[fro0116]

> World of Warcraft, Final Fantasy XI, Final Fantasy XIV, and EVE Online all still successfully use the subscription model (with varying levels of free trials).

The most recently released game in that list is Final Fantasy XIV, which was released in 2010, almost a decade ago, and the rest are about a decade older than that. A _lot_ more MMOs since then have tried the subscription model and failed. It may have worked in a few rare cases in the past, and some of those might still live on today through sheer inertia, but I think it's reasonable to claim that subscription is generally no longer considered a viable model for new MMOs.

I'm not saying some publishers won't find ways to extract more money from players by adding freemium features on top of subscription games if they could. Of course some would, greed knows no bounds. But I am saying that they can't afford to charge a subscription fee to begin with, if they want their game to become successful in today's climate, even if they intend to use that as their only source of funding, forgoing freemium features entirely.

> I don't find it difficult to fault exploitative behavior just because it's profitable.

I think I made it pretty clear I find those practices despicable too. But if your only option is the freemium model, you don't really have much of a choice but to discriminate based on who's willing to pay and how much. That's literally the only way the model can work, by definition.

[deogeo]

The games are old, but they're still live. So it could just as well mean that the subscription MMO market is viable but saturated, so they're expanding into non-subscription. There's nowhere near enough evidence to go right for the players-won't-pay explanation, when there are literally millions of subscription-paying players.

I'd argue that the drawn out deaths of those MMOs shows how creatively bankrupt the MMO market is - people aren't leaving for new MMOs, they're staying with old ones till they get bored, because there's nothing better out there.

[fro0116]

That's one way to see it, and it's certainly not unreasonable to see it that way.

But looking at it another perspective, you can also argue that making MMOs with persistent worlds that can only be supported by subscription has become so risky of an investment that nobody is willing to experiment with drastically new paradigms/mechanics because historically an overwhelming majority of those who tried have failed, which could be what led to the creatively bankrupt landscape we have today.

It's impossible to know which perspective is more accurate because it's clearly a chicken-or-egg situation. But one thing that we can observe today is that practically (or maybe actually?) nobody even tries to make MMOs with subscriptions anymore, and new MMOs today end up defaulting to freemium (and all the morally bankrupt behavior that the model leads to), whatever the reason for that might be, and I think that's a shame.

[projektir]

> I'd argue that the drawn out deaths of those MMOs shows how creatively bankrupt the MMO market is - people aren't leaving for new MMOs, they're staying with old ones till they get bored, because there's nothing better out there.

Indeed. I like MMOs, but there's just nothing up my alley at this point and I'm waiting for the revival of a 15 year old game (WoW Classic) or the spiritual successor of an even older game (Pantheon).