly don't CARE if [insert free MMO here] has "millions of players." The question is how they monetize those players, and how much each one is worth to them. From a business perspective, a subscriber is worth a fair bit more than a free player. A subscription MMO frankly doesn't need "millions of players" to be successful.
I don't think it necessarily makes sense to directly compare the "quality" of WoW with PotBS. Ultimately, to a person who is thoroughly burned out on WoW, a subscription to PotBS may be worth considerably more than a subscription to WoW. One should also consider that not all PotBS players are coming from a WoW background. There seem to be a lot of former SWG players (likely disenfranchised crafters), roleplayers, and folks from other older games in the pre-boarding crowd, at least. Given that there's really nothing else like it in the market at the moment (ironically, Eve is probably the closest thing), I predict that they have the potential for a small but very loyal niche following. I would argue that the greatest danger to the game's success, at the moment, is that while the game design does an excellent job of allowing players to control the amount of risk they are facing, crashes and network drops drastically hinder a player's ability to control her risk, and can result in losses devastating enough to cause a newer player to simply quit the game. The last thing you want is for a network hiccup to cause your first big shipment of goods to end up in Davy Jones' locker. I hear that Jones fellow doesn't pay very well.
You guys are quantifying things that can't be quantified. For example, I would have to be PAID to go back to WoW so the price of 15 dollars a month makes me throw up a bit in my mouth. On the other hand last semester I paid for 2 DAoC accounts at 15 bucks a month and bought 2 sets of the expansions for 30 bucks a set.
I remember the good old days of 2002 when I first found EQ and was more than happy with it. I don't think it ever crossed my mind to look up a review or to find out how many subscribers there were. Now each game is doomed if it doesn't ship perfectly with good reviews and isn't like WoW.
I remember the good old days of 2002 when I first found EQ and was more than happy with it. I don't think it ever crossed my mind to look up a review or to find out how many subscribers there were. Now each game is doomed if it doesn't ship perfectly with good reviews and isn't like WoW.
# posted by : 17/1/08 06:40
: 17/1/08 06:40
I think Blizzard should take one the task of making a pirate based MMO. Just as a thought.
I mean WoW is great, a little expensive over time but evidently worth it to all the subscribers.
Granted they are currently busy with starcraft 2 and diablo, but still...
I mean WoW is great, a little expensive over time but evidently worth it to all the subscribers.
Granted they are currently busy with starcraft 2 and diablo, but still...
First of all let me start by saying I am not a WoW fan to me the best game I ever played has still been Asheron's Call.
Wow failed to keep my interest cause franfly it is to much of a grind, first its exp grind then its gear grind, and thats it. Now I read someone that said that new content is nto important. I think it is! One of the reasons i played Asheron's Call for 3 years is that it had monthly updates, it was a true adventure of exploring and it didn't even cross my mind to play anything else. Another good example of this is EVE, in the begining it had nothing but look at the game now and all the features the FREE expansions brought. Now lets look at the wow expansions they brought more grind at the low price of 30$/€ I mean WTF!!! I still have to pay for the expansions to a game that has 10 mil subs at the moment???
I recently started playing POTBS and altough I thiunk its far from being a perfect game it is somewhat chalenging and quite fun to play. But in my opinion has no future if they keep tha same buisness model, the game is lacking a critical mass of players to stay fun. Now that they have an upcomming expansion maybe they should make the game F2P without the expansion with a sub possibility if u wanted to use extra features from the expansion it would certainly boost up the game, or follow EVE's example they have only one server with 45k people on right now that is enough to keep the game real fun.
And remember EVE is also a niche game just like POTBS
Post a Comment
Wow failed to keep my interest cause franfly it is to much of a grind, first its exp grind then its gear grind, and thats it. Now I read someone that said that new content is nto important. I think it is! One of the reasons i played Asheron's Call for 3 years is that it had monthly updates, it was a true adventure of exploring and it didn't even cross my mind to play anything else. Another good example of this is EVE, in the begining it had nothing but look at the game now and all the features the FREE expansions brought. Now lets look at the wow expansions they brought more grind at the low price of 30$/€ I mean WTF!!! I still have to pay for the expansions to a game that has 10 mil subs at the moment???
I recently started playing POTBS and altough I thiunk its far from being a perfect game it is somewhat chalenging and quite fun to play. But in my opinion has no future if they keep tha same buisness model, the game is lacking a critical mass of players to stay fun. Now that they have an upcomming expansion maybe they should make the game F2P without the expansion with a sub possibility if u wanted to use extra features from the expansion it would certainly boost up the game, or follow EVE's example they have only one server with 45k people on right now that is enough to keep the game real fun.
And remember EVE is also a niche game just like POTBS
<< Home
