Massively OP reader and listener Suikoden79 recently wrote in to the podcast with a gem of a question I thought would be more fun for the whole team instead of just our podcasters. He told us that he used to be a subscription type of MMO player, but as his family and responsibilities have grown, he's shifted from being hardcore to casual, and so now he appreciates being able to scope out a game before deciding whether to spend money -- and when he likes a game, he does shell out. Here comes the but:
"What I've noticed is that I've spent more money in the last three months on games that gave me everything upfront except extra content (like DLC) versus games that nickel-and-dimed me on every little thing along the way. Take Guild Wars 2
and Elder Scrolls Online
, for example. I'm actually more relaxed with my wallet because I know that all I really have
to buy is content, and I can purchase that content when I am ready for it; so I spend more along the way. The DC Universe Online
or Star Wars: The Old Republic
model, on the other hand, makes me tighten my wallet against spending because I never know what stupid inhibitor I'm going to have to spend $1 or $2 on next. If someone is dedicated to a game, I suggest subbing because it's usually a good value. But when will some of these studios figure out that if they just make the game experience fun, most F2P people will spend money? I'm all for charging for extra content, but everyone should have the same playing field as far as game experience. What do you guys think? Does the nickel-and-dime model really work better than the free-for-all, charge-for-content-only model?"
I posed Suikoden79's question to the Massively OP team for this week's Massively Overthinking.