How do you feel about paid subscriptions?

[Collierider12]

Subscription based games to me would be better, since they don't require large amounts of grinding or atrocious wait times if you want to go through the game naturally. To me, subscription based games are cheaper in the long run and help both the player and the developer.

[Hopeless Wombat]

Would prefer subscriptions over microtransaction overkill. It seems more sane to me of the two.

Developers receive a stable lifeline that they have to try hard to keep alive by releasing content (at least both in theory and assuming publishers aren't being abusive with it). Of course, that doesn't happen.

[isturbo1984]

Paid subscriptions of what? There are many types of subscription based models that work well and I am fine with... and others, not so much. A "Netflix for games" subscription is actually a really neat idea. "Pay to play online" for consoles is okay, as long as you are getting a good experience. But a lot of your episodic games that give you the option to pay for the game in sections, giving you a "season pass," turning the entire game into a subscription model... that is bogus.

[PriestTroit]

Yeah, I never got why they don't just sell the game when it's actually finished. Otherwise you run the risk of buying an I.O.U. that never gets realized. Didn't Telltale have to cancel Walking Dead episode 3 or something?

[isturbo1984]

very true. yeah Ep2 was the last episode from telltale's TWD 4. but looks like the parent company Skybound is picking the rest of the series up and will finish it, thankfully.

[Noobc0re]

If there are zero microtransactions and the cost is reasonable, then I have no issues with subscription based models.

[gbullock32]

A lot of interesting opinions from both sides; seems the end answer is 'It depends.'

I think my reason for the monthly or flat rate is that it is predictable and I can better decide if the cost is worth what I get in return. I pay the same each time, rather than having to put a few dollars here and there for different things, which can easily add up more, and it is common to have the mind set of "It's only a few dollars" and then you see just how much it adds up at the end. It reminds me of the people who spend thousands on the Fifa packs; individually they are not much, but over time it adds up to be a lot more without people really noticing it.

[Commissar Alexer]

Eh, not sure about it. I dont really have that much time and lust to focus on one game.

[The_Dirk_Diggler]

I've only played 2 MMO's where I've paid a subscription. Eve Online and Elder Scrolls Online. Eve Online was subscription only and ESO was F2P with subbing giving you premium. Remember a subscription doesn't remove a cash shop as generally this is a way to handle rising costs even during lagging subscription times. I believe both are F2P now with the subscription being a premium version at this point. Now I don't have time for MMO's anymore but I believe that either style is fine. Whether you have to subscribe or subscription is premium.

[fenrif]

I've only played 2 MMO's where I've paid a subscription. Eve Online and Elder Scrolls Online. Eve Online was subscription only and ESO was F2P with subbing giving you premium. Remember a subscription doesn't remove a cash shop as generally this is a way to handle rising costs even during lagging subscription times. I believe both are F2P now with the subscription being a premium version at this point. Now I don't have time for MMO's anymore but I believe that either style is fine. Whether you have to subscribe or subscription is premium.

A subscription should remove a cash shop, but MMO devs are greedy and modern gamers are ignorant. If your subscribers start lagging then nickle and diming your remaining playerbase is a really scummy move.

Subscription being as a premium I am against for the same reason I don't like cash shops. The players should all be on the same level. Outside factors should not intrude on the gameplay or gameworld. Especially in MMOs.

[Dub-Z]

I don't even like 99% of cosmetic and emote/dance economies, because I want to play a tasteful aesthetic carefully curated by artists, rather than be in a sloppy flea market of player self-expression and personal flair. Even in 1v1 fighting games I don't like when character recognizability and move readability is diluted by a silhouette breaking, 7 Layer burrito of a costume. You could even get into the science of readability and recognizability in competitive FPS games, and the way color affects psychology ie: red aggression, blue passivity etc. It's just sloppy greed and foolish concessions.

Subscriptions for something viable, ongoing and legitimately in need of upkeep and content development is fine. That's why it worked for MMO's and would work for franchise sports games. Just make a game people want to play and if someone doesn't want to intentionally spend money, they're not what can be considered a customer.

[PriestTroit]

I liked how Runescape did it. You could, and I did for a long time, have a great time playing the F2P version, but for five bucks you could get membership. The price went up over time, but if you kept a concurrent membership your price was grandfathered in. They had some other stuff like a costume/emote store or something like that, but I never bothered or cared.

[Trippy Logic]

Yeah RuneScape is nothing like that anymore, this store sells beneficial items now not to mention spin2win "lootboxes" whilst still keeping the subscription model.

[Whiskycat]

I support them. The amount is insignificant but it's already a big filter for some part of the bad apples. Plus usually this means 100% absence of custom shop or it's limited strictly to cosmetic items. However, SWTOR and GW2 have a good plan as well that I can get behind. Subscriptions are a good way to have a sustained income to support the game but only if the playerbase is huge. Otherwise custom shops seems to be more profitable.

[Animusisters]

Subscription models are a good way to cover ongoing expenses. Selling additional services and items which don't turn a game into pay to win is also fine for me. Also there is something that many people don't know or like to forget, quality costs money.

When it comes to people who play games that are availble f2p I made the experience that quiet a lot of them have a horrible "give me that for free and for zero effort" mentality. So I avoid that kind of persons as good as possoble.

[Trippy Logic]

I prefer subscription based online games because it's the best way to provide service and have everything available to everyone.
If a game does need microtransactions for whatever reason it would have to be 100% purely cosmetic and untradable so it doesn't drive the economy.

[aileron]

I've never paid for a subscription to any game, or paid for any ingame items with real money. I'm just personally against that sort of thing for myself.

Generally though my thoughts are that paying full AAA price for a game and then paying monthly is a bit of a scam. You can argue the upfront price was for development and the ongoing price is for servers and service. But if a company has put out several of these MMO pay to play games, then probably their server usage and costs aren't going to vary that much: I'd expect people will play the older games less as the new ones come out. Also they could allow players to host their own servers as one person suggested above.

Now about ingame purchases, they should be purely cosmetic and not effect play. Otherwise the players that can afford the most stuff will have the greatest advantage ingame. That doesn't seem fair.