3 ms·
I don't get it. The conclusion doesn't follow from the arguments. He writes: "Jennings points to the ballooning costs of MMORPGs-- World of Warcraft is estima
by michael_dorfman 18y ago
I don't get it. The conclusion doesn't follow from the arguments.
He writes: "Jennings points to the ballooning costs of MMORPGs-- World of Warcraft is estimated to have cost $40 million to $50 million to develop, and while Age of Conan cost just $25 million, the game is having retention issues, largely because the budget wasn’t big enough, he says. By contrast, he notes, small companies produce low-budget web-based MMOs like Club Penguin and RuneScape that post far higher profits."
How does the fact that low-budget MMO's are more profitable than high-budget MMO's mean that the subscription model is broken?
- airhadoken 18y agoSeems like the high-budget model is the broken one.
- wmf 18y agoI think those low-budget MMOs are not subscription-based; they have a freemium model where most people play for free and some people pay to pimp out their character. So the article is saying that non-subscription MMOs are more profitable than subscription MMOs. It's basically Web 2.0 for games.
- michael_dorfman 18y agoHmmm. What are the core differences between the "Freemium" model and the subscription model? I'm most familiar with Club Penguin, which does allow non-paying a limited subset of the functionality, but I've always thought of it as a "subscription model" (as that is what I pay for my children....)