A great discussion, and I fear this debate will never really subside beacause it is too heated. I agree with Kropotkin in that CS and WC3 are nothing when compared to EQ/SWG. And to Slix's statement about Nascar servers provided by Papyrus, yes milord, however the game does not REQUIRE that those servers be online. Same thing goes for BF1942, NOLF, and most of the other free online games. Sadly, you cannot play EQ, SWG, AO, and other MMO games without central servers.

MMO games are very extensive in both design and maintenance. I will be honest, I NEVER thought I would get Morti into a game like SWG when I first saw his opinions on MMORPG games, and to be honest folks, I had the same reservations before the fateful day I broke down and bought EQ. The main drive of games like this? Live content, community, and diversity.

SoE actually did try and keep the price low for players, but LucasArts was the one who said they could not include SWG in the all-in-one subscription plan. This was a sad decision for me, as I wanted to continue playing EQ and SWG simulatniously, but sadly if I do that now, I am looking at over $30 a month for gameplay.

The biggest draw of these games for me is the fact that I don't buy other games that often. This often saves me from bad buys on my part in the gaming world, by giving me one game I play all the time. In this light it has been great for me. Like some of you, I used to buy at least 3-4 games a month. When I bought EQ, it was about another year before I bought my next game. It engrossed me that much. SWG is a vast departure from EQ, and holds even more dynamic gaming that I have seen in any other game yet. $15 a month is a tad high, but if you do intend on playing the game beyond the free 30 days, there are a few options to lower the rate.

Wow gone for a few days and then look what happens! Sounds like I missed quite the discussion. Yet I'll still try to add in my two cents...

I completely agree with Morti and Chief with subscription rates that rise to reflect inflation or hardware demands. SWG hardware wise must be a monster and with all the subscriptions and players vying to play, the bandwith requirement must be enormus. If the $15 does go to live content, diversity, community, with some profit left over to keep things going then I'll plunk down my $15/month. If the price hike is nothing more than setting a new precendent for a new generation MMOG becuase its new...well I have some problems with that. I have yet to look at how the figures break down for this new one.

Is SWG worth it? So far, I'd have to say yes. With the different payment plan options Smaug mentions, perhaps the initial fee is meant to discourage 'transients' and enoucrage a community for the long haul which I believe was one of the primary design facets for SWG. Maybe laying the foundation for a stable base helps increase the survival/success rate for this MMOG. If this tactic (if it is one..mind you I'm musing really) can contribute to a better community to play with then I'm for that as well.

D

Quote::

I still stand by my last statement on why MMO games are subscription based.

Most probably I could agree with you about subscriptions if SOE or LucasArts (or whomever is responsible) didn't charge so much.

Quote::

Now how about forkin over $15 a month to play a game? $15 that just 3 Value Meals at Mcdonalds

True enough, but eating is a bit more important than playing a game. [ducks] (Around here that may be blasphemy. Hehe.)

It is not LucasArts or SOE's fault I am disabled and have to make decisions like: Do I want fast Internet service or TV? But yes, I had to make that decision. For a little over $20 a month I could have satellite TV. To me, satellite TV is more important than one game. So even if my income went up, or I finally got financial assistance with the rent, I wouldn't pay $15 a month to play a game when I can play a whole slew of them for free.

Plus, I'm a bit new at this "being poor" thing. I have to learn to cut more things out of my life. (No, DSL isn't going to be one of them. :D) For example, I eat out more often than I should. Somehow it helps me feel better...like a balm for the soul, I guess. I've been trying to eat out less...and failing. My bad.

True: I have not played a MMORPG. I'm almost afraid to, if they're as addictive as I've heard.

It is possible I can share my nephew's subscription. In that case I may not have to fork over the (to me) massive amount of $15 to SOE. It's possible I could change my mind at that point.

At this point, I think some kind of subscription fee may be reasonable, but not what is currently being charged. And dudes, that game is too expensive. It's forty-five bucks and you can't even play it unless you have a credit card. That should be on the system requirements list.

Another tidbit: It took my nephew until last night to straighten everything out and start playing. He was having error messages. Auntie Laura with her vast computer knowledge--insert uproarious laughter here--fixed it. Now he's hooked. I may never see him again.

Quote::

If I wanted to pay an extra $15 per month, I'd be getting broadband.

It's all about priorities. My monetary priorites are not going to include a game that costs $15 a month.

I agree with Ladyhawk's earlier posts. This is starting to sound like a great GCC Giddy-Up (to play off CNN's Gallup ) Poll...

What do you think of MMORPG subscription pricing?
a) They're fine
b) They should be lowered
c) They should be abolished
d) I don't really care

I've thought of an analogy that may apply.

Suppose you saw someone you thought was cute (gender of your choice) and were told that you could date him / her for free for a month, as long as you gave your credit card information up front and made a large initial down payment.

Gee, he / she looks pretty darn cool, but you're not sure you want that kind of commitment. Also, even though you can date him / her for free for a month, there's that large upfront cost to think about. What if you don't like him / her? What if she isn't your type at all? Or worse, what if you do like him / her? Then you have to pay a fairly high monthly fee to continue dating him / her.

Boy, you'd better date him / her an awfully lot that first month. And what if, at the end of the first month, you sort of liked him / her? Well, to get your money's worth, you'd better date him / her a lot every month.

LucasArts and SOE are pimping a game.

I think Slix may be onto something with the idea that LucasArts / SOE are promoting a kind of addiction. And yes, even though SOE is the one charging for online play, LucasArts is the one charging the exorbitant price for buying the game. And they are in partnership with SOE when it comes to online play, so they are every bit as culpable.

LOL...if Slix is right, Morti is saying: "How can you condemn crack until you've tried it?"

(Hmmm, 70% would like to see a change of some kind.)

What a topic!!!
First I have to say that as costly as it is... I got SWG and intend to keep paying the monthly fees in order to enjoy the game. This has been a part of MMOGs since the days of UO, and I've accepted it. That's not to say I don't think there's a better way. (I just think its worth the price!) The way I see it, SWG is only about $2 more a month more than AC2, which I quit to start this one. And I already see it as $2 well spent.
My suggestion to future game designers would be that the cost of the game should be equal to a one month fee, in this case $15. With that, your 1st month gameplay could be free... no big investment there, but it would eliminate people using the CD Roms as coasters like other freebie software. If you even think you might enjoy it, it's worth buying! If you do like it, you continue to pay and play.
When you think about it, most people who really enjoy gaming, buy at least a game a month, unless they are caught up in a realy good game. With the constant updates, this could be like having a new game every month. $ 15.00 is not much of a price to pay for that!
When it comes down to it, when I stop feeling like I'm getting my money's worth, I have the option to quit and find another way to occupy my time.

Ladyhawk wrote:

It's forty-five bucks and you can't even play it unless you have a credit card. That should be on the system requirements list.

You CAN (and its been proven) just enter bogus numbers to start playing. They do not do credit card verfication until it comes time to bill (after free month is up). They talk about this in the swg forums all time.

People did that because they are waiting for the game cards (buy time up front at best buy or someplace else like eb). So they entered bogus info.

I would say there are about a 5% of the current players (if not more) are on a bogus credit card number.

Thanks for the info, Reyak. If only we had known that before. LOL!

This is the most spirited discussion in some time, unless you'd like for me to start a thread on religion or politics. (No thank you.)

I can understand everyone's point of view, even if I don't necessarily agree with you.

It would be nice if game developers came and took a look at this thread so they could get a feel for what average gamers think about upfront costs and subscription costs for MMORPGs. This thread has covered a lot of ground and has done so without the name-calling which usually develops on hotly-contested topics at the average gaming forum. So far, everyone's kept a pretty level head.

You may also notice from my signature that I do pay for gaming services, as well as my games. At one time, Kali gave me hours of pleasure playing Descent 1 and Descent 2. Now I've become a registered owner of The All-Seeing Eye. These were one-time costs. I consider the costs for both very fair, especially Kali, which gave me untold hours of enjoyment for a measly $20.

I think one of the reasons some people are a bit upset at SOE's charges is that the game does seem way cool. I know I'd like to try it, but not at the risk of having to pay $15 a month. (And yes, I consider trying it a risk.)

LH also dontates to GCC monthly to keep your site alive and kickin'