What If A Subscription Was Required?

[Ionus]

We? Who is we? PC players are the ones that get the minor frequent updates, not console.

Converting Warframe to a subscription based model wouldn't increase the frequency of console updates in any respect. Updates need to be stripped of bugs found by us, the PC crowd, ported to the respected console, and submitted for certification, which can do take days or a week by itself.

Throwing more money at Sony and Microsoft isn't gonna make it go faster

[MaverickZero]

I forgot to mention that Wildstar is on its way to the graveyard. Here's a summary of some the crap that happened:

Game launches and is filled with technical failures (especially servers and FPS drops) then after players got through that they had to swim through endless bugs and glitches. The content was sh!t from level 1 to 50 - excused because Wildstar is Endgame Star. Endgame was a complete disaster when it fired up. PvP is forgotten in the name of building Endgame. By that time the free month with the game purchase expired and an unbelievable amount of people unsubbed. Out of 32 servers only 4 remained on High activity while the remaining had none or Low. Catch 22 starts kicking in and without big population players start to leave leading into even less population. The situation degrades over the course of months and the studio fires countless employees to cut costs. Wildstar finally merges servers to get everyone to play in MMO-like fashion. No new player acquisition because of the bad news spread everywhere including the official forums. Studio fires more people to cut costs even more. Crippling exploit is introduced that completely destroyed player economy.

 

Wildstar has:

1) an awesome combat system. 2) Unique and interesting art style. 3) New IP.

4) Bugs and glitches. 5) No worthwhile endgame. 6) forgotten PvP. 7) Subscription

 

Warframe has:

1) an awesome combat system. 2) Unique and interesting art style. 3) New IP.

4) Bugs and glitches. 5) No worthwhile endgame. 6) forgotten PvP. 7) F2P microtransactions shop

 

If you were to push Warframe into subscription today it would be doomed. It cannot survive with what it has right now. PvP is getting revived and Endgame installed. Year-old bugs getting fixed and old integral systems polished. Maybe then you can ask for subscriptions but even then the F2P model will outperform it.

[Stratego89]

So you haven't supported DE at all? Shame on you!

1. I support them by playing the game, contributing to forums, helping out new players on a daily basis, reporting bugs, and suggesting this game to everyone I meet.

 

2. If that's really not enough I got the prime accessories pack once for the Targis Prime armor set in it, and my wallet still hurts. I've never spent money in a game before then.

 

EDIT: and before you make a comment about the affinity/credit boosters in the Prime Accessories pack, I was already R11 before I bought them.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Stratego89

[Axterix13]

Here is what I am asking the entire community of Warframe. What if DE implemented a subscription in order to better fund Warframe? Keep in mind the pros/cons. Possible pros would be more frequently given content, better gaming performance quality, new and exciting concepts able to be brought to light, etc. while cons being Pay-to-Play, a possible drop in fan base, etc.

 

I'm not voting either side. I would like to hear what everyone has to say.

You're making one assumption for which there is no proof: that a subscription model would result in DE making more money.  If Warframe were to charge $15 a month, there's a good chance they'd make less money, which would mean less frequently given content, not more.  Furthermore, the game runs peer to peer rather than on DE's servers, so performance isn't that likely to improve either, as the major cause of lag is upload bandwidth from the host, not the engine.  DE is not paying for bandwidth costs, so they don't have much incentive to streamline the packets.

 

As is, I think Warframe seems like it does a pretty good job with monetizing their players.  If you play the game a bunch, you probably will want more inventory slots, which takes plat beyond the initial 50.  So that encourages players such as myself to sell things to other players who value their time more than the money plat costs.  And everyone winds up happy.  I get my slots, the other player gets whatever I sold them, and DE gets money.  Then there's lots of little things, like icons for the forums, some cosmetic stuff, etc.  And for the whales, to use casino lingo, there's the ability to buy completed items, such as the latest warframe.

 

So pure subscription would be overall a bad idea, I think.

 

Of course, many games do offer a tiered approach, with both free to play and subscription levels.  Usually the subscription includes about 1/3rd of the monthly fee in the game's currency, with the rest just going to extra benefits.  Warframe could go that route.  A subscriber would get a set amount of plat every month, gain access to an additional X slots (or maybe unlimited) for warframes, weapons, etc, but you'd lose access to those if you stopped subscribing, and maybe get some to drop rates/quantity.

[(PSN)Rawdoginher]

1. I support them by playing the game, contributing to forums, helping out new players on a daily basis, reporting bugs, and suggesting this game to everyone I meet.

 

2. If that's really not enough I got the prime accessories pack once for the Targis Prime armor set in it, and my wallet still hurts. I've never spent money in a game before then.

 

EDIT: and before you make a comment about the affinity/credit boosters in the Prime Accessories pack, I was already R11 before I bought them.

I always have affinity and xp boosters on. I might be somewhat of a jerk but I'm not a hypocrite. And if you purchased anything, with cash, for WF then you have supported DE. For that I give you a thumbs up.

[CHunterX]

I would not play.

[(PSN)Rawdoginher]

You're making one assumption for which there is no proof: that a subscription model would result in DE making more money.  If Warframe were to charge $15 a month, there's a good chance they'd make less money, which would mean less frequently given content, not more.  Furthermore, the game runs peer to peer rather than on DE's servers, so performance isn't that likely to improve either, as the major cause of lag is upload bandwidth from the host, not the engine.  DE is not paying for bandwidth costs, so they don't have much incentive to streamline the packets.

 

As is, I think Warframe seems like it does a pretty good job with monetizing their players.  If you play the game a bunch, you probably will want more inventory slots, which takes plat beyond the initial 50.  So that encourages players such as myself to sell things to other players who value their time more than the money plat costs.  And everyone winds up happy.  I get my slots, the other player gets whatever I sold them, and DE gets money.  Then there's lots of little things, like icons for the forums, some cosmetic stuff, etc.  And for the whales, to use casino lingo, there's the ability to buy completed items, such as the latest warframe.

 

So pure subscription would be overall a bad idea, I think.

 

Of course, many games do offer a tiered approach, with both free to play and subscription levels.  Usually the subscription includes about 1/3rd of the monthly fee in the game's currency, with the rest just going to extra benefits.  Warframe could go that route.  A subscriber would get a set amount of plat every month, gain access to an additional X slots (or maybe unlimited) for warframes, weapons, etc, but you'd lose access to those if you stopped subscribing, and maybe get some to drop rates/quantity.

You're making the assumption, to which you have no proof, that a subscription based method wouldn't profit as much as it's current method. You kind of contradicted yourself there.

I'm not taking sides.

[Circle_of_Psi]

no. let's get rid of this thread before DE gets ideas.

 

 

This scared the crap out of me, where you get something like this?, its like 3D without the 3Dness

[OniDax]

You're making the assumption, to which you have no proof, that a subscription based method wouldn't profit as much as it's current method. You kind of contradicted yourself there.

I'm not taking sides.

 

It wouldn't, because less people would be playing the game to even pay for a subscription.

[(PSN)Rawdoginher]

It wouldn't, because less people would be playing the game to even pay for a subscription.

I think you need to think very hard on the subject of subscription vs f2p.

How many players do you truly believe contribute financially to this game? I'm not referring to those who have spent $5 in the past 3 months. I'm referring to those who spend $9.99-19.99/month. Do I seriously have to spell this out for you?

Besides, this is a scenario topic. If you took the time to read and comprehend the subject then you would understand this.

[OniDax]

I think you need to think very hard on the subject of subscription vs f2p.

How many players do you truly believe contribute financially to this game? I'm not referring to those who have spent $5 in the past 3 months. I'm referring to those who spend $9.99-19.99/month. Do I seriously have to spell this out for you?

Besides, this is a scenario topic. If you took the time to read and comprehend the subject then you would understand this.

 

So, in other words, you're saying that DE should alienate the vast majority of free players because you think that a subscription will make your Warframe console experience better, your updates more frequent? I understand this "scenario" topic and I've given my opinion: it's a terrible idea and I would drop the game if it required a subscription to play. The majority of other people on this thread have said the same.

 

You say that you have no opinion on this issue, yet you are really trying hard to defend this idea of a subscription and argue against opinions that do not support a subscription-based model. Maybe you should just accept that there are plenty of people who do not like the idea that you present and that disagree with the notion of a subscription-based Warframe instead of attempting to persuade them otherwise.

[(PSN)Rawdoginher]

So, in other words, you're saying that DE should alienate the vast majority of free players because you think that a subscription will make your Warframe console experience better, your updates more frequent? I understand this "scenario" topic and I've given my opinion: it's a terrible idea and I would drop the game if it required a subscription to play. The majority of other people on this thread have said the same.

You say that you have no opinion on this issue, yet you are really trying hard to defend this idea of a subscription and argue against opinions that do not support a subscription-based model. Maybe you should just accept that there are plenty of people who do not like the idea that you present and that disagree with the notion of a subscription-based Warframe instead of attempting to persuade them otherwise.

I'm defending myself when someone places me, personally, in the subject instead of focusing on the subject.

If you want my personal opinion, then you would have to ask in private because I've stated that I will not take sides (at least not here). However, I do enjoy a good debate. It doesn't mean I've chosen a side.

P.S.

I've debated with you more than anyone else. Others I mainly tell to re-read the topic because of their logic in the matter (I.e. Placing me in the subject when I clearly stated this is not about me). In fact, I've sent private messages to a few thanking them for their opinion and interesting comments.

Edited February 4, 2015 by (PS4)Rawdoginher

[OniDax]

I'm defending myself when someone places me, personally, in the subject instead of focusing on the subject.

If you want my personal opinion, then you would have to ask in private because I've stated that I will not take sides (at least not here). However, I do enjoy a good debate. It doesn't mean I've chosen a side.

P.S.

I've debated with you more than anyone else. Others I mainly tell to re-read the topic because of their logic in the matter (I.e. Placing me in the subject when I clearly stated this is not about me). In fact, I've sent private messages to a few thanking them for their opinion and interesting comments.

 

What you have done is tried to counter certain people who say that subscription wouldn't work. Thing is, it really doesn't matter about whether it involves you or not, whether it brings more money or less to DE, or even whether or not it results in more frequent console updates (PC updates are every week, hotfixes even more frequent, so that "plus" can only refer to consoles, as someone else pointed out already). The only thing that matters is whether or not players are actually willing to pay a subscription for this game as the only way of playing this game. You've gotten plenty of answers, most of them no. There is no need for you to try to defend the idea of a subscription.

 

As well, you absolutely aren't merely defending yourself. Your responses to several people are not when people are placing you in the subject (and your responses to me certainly weren't, because I didn't place you in the subject in those other posts, only my most recent one).

 

I am one of those players who have paid for Founders and most (all but two) of the Prime Access Packs, and I am telling you that I would drop this game if it were subscription-based. You are assuming that the same number or even a greater number of players who pay for plat would pay a subscription, and I am saying that no, that is absolutely not the case, yet you think I should re-read your original post simply because you want to disagree with that notion. Oh, I've comprehended your subject, and I say the same thing I said before: No, I do not like the idea of a subscription, I do not believe that it is in the best interest of DE, I do not believe that the majority of players (many of whom pay for platinum) would play this game if it required a subscription, I do not believe that a subscription-based model would guarantee "more frequently given content, better gaming performance quality, [or] new and exciting concepts able to be brought to light, etc".

[RoboDoge]

Its quite simple. Warframe would die as there would be handful of people willing to pay subscription. And we all know that subscription at this day is not the brightest idea any online game could take.

 

 

Who in their right mind would like to pay monthly sub just to have 0.67 % drop chance on some specific part or mod? I know i wouldnt.

[(PSN)Rawdoginher]

What are you talking about?!? You're the ONLY person that I've responded to about the subscription itself!!!

I corrected those who said "we"

Trolled some but never gave a subscription comment.

And told others simply to re-read the topic.

YOU ARE ALONE TENNO!!!

[Kartumterek]

I wish the game had a subscription. im still not sure what value if any free to plays bring, apart from saying "omfg look at how many ppl play my game"

[kuri99]

Heres my view strictly on subscriptoin models. They arent worth it. There was a time when a game that required a $15/month subsciption was fine. However that was many years ago. Whats changed? The fact that there are many games that have gone free to play with good business models. Why would I spend money when I can get an equal or greater experience in a free to play game? Answer: I wouldnt.

 

Today subsciption models are the exception rather then the rule. The only game that continues to get away with it is the biggest MMO out there wow. Elder scrolls couldnt do it (although is suspect thats more due to the fact that Elder scrolls wasnt a good game), Wildstar is struggling, and we all know how the old republic went. Subscription just doesnt work anymore because of all the choices I have. Off the top of my head I can play any of these

 

Raiderz: A monster hunteresque MMO with detailed world, good writing, and the tightest MMO combat system Ive seen. Its a shame Maiet abandoned it

Neverwinter: Another spatial combat system with a good business model and decently sized playerbase

Blacklight retribution: A good run and gun style fps. Think CoD in the futurue, only this one is good

League of legends: Nothing needs to be said

Dota 2: See above

Smite: A dota style game in 3rd person using mythological gods as your heros and everythings a skill shot. If they got rid of all hard CC so everything could be skill based I would actually like the game

Super monday night combat: Basicly smite with guns and heavy on the humor. However uber seems to have abandoned the game

Aura kingdom: Anime styled MMO with well written plot/stories and a friendly playerbase. Only downside is a ton of bots

The old republic: Was subsciption and now free to play. Well worth it because it combines the classic Kotor feel with more modern bioware style writing and choices

Star trek online: Everything you want in a star trek game as far as space goes. Awful ground combat though

 

Then there is the pay once forever styled game like secret world (which is awesome, play it if you havnt). If warframe was a pay once and get everything model I would drop $60 in a second. Thats well worth it IMO

 

Now as far as content goes. All games must add good content regularly if they want to live. To pull an example when neverwinter relased the icewind dale expansion it went from I think it was around 30k players on steam down to around 5k. Why? it wasnt very good. Another example is Raiderz that hasnt released anything new in I think a year and its playerbase is now in the 100s instead of thousands. No matter what business model warframe has if DE wants it to live they have to keep adding content and it has to be good and meaningful content. Not doing that is suicide for the game

 

Bottom line: I feel is warframe is successful because its free to play and because its unique. Adding a subscription would only hurt the game because people have a lot of options for other games. Content development doesnt matter because they would have to do that anyway.

[AtomBlade]

Okay, seriously. No one wants a frelling sub based system. If you look at these comments, you can see a massive "hell NO" from everyone here. I would never play warframe if I had to pay money every month or year. It would NOT help with funding. Because everyone would quit. Simple.

 

Even if it would choke money out of every damn player, it would not help because no one would play. No players = No money.

 

Its literally that simple.

And there would be no extra updates, because no one would play! See 3 lines ↑ if you don't remember.

[tehgreg]

If it was 1$ a month I would consider it. More than that - I would quit immediately.

[Edgedemon]

We? Who is we? PC players are the ones that get the minor frequent updates, not console.

Second, if you read the entire topic then you would see I'm not taking any sides. I'm just throwing what could happen.

that has way more to do with fail recovery ease and certification delays than with DE or the game.

 

actually you should be glad we eat the bugs so you can play better (  and some of us pay to do so!)

[EX-Zanki]

Please for the love of god... stop with this kind of threats... wow players need to understand not every game requires a subscription to be played...

[-GG-KHAOS-PROTOGENOI]

Are you one of those people who didn't read the full post? If you are, then I would suggest finishing it before you post because you would clearly see that I'm not taking sides.

Master race? Apparently the majority of the PC community who comment to topics either can't read, fail at comprehending a subject, or are just too lazy to read the entire topic. Get your nazi master race self out of here son.

Can I read? What about you??? I commented on 1 line you had. So rude of an console player, to call the PC race a nazi master race. Yet the whole time ignorant of his own comments made. I'm not the one who said "For instance: what happens when WF steps out of BETA? Why is there still so much lag? Why isn't there more content?

 

[OniDax]

What are you talking about?!? You're the ONLY person that I've responded to about the subscription itself!!!

I corrected those who said "we"

Trolled some but never gave a subscription comment.

And told others simply to re-read the topic.

YOU ARE ALONE TENNO!!!

 

No, you are pretty much alone in your idea for a subscription. Just accept that the majority of people who have commented on this thread are opposed to the idea, and let it be.

 

And you aren't going to convince anyone of the ideas in your post (that a subscription will improve the game) with your attitude.

Edited February 4, 2015 by AntoineFlemming

[MaverickZero]

So you haven't supported DE at all? Shame on you!

 

 

Shame on him for being part of the community. No understanding of F2P systems or are you just trolling?

 

And PS4/XB1 get delayed updates mainly for reasons that have nothing to do with funding. Funding might be a factor (more staff to separate load) but you'd still get delayed updates. Plus you're gonna destroy the console playerbase by demanding more monthly fees. Most already pay monthly for their console service and archaic games that demand sub fees are of a dying breed and are hated for good reasons.

 

I dropped Wildstar because it wasn't worth paying monthly. Their promised continual content is not as good as promised and I can't justify feeding Devs that don't deliver what I was promised. The whole idea of subs is it keeps content creation teams at work to deliver high quality content for years to come. The big disadvantage is there is absolutely no guarantees that future content will deliver. You take a leap of faith and enjoy what you get.

 

 

Trolling :)

 

 

 

I forgot to mention that Wildstar is on its way to the graveyard. Here's a summary of some the crap that happened:

Game launches and is filled with technical failures (especially servers and FPS drops) then after players got through that they had to swim through endless bugs and glitches. The content was sh!t from level 1 to 50 - excused because Wildstar is Endgame Star. Endgame was a complete disaster when it fired up. PvP is forgotten in the name of building Endgame. By that time the free month with the game purchase expired and an unbelievable amount of people unsubbed. Out of 32 servers only 4 remained on High activity while the remaining had none or Low. Catch 22 starts kicking in and without big population players start to leave leading into even less population. The situation degrades over the course of months and the studio fires countless employees to cut costs. Wildstar finally merges servers to get everyone to play in MMO-like fashion. No new player acquisition because of the bad news spread everywhere including the official forums. Studio fires more people to cut costs even more. Crippling exploit is introduced that completely destroyed player economy.

 

Wildstar has:

1) an awesome combat system. 2) Unique and interesting art style. 3) New IP.

4) Bugs and glitches. 5) No worthwhile endgame. 6) forgotten PvP. 7) Subscription

 

Warframe has:

1) an awesome combat system. 2) Unique and interesting art style. 3) New IP.

4) Bugs and glitches. 5) No worthwhile endgame. 6) forgotten PvP. 7) F2P microtransactions shop

 

If you were to push Warframe into subscription today it would be doomed. It cannot survive with what it has right now. PvP is getting revived and Endgame installed. Year-old bugs getting fixed and old integral systems polished. Maybe then you can ask for subscriptions but even then the F2P model will outperform it.

 

Wildstar is a perfect case that mirrors Warframe. Before Wildstar hit Beta we were in discussion about the business models as founders. Countless debates but the same result - most of the founders jumped on the bandwagon 'Those filthy vile freeloaders are not welcome here'. Fast forward and those freeloaders weren't there when the game needed them because they can't be. The game wasn't up to par with what the majority of the foolish founders had in mind and the regret was their only legacy (Ruk them). Especially some high profile MMO youtubers and streamers who tirelessly defended a bad idea - only to completely abandon the game within the first month. It's ironic how the most valiant defenders of this archaic business model completely dropped the ball and chased their own personal interests (time&money invested).

 

Warframe will easily slip into the same fate - the game is simply not worth the asking price. No matter the asking price you will still kill huge parts of the playerbase. Why? even $1 (which we here consider insignificant) is considered a day's pay in other countries. The market is global and you'd be really foolish to ignore that. So you want to fix that? lower the fee to $0.1 but then you barely get anything. Go F2P? Yes because it makes sense. The people able to pay (have big enough disposable income) will pay and those who can't will be part of the game's content.

 

I hope you get the message - Players ARE content in MMO and MMO-like games. That's why subscriptions are fading away - because they never were ready for global markets. NA has been the main target audience for subscriptions.

[(XBOX)RVN World News]

Monthly subscriptions for games may work on pc, but on console its a death trap. The latest elder scrolls case in point.

Who the hell would pay a monthly subscription, on top of already paying for xbox live / psn plus or w.e. it is now a days.

The idea is so disgustingly greedy already.