Jump to content

Welcome to The OFFICIAL Pure Pwnage forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Monthly Fees Required For Rts To Remain Profitable

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
135 replies to this topic

#1
JimRaynor

JimRaynor
  • Banned
  • 1,311 posts
  • xfire:jimraynor1
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mar Sara
  • Interests:Starcraft<br />Korean girls<br />French girls<br />Black girls<br />Spanish girls
Online RTS multiplayer customers are the first to whine, moan, and complain about lack of support, balancing and bug fixing. The absence of a monthly fee for online RTS multiplayer games lowers profit expectations by game publishers. The best RTS titles of the past ten years had no monthly fee. Therefore, the RTS online multiplayer gamer expects no monthly fee. As much as Blizzard and EA may pay lip service to making Starcraft and C&C great gaming experiences the profits for these IPs are much lower than their MMORPG offerings. Intricately balancing an RTS game requires hundreds of hours of additional work by the publisher/developer long after the official release date. This work is just as s difficult as the work a publisher/developer performs to create content in an MMORPG title.

Currently, Blizzard and EA are inventing stupid tricks to try to squeeze cash out of the RTS game playing community. Blizzard has turned SC2 into a trilogy. EA is pulling some wild stunts with its expansion to Red Alert 3. All to extract some cash out of a community that they know will balk at the introduction of a monthly fee. Well let's make the customers that use the product the most pay for their enjoyment. Let's finally be direct about extracting revenue from the online multiplayer RTS gamer. It is time for a monthly fee for online multiplayer similar to any MMORPG title.

To expect Blizzard and EA to continue fine tuning their online multiplayer RTS long after it is released we must pay for it. Its time for the whining, moaning, crying online RTS multiplayer gamer to put his money where his mouth is. Its time for a monthly fee for online multiplayer RTS. In return for a monthly fee the RTS community expects a finely tuned and balanced game with exploits and bugs constantly being eradicated. With a monthy fee the online multiplayer community can now DEMAND a great RTS game play experience. And the best RTS publishers can profit accordingly...
QUOTE (James Madison @ Aug 25 1781, 11:48 AM)
If Tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy

#2
Garamiah

Garamiah
  • Global Moderators
  • 6,674 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Rofl-Rupees:20
Simply put, I will not buy an RTS with a monthly subscription fee.
QUOTE (Plasmic Fury @ Jul 11 2010, 08:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I was in the ocean and I had a frizbee, and some 8/10's were like THROW IT TO US and I just pretended I didnt hear them and swam quickly back to beach.


#3
Panic92

Panic92
  • Members
  • 232 posts
  • xfire:re4per666
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lincoln, England
  • Steam ID:re4per666
  • PSN:Panic_92
QUOTE (Garamiah @ Feb 10 2009, 09:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Simply put, I will not buy an RTS with a monthly subscription fee.

Pretty much goes for me aswell...

#4
Slinky

Slinky
  • Members
  • 1,466 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brisbane, Australia
  • Steam ID:frosticle
  • PSN:slinkytoyou
QUOTE (JimRaynor @ Feb 10 2009, 07:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
To expect Blizzard and EA to continue fine tuning their online multiplayer RTS long after it is released we must pay for it.

Starcraft/Warcraft has been supported by regular patching for how long?

I concur with Garamiah. I'd never buy an rts with a subscription fee. Subscription fees for a game is an atrocious idea. Only WoW has really been able to pull it off on a large scale.
In game advertising is the answer IMO.

QUOTE (BearHugger @ Jan 10 2010, 01:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I dont respondd cause i have a life my girlfriend came over and she sucked me off

#5
Extracheez

Extracheez
  • Members
  • 1,042 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Xbox / GFWL:xExtracheeZx
I'd pay a monthly fee for an rts lol not.

I suppose the problem is that companies make games planning them to be obsolete in a year or two when they plan on releasing the next part to the game/franchise. FUCK paying them more money than they already steal.



#6
JimRaynor

JimRaynor
  • Banned
  • 1,311 posts
  • xfire:jimraynor1
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mar Sara
  • Interests:Starcraft<br />Korean girls<br />French girls<br />Black girls<br />Spanish girls
QUOTE (Slinky @ Feb 10 2009, 04:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Only WoW has really been able to pull it off on a large scale.


how many RTS's other than WC 2,3 and SC1 were "well supported by the pub/dev" 3 years after release?

plenty of games have succeeded charging subscription fees...
http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart1.html

of course if you define "large scale" as atleast 8 Million subscribers then WoW is all alone.
but then how many video games have sold 8 Million copies period. 200? icon_smile.gif

RA3 is about to be strangled by a lack of funds...

even now .. check out the snails pace of SC2 development....
you think this would be happening with WoW?
no way.. its WAAAAAAAAAAY too profitable....

SC2 just aint that profitable.. and the Blizzard's RTS fans are getting in return exactly what they've paid per month to play SC1 .....

NOTHING!
QUOTE (James Madison @ Aug 25 1781, 11:48 AM)
If Tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy

#7
Pwnage101

Pwnage101
  • GA Sergeant
  • 2,133 posts
  • Gamer Army ID:1080
  • Company:Alpha
.... i have to say .... i would pay a fee if it increased the game play, fun, and content in a game by at least 40%, i mean if you have a game like DOW 2 (hehehe me like beta) and add a price to play per month then im sure new races would be added quicker as well as patches ..... its the same with all RTS games with so little money there foreced to create shitty expansions just to make a profit off the idea.


.... so IMO as long as the game is good ill pay to play... hell i pay to play WOW cause Blizzard creates good shit for it from the profit of monthly subscriptions.

#8
Slinky

Slinky
  • Members
  • 1,466 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brisbane, Australia
  • Steam ID:frosticle
  • PSN:slinkytoyou
QUOTE (JimRaynor @ Feb 10 2009, 08:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
how many RTS's other than WC 2,3 and SC1 were "well supported by the pub/dev" 3 years after release?

how many RTS's had the player base to support dev after 3 years?

QUOTE (JimRaynor @ Feb 10 2009, 08:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
plenty of games have succeeded charging subscription fees...
http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart1.html

Yes.. MMO's. MMO's keep their members very very differently to RTS. A monthly subscription would not work for an RTS..
Monthly subscriptions should go towards content (works for MMOs).. not patches to fix the bugs in the game people payed for already.

QUOTE (BearHugger @ Jan 10 2010, 01:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I dont respondd cause i have a life my girlfriend came over and she sucked me off

#9
Master C

Master C
  • Members
  • 5,511 posts
  • xfire:masterca
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, England
  • Xbox / GFWL:Renegade Con
  • Wii:4710238335790963
  • Rofl-Rupees:7
My god are you serious? A consumer actually calling for a RTS subscription?

I still think MMORPG's or XBL charging subscription is ridiculous. Now you want RTS's to do the same?

QUOTE (Garamiah @ Feb 10 2009, 09:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Simply put, I will not buy an RTS with a monthly subscription fee.


#10
ArmoredSandwich

ArmoredSandwich
  • Members
  • 3,051 posts
  • xfire:unseendevil
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Netherlands
QUOTE (Garamiah @ Feb 10 2009, 10:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Simply put, I will not buy an RTS with a monthly subscription fee.


Me neither.


There must be some kind of way out of here...



#11
Extracheez

Extracheez
  • Members
  • 1,042 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Xbox / GFWL:xExtracheeZx
QUOTE (JimRaynor @ Feb 10 2009, 06:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
how many RTS's other than WC 2,3 and SC1 were "well supported by the pub/dev" 3 years after release?

plenty of games have succeeded charging subscription fees...
http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart1.html

of course if you define "large scale" as atleast 8 Million subscribers then WoW is all alone.
but then how many video games have sold 8 Million copies period. 200? icon_smile.gif

RA3 is about to be strangled by a lack of funds...

even now .. check out the snails pace of SC2 development....
you think this would be happening with WoW?
no way.. its WAAAAAAAAAAY too profitable....

SC2 just aint that profitable.. and the Blizzard's RTS fans are getting in return exactly what they've paid per month to play SC1 .....

NOTHING!


Sigh after reading this post I think I have come to the conclusion you have absolutely no idea what your talking about. Sorry.

1. The question should be, how many companies continue to patch their games other than blizzard.

2. RA3 is being strangled because of lack of balance and competitive play. EA would have planned for this anyway, they release games like birds poop.

3. The snails pace of SC2 development has nothing to do with funds. First of all, blizzard wants to get starcraft 2 as perfectly balanced as possible, the original starcraft was also slowly developed, as was wow, as was warcraft, as was diablo... Blizzard make quality games as opposed to fast games. If you were a gamer who had some patience you would understand this.

Secondly the original starcraft scene has had an ever evolving proffessional scene for almost 11 years now. Blizzard obviously didn't want to kill the potential of this scene, so they left SC2 alone for a while.

4. Wow is not starcraft. Wow is not RA3. Wow is not my little pony farm adventures. WHY THE FUCK DOES EVERYONE BLAME WOW FOR EVERYTHING!? WOW IS NOT THE FUCKING ANTICHRIST OF GAMES FOR FUCKS SAKE! sorry... I'm just sick of wow being used as an example in every thread about the game industry, wow is really not that big of a deal.

5. Starcraft 2 will probably sell about 8 million copies + expansion packs (remember there will be 2 of them). Plus the pro scene, I'm sure blizzard can make money off of that some how.

If there wasn't enough money in non-subscription based gaming, there would be no such thing as non-subscription based gaming. Your throwing money at a problem which stems from companies like EA fooling you into paying them more money, by hyping up there games with false advertising and then releasing half finished shit. Why would you consider paying a company who shits all over you a monthly fee to continue shitting on you?



#12
RTSwarrior

RTSwarrior
  • Members
  • 500 posts
  • xfire:zxcythe
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brisbane, Australia
  • Wii:Yes
QUOTE (Garamiah @ Feb 10 2009, 07:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Simply put, I will not buy an RTS with a monthly subscription fee.



QUOTE (Extracheez @ Feb 10 2009, 08:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Sigh after reading this post I think I have come to the conclusion you have absolutely no idea what your talking about. Sorry.

1. The question should be, how many companies continue to patch their games other than blizzard.

2. RA3 is being strangled because of lack of balance and competitive play. EA would have planned for this anyway, they release games like birds poop.

3. The snails pace of SC2 development has nothing to do with funds. First of all, blizzard wants to get starcraft 2 as perfectly balanced as possible, the original starcraft was also slowly developed, as was wow, as was warcraft, as was diablo... Blizzard make quality games as opposed to fast games. If you were a gamer who had some patience you would understand this.

Secondly the original starcraft scene has had an ever evolving proffessional scene for almost 11 years now. Blizzard obviously didn't want to kill the potential of this scene, so they left SC2 alone for a while.

4. Wow is not starcraft. Wow is not RA3. Wow is not my little pony farm adventures. WHY THE FUCK DOES EVERYONE BLAME WOW FOR EVERYTHING!? WOW IS NOT THE FUCKING ANTICHRIST OF GAMES FOR FUCKS SAKE! sorry... I'm just sick of wow being used as an example in every thread about the game industry, wow is really not that big of a deal.

5. Starcraft 2 will probably sell about 8 million copies + expansion packs (remember there will be 2 of them). Plus the pro scene, I'm sure blizzard can make money off of that some how.

If there wasn't enough money in non-subscription based gaming, there would be no such thing as non-subscription based gaming. Your throwing money at a problem which stems from companies like EA fooling you into paying them more money, by hyping up there games with false advertising and then releasing half finished shit. Why would you consider paying a company who shits all over you a monthly fee to continue shitting on you?

I do concur. This has never, ever been a problem, there's simply no need for the monthly subscription.
QUOTE (Dustin Browder)
Q: Do you think it's sensible to release a game during the world-wide economic crisis that will definitely ruin the South Korean economy, since the entire population will stay at home and play?
A: *laughs* Hah, I can even answer this! I think people are smart enough to decide when they can play and when not. You will also be able to play Sc2 very cheaply in South Korea, in PC Bangs. I even read that the first Starcraft stimulated the Korean economy to such an extent that they could overcome an economic crisis. I don't know if that's true - but I read it in a book! Let's see how Sc2 works out on the Korean market. But I am sure, all will be good.

#13
JimRaynor

JimRaynor
  • Banned
  • 1,311 posts
  • xfire:jimraynor1
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mar Sara
  • Interests:Starcraft<br />Korean girls<br />French girls<br />Black girls<br />Spanish girls
QUOTE (Extracheez @ Feb 10 2009, 05:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
3. The snails pace of SC2 development has nothing to do with funds. First of all, blizzard wants to get starcraft 2 as perfectly balanced as possible, the original starcraft was also slowly developed, as was wow, as was warcraft, as was diablo... Blizzard make quality games as opposed to fast games. If you were a gamer who had some patience you would understand this.

Secondly the original starcraft scene has had an ever evolving proffessional scene for almost 11 years now. Blizzard obviously didn't want to kill the potential of this scene, so they left SC2 alone for a while.

4. Wow is not starcraft. Wow is not RA3. Wow is not my little pony farm adventures. WHY THE FUCK DOES EVERYONE BLAME WOW FOR EVERYTHING!? WOW IS NOT THE FUCKING ANTICHRIST OF GAMES FOR FUCKS SAKE! sorry... I'm just sick of wow being used as an example in every thread about the game industry, wow is really not that big of a deal.

5. Starcraft 2 will probably sell about 8 million copies + expansion packs (remember there will be 2 of them). Plus the pro scene, I'm sure blizzard can make money off of that some how.

If there wasn't enough money in non-subscription based gaming, there would be no such thing as non-subscription based gaming. Your throwing money at a problem which stems from companies like EA fooling you into paying them more money, by hyping up there games with false advertising and then releasing half finished shit. Why would you consider paying a company who shits all over you a monthly fee to continue shitting on you?


First of all EVERYTHING has to do with FUNDS
WoW is a big deal because of one thing: REVENUE.. 10,000,000 * $12* $12 = 1.44 BILLION in Revenue per year EVERY YEAR.
Starcraft WILL NEVER generate more profit than WoW. if you'd like to wager money on that .. i can find a book maker.

Free games exist because they are free. They've existed for centuries and will continue to exist.
Games with an initial prices $2,$10, etc will also continue to exist. Just lower the price until people buy it.

Blizzard is motivated by profit not artisitc vision...that ended when Kotick became Morhaime's boss
Morhaime and his executive team only have so many hours in a week...
Because new Warcraft IP per man hour worked is far more profitable than STarcraft IP ...
Warcraft activities receive far more attention.
If I were Blizzard I'd do the same thing.

New Starcraft IP is prioritized accordingly.
And you're seeing that progress in living colour...
where is the BETA?
Where is SC2?
Blizzard cranks out far more new Warcraft IP than Starcraft IP.

WHY?

In Blizzard's eyes Warcraft >>> Starcraft because
Warcraft Profits >>> Starcraft Profits.

enjoy waiting forever for SC2
A non subscription based game WILL NEVER take priority over a subscription based game BECAUSE the shareholders of Activision/Blizzard will not allow it.
Morhaime is gonna do exactly what Bob Kotick tells him to do.

and the day he doesnt listen to Kotick is the day he is replaced.
welcome to Activision/Blizzard.
QUOTE (James Madison @ Aug 25 1781, 11:48 AM)
If Tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy

#14
Slinky

Slinky
  • Members
  • 1,466 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brisbane, Australia
  • Steam ID:frosticle
  • PSN:slinkytoyou
QUOTE (JimRaynor @ Feb 10 2009, 09:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
snip

Okay wow makes more money then starcraft, but thats not the issue
Who would pay for pay-to-play RTS?
If no one is going to pay for the service.. which judging by this thread, no one will.. then you are back to were you started, under funded game.

Pay to play rts will not work. Ill take you back to my original suggestion - in game advertising. THAT would generate revenue successfully for the RTS devs/pubs etc. The games with a decent player base will be generating more revenue. Keeping the player base would be important to the devs.

QUOTE (BearHugger @ Jan 10 2010, 01:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I dont respondd cause i have a life my girlfriend came over and she sucked me off

#15
JimRaynor

JimRaynor
  • Banned
  • 1,311 posts
  • xfire:jimraynor1
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mar Sara
  • Interests:Starcraft<br />Korean girls<br />French girls<br />Black girls<br />Spanish girls
QUOTE (Slinky @ Feb 10 2009, 06:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Okay wow makes more money then starcraft, but thats not the issue
Who would pay for pay-to-play RTS?
If no one is going to pay for the service.. which judging by this thread, no one will

no doubt a monthly fee will lower the number of online players though...

a few people replying in this thread is nothing close to a proper survey.. in other forums the idea has received better reception.. but again it doesn't prove anything... a proper survey would have to be conducted..

QUOTE (Slinky @ Feb 10 2009, 06:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Pay to play rts will not work. Ill take you back to my original suggestion - in game advertising. THAT would generate revenue successfully for the RTS market. The games with a decent player base will be generating more revenue. Keeping the player base would be important to the devs.


in game advertising is a good idea to minimize or lower the cost of a monthly fee
if the subscriber base is really good.. and you have some slick ad sales guys maybe u can keep it down to $0 for a few months....
QUOTE (James Madison @ Aug 25 1781, 11:48 AM)
If Tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy

#16
RTSwarrior

RTSwarrior
  • Members
  • 500 posts
  • xfire:zxcythe
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brisbane, Australia
  • Wii:Yes
QUOTE (JimRaynor @ Feb 10 2009, 09:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
RAWR RAWR RAWR BLIZZ NEED MY IDEAS

Wow, stop uber raging dude, you're not strengthening your arguement. I can guarantee that if a monthly subscription became mandatory, the rts would die by probably 70%, no one would think it's worth it, or they would just lan or garena or hamachi or whatever. As Slinky said, it would probably better to have advertising or something, if they needed anything.

And remember, you can't profit off a game if no one plays it!
QUOTE (Dustin Browder)
Q: Do you think it's sensible to release a game during the world-wide economic crisis that will definitely ruin the South Korean economy, since the entire population will stay at home and play?
A: *laughs* Hah, I can even answer this! I think people are smart enough to decide when they can play and when not. You will also be able to play Sc2 very cheaply in South Korea, in PC Bangs. I even read that the first Starcraft stimulated the Korean economy to such an extent that they could overcome an economic crisis. I don't know if that's true - but I read it in a book! Let's see how Sc2 works out on the Korean market. But I am sure, all will be good.

#17
JimRaynor

JimRaynor
  • Banned
  • 1,311 posts
  • xfire:jimraynor1
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mar Sara
  • Interests:Starcraft<br />Korean girls<br />French girls<br />Black girls<br />Spanish girls
QUOTE (RTSwarrior @ Feb 10 2009, 07:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Wow, stop uber raging dude, you're not strengthening your arguement.

if you have a direct comment to make on the content of what i've said.. i'd be glad to discuss it...
the Ad hominem argument "uber raging dude" doesn't add anything to your "argument" if that's what it is?
there's no emotion there.. just the facts.

QUOTE (James Madison @ Aug 25 1781, 11:48 AM)
If Tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy

#18
Garamiah

Garamiah
  • Global Moderators
  • 6,674 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Rofl-Rupees:20
In addition to my previous statement, without a free online service like B.Net, everyone will just use hamachi anyway. Apart from being a ridiculous idea, the implementation is near impossible as long as the ability to play matches via LAN exists.
QUOTE (Plasmic Fury @ Jul 11 2010, 08:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I was in the ocean and I had a frizbee, and some 8/10's were like THROW IT TO US and I just pretended I didnt hear them and swam quickly back to beach.


#19
JimRaynor

JimRaynor
  • Banned
  • 1,311 posts
  • xfire:jimraynor1
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mar Sara
  • Interests:Starcraft<br />Korean girls<br />French girls<br />Black girls<br />Spanish girls
QUOTE (Garamiah @ Feb 10 2009, 07:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
In addition to my previous statement, without a free online service like B.Net, everyone will just use hamachi anyway. Apart from being a ridiculous idea, the implementation is near impossible as long as the ability to play matches via LAN exists.


to get balance patches you'd have to be a subscriber...
each patch linked to each CD Key similar to how MS did it with Windows Server 2003...ever try to pirate a Win Server 2003 ?
and I think its the same method they've used for Win Server 2008... but i don't know for sure.

as far as "ridiculous" .. it really depends what the monthly fee would be.. along with the initial cost of buying the game.

how about an expansion for an RTS... with no multiplayer component... and not available at the retail level?
That is what EA is doing with Uprising. How ridiculous is that?

How about a game that retails for $50 USD and then 10 weeks after its out EA drops the price to $30?
How ridiculous is that?

EA and Blizzard and scrambling for every nickel to justify the cost of RTS after support
Get set for "ridiculous"
QUOTE (James Madison @ Aug 25 1781, 11:48 AM)
If Tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy

#20
Weiman

Weiman

    Best HW&SW Cont. & PP Savant '09

  • Global Moderators
  • 33,901 posts
  • xfire:weiman
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Netherlands
  • Interests:Gaming, Biochemistry.
  • Steam ID:Weiman
  • Gamer Army ID:2452
  • Company:Mu
I wouldn't want to pay to play for an FPS or an RTS from a practical standpoint. I just want to be able to take a break from a game and play something else without feeling like I'm wasting my money. I just wanna be able to hop on whenever I can, because I BOUGHT the game.


QUOTE (Weiman @ Apr 5 2009, 01:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This is exactly what has been going on through the entire thread, and it's not the first time either.
You come to us for advice..you just spell out what you want to get, and then ask us if it is okay, and we have to explain why it isn't. That's the world upside down.. If you would just say 'hey guys, I have an X amount of money, what should I buy?' Then this would be over in 2-3 posts, not 2-3 pages.
QUOTE (Kazzerax @ May 21 2009, 09:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Every time someone goes against Weiman's sig I feel like they should be bludgeoned for a few minutes in the head to feel the headache I feel when I realize someone really IS that dense.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users