Does Age Play a Role in Like/Dislike of Sub-fees vs. F2P & P2P?

I didn't want to hijack the 'Monthly Fee - 672 hours' thread, which got me thinking if perhaps it's an age related thing?

I myself absolutely hate F2P and P2P because I do feel as though I'm being nickle and dimed to death and would much rather pay a sub fee and have access to everything.  I'm 41.  I think it would be interesting to see if age plays a role in that for others as well or if the love/hate is spread evenly across all ages.

Interesting question, Troy.  I think maybe it's a combination of things actually...age, employment, family status.   I know back in my college days, $15 a month was a significant amount of money and would have seriously eaten into my ramen noodle/beer budget.  Starting out my career, I may have been able to swing it, but the internet hadn't yet been invented, so I don't know.  As a general rule, people make more money as they get older/further along in their careers, so that $15 a month is a much smaller fraction of their available entertainment budget.  

Folks that are on fixed incomes, unemployed, or have multiple family members they like to play games with could find subscription fees to be a real burden, I think.  What's $15 for me, is $30 for a couple and $60 if they have a couple of kids that play too.  That's not insignificant for many families.  

I'm torn on the F2P model.  On the one hand, I like to be able to try out a game to see if it's something I like before investing too much time into it, but the insidious nature of micro-transactions is that unless you're really disciplined, that model can very quickly become much more expensive per month than a subscription-based game.  (especially for an impulse buyer like me)

A combination of age and circumstances, I suppose.  For me, I'm 37 and my life generally follows the adage 'If you have the time, you don't have the money; if you earn the money, you don't have enough spare time'.

I'm happy with the P2P model, though I think I've considered the affects of the financial outlay on me carefully, anyway.  I work part time, and run a company with my husband (my input there is about equal to my other part time work).  Work is picking up a bit, so I'll earn more but have less time for gaming.  Another circumstance would be family - we don't have kids, so no multiple subs/financial sacrifices needed on that account.

In SWTOR I began with F2P but paid the sub because it improved the opportunities imho.  I've also played another game with a 'real cash' economy that ended up costing me way too much.  I'm a little concerned by the game shop though - what doesn't the subscription buy me that a shop has to sell?  I'm hoping it's just vanity items.

I think in some ways yes.  When I first got started in MMO's (SWG, Neocron) everything had a subscription fee.  Now there are so many that are free to play but nickel and dime the hell out of you with their in game purchase shops.  Looking through some of the forums on other sites is both funny and depressing because there are so many who want a free game but demand it be updated with new content and bug fixes on a regular basis.  

I've even read post of where people proclaim ESO is already a failure because they are going to have a sub fee.  In a way I'm happy because some of those idiots probably won't sub which will make ESO a better place :)

Interesting hypothesis; I've MMO'd since I was 25 and have always preferred a sub game as long as that sub brought me all the game had to offer (assuming I gave enough time to obtain those goals).

I've heard arguments about F2P and P2P models being more advantageous for people with less time to game but more money to spend; but that doesn't apply to me, although I do meet the criteria.

Paying for an item just seems.....cheap. Like using real money lessened it's in-game value to me. I dunno, call me weird ;)

I'm 30 and wife's 29. We both prefer sub MMO's (I will add the caveat that the sub needs to give me access to most if not all of the content. This is something that made us mad when SWTOR when f2p and sub).

I've been gaming since DAoC and SWG, and I prefer Subs over F2P. Some F2P games are fun and you never feel like you have to log in to get your monies worth. But on the other hand F2P games can put so much content behind a pay gate that would rival any Sub they would have.... yet their will people who will argue till their blue in the face that the F2P model is better. Oh btw 35 here.

I'm new to the mmo market, as some of you know I'm from Argentina, and the cost of the us dollars fluctuates a lot from month to month. Just recently I started to buy original games through Steam and Gog because it's cheaper, faster, the store here might charge you 50 dollars for a 15 dollar wow time card (What a deal! :D>). I live with my life partner, he is 32, I'm 31, we both live on a budget but we don't have kids, we don't have cable (lol, netflix!), we don't go out for dinner or pubs, hardly go to the movies, so all of our spare cash goes to videogames, books and chessex dice sets :3

ESO will be our first sub game ever, because we are on a budget and tomorrow the price of the dollar might go to heck in a picknick basket we cannot afford too many recurring fees. I love GW2 because it's a 1 time fee and you have the option to either farm for gems or pay the gems for whatever fancy hat/sickle/golem/doohikey you might want to get. We will buy the game and pay the fee because we love AvA and we want to be with the family for the events (that are outside the 3/4am in the morning my time :Bç)

Of course there are many F2P models, the ones that does it right like Loadout and Team Fortress 2, where buying stuff is totally optional, for hats, pants and wigs, and you have to play the game to actually get better weapons or tools. Then there is the try-to-play, where you have to pay a lot more of money for getting an upgrade, a slightly better weapon, unlock areas or whatever like Hawken and Mechwarrior Online.

I think it comes down to experience more than age.

For my part, I'm 37. I'm old enough to remember when console games came on cassette tapes and recall playing Swashbuckler on our first Apple II home computer. I must've been playing computer games pretty consistently now for almost 30 years.

Having said that, all that gaming experience never extended to MMO's until Warhammer Online came along (5 years back). Up until WAR, I had never encountered a game subscription. The very idea of a subscription seemed ridiculous. Once you pay for the game, that's suppose to be it. You buy a game, you don't rent it. Once bought, the game is suppose to be complete, and it's suppose to be yours. What's this nonsense about having to continually pay more money on a regular basis to be allowed to continue playing the game? Why am I expected to pay the game company to fix bugs that shouldn't have been there in the first place? It sounds like extortion.

That's a mindset of someone who has only ever experienced single-player games facing a subscription model for the first time. Frankly, if I hadn't been waiting a decade for a computer game to give me control of a Dwarf within the Warhammer World, I never would have even considered paying a subscription. The Free-to-Play model provided by Guild Wars 2, plays into this mentality perfectly - you buy the game, and it's yours to play as much or as little as you like for no extra cost. I gradually got used to the subscription model, but it still irks me because I find myself perpetually judging the value for money of the game - If the combined content and development of the initial game was worth $80, and I then go on to pay $15 a month, I'm kinda left wondering why I'll never see the content of an entire second game added after I have invested a further $80, 5 months down the track (nor realistically, even after 5 years and $900 invested into the game - WAR actually subtracted as much content as it added).

33 here. Have been playing MMOs since EQs release in 99 (so I was 19 at the time). EQ was sub then, and is optional sub now (although I have no idea of the particulars because I haven't played it in over 10 years). I'm happy to pay a sub. After playing MMOs on a variety of different pay models, my experience has been that you get better customer service (games fixes, new content, tech support etc) from sub models, and I think that has a lot to do with the more reliable income that sub fees produce for the company.

I also view the sub fee as just the cost of having a hobby, and it's a fairly cheap hobby in comparison to some. Sure, there have been times when I couldn't afford to have any hobbies... but then I've suspended my sub and come back to it later... just like I would with any other hobby :)

Having said all that, I'm not sure if my view has developed because when I started playing, sub was pretty much the only pay model for MMOs. Maybe if I was turning 19 now, with the variety of pay models available, I'd view it differently and feel differently in 14 years time. 

Perhaps an interesting thing to note, is that my husband (34yo) is a gamer, only he doesn't play MMOs. He's always played solo games. He's willing to give ESO a go because he loves Elder Scrolls... but he balks at the idea of having to sub and hopes that ESO goes the way of other recent MMOs that started out sub - and ends up going F2P some time after release. So the type of gamer you are may play into how you feel about subs as well?

Maybe just the difference between a generation that grew up buying entire "albums" vs buying each song individually as you go?  ;)  But I think it's just a personal preference and is case dependent much like leasing vs. buying a car.

Probably depend on how much disposable money you have.  $15 could be a big deal if you don't earn enough money yet.

I recall that I was very averse to sub game like EQ when I was still in school, I was all into Diablo 2 since it was buy and play.  Once I started my first job, sub fee is not an issue any more.

In general sub game with a good enough subscription number is going to provide a more enjoyable atmosphere over all.  Good sub game vs F2P is similar to the difference between a more upscale gym that costs $60 per person per month vs a small convenient gym that costs $10 a month.  Both can fill your need, but if you can afford the more expensive option you probably will pick that option.

I happen to agree with those that think it is a combination of factors which includes how long you have been playing MMO's and not necessarily your age although that in itself has a correlation since the longer you have been playing the older you are.

But I look at it this way...

I started playing MMO's when I was in my late 40's but they were just really being introduced to the world with EQ and a couple of others.  Paying a sub at this time was the only way to play a AAA MMORPG albeit I believe the fee was around $12 a month (and when you think about it the monthly fee - for games that charge fees - hasn't gone up much over the years).

Now if I had started the same EQ when I was 20 I would only be 35 - AND NO THAT ISN"T OLD - especially since I am still in the prime of my life at 63 ;)

Sometimes the culture we first start with (in my case P2P) is the one we are comfortable with especially if it worked well.  As in my case, my best experiences have been with P2P.  Therefore regardless of age that is the business model for which I have the best hope and will be the most affordable in the long run since I can actually budget the expense vs. my random expenditures in a cash shop for spur of the moment "whim" purchases.

Yes I recall the sub fee was like $10-$12 in the early days.  Due to inflation, that actually probably worth more than $15 today.  But now the MMO audience is bigger, so a lower inflation adjusted price is still profitable given enough subs.

I'm 35, I have a wife and no children, no cable TV, and we live a two day drive from our nearest relatives and friends (or 22 hours straight driving if I'm feeling upto the challenge).

I still look on free-to-play games in the same distaste as I do with DLC (downloadable content).  I remember when DLC first started making appearances and the gaming community saw the future that was coming.  We knew this was the beginning where publishers would release half a game and then nickel and dime us with the rest of the game at certain intervals so we end up paying more in the end.   I remember when UO and EQ first came out and I thought, "I don't want to pay for this when I can play Neverwinter Nights for free." it wasn't until two of my favourite settings came out with MMO's that I took an interest.  

First MMO I played was Star Wars Galaxies, which I didn't end up playing until 2005.  SWG wasn't available in Australia, I had to get it from Dubai while I was on R&R from guarding the Khawr al ‘Am?yah Oil Terminal in the Arabian Gulf so by the time I got to play it, it was only a shadow of its original state (I played the pre_CU Emulater for longer than I did the official version).  

That same year I also started with World of Warcraft, I was a huge fan of the Warcraft setting, and at the time, a huge fan of Blizzard entertainment and the Warcraft, Diablo and Starcraft settings.  When I first started playing WOW I thought it was the best value for money I had ever seen, I was working military COMCEN shifts so I worked incredibly long shifts at odd hours which were followed by four or five days off between shift cycles.  The whole idea of an MMO suited me perfectly because my weekends usually started when everyone else was starting their work day.  

I could get countless hours of entertainment for a mere $15 a month.  Prior to MMO's I would spend twice that just to see a film at the cinema.  A pack of cigarettes costs $20 here, one month of access to countless hours of entertainment was cheaper than a pack of smokes or a six pack of beer.  I was sold.  Not only was the $15 a month a great deal, but I stopped buying single player games too.  So I was saving another $100 a month there.

@Solo, adjusting for 3% inflation each year a $12/month MMO from 1996 would be worth approximately $18.50/month today

It's probably easier to proclaim the F2P verse P2P debate in that type of scope.  I believe most people interpret the quick and rash reasoning of those arguments as the product of simply being young and not experiencing enough of life.

I know from my own experience as a child or teenager that i rarely thought of the world beyond my own selfish desires and needs, i mean; what child or teenager thinks about Corporate infrastructure or Political upheaval in the middle east? Let alone Electronic sales figures and Video game Developer/employment layoffs?

 For some it really does come down to a financial issue.  But the whole reasoning and rationalization has definitely become the disturbing trend of that debate.

I mean why do some people become so compelled to write 3000 word essay's  about something that could easily be conveyed in a short sentence.  "I do not want to pay" or "I do not have the money"  works just fine.   :)

I used to be a F2P hater.  I've played P2P for most of my MMO life, since MUDs and M59/UO/EQ/DaoC/etc.  Aka - I'm an older gamer.

Yet things have changed.

Gold farmers have changed or perhaps spurred appropriate change in the F2P model.  Originally F2P just simply equated to pay more = skills and abilities that make you uber.  That may have only been leveling your character or giving you lots of gold to buy everything, but that tends to being passé at this point.

More often recently, F2P models have made aspects of the game easier or varied, but not necessarily better or more powerful, just more convenient.  Another aspect with the Gold Farmer problem, especially in ESO, is their ability to level you up.  What the hell would you say to level you up in ESO?   The mechanics of skill choice are so varied that it makes no sense, unless these farmers are willing to level up a character that has only no skill choices.

There are games which are blend of both worlds.  If you pay monthly, you are enabled to do certain (typically end game abilities), but they supplement their funds with cosmetic items as well to keep the F2P population involved.

So ultimately the question is 'how to keep the game alive'.  P2P (given enough players) will provide the promise of regular updates and content improvements.  P2P allows for more players, but updates hinge on this population paying for something they want. 

Anyhow - I feel ESO may transition to F2P over time.  It probably won't deter me from playing unless Bethesda/Zenamax makes some bad choices about the content they offer via store.  Right now, I'm ready to play for a while.

I also think it's more about what you've experienced more than age. I'm 39 and recall paying for chunks of time. Paying $10 (or whatever it was at first) for a whole month of being able to play a game with a bunch of people back when EQ first came out seemed a lot better than paying $$ for X hours.

I'm fine with paying subs because I know what that money is for, but I do feel like I'm not getting my money's worth if I don't play that game enough. My fiance and two teenagers play WoW so I sub for that too in the off chance that my fiance has time to play. So I'm paying $15 to play once in a while. I hate that.

I much prefer wither GW2, Secret World, or Neverwinter's system. I'd much rather pay for a game outright (or not pay for the game at all) and then have the option of spending money here and there for cool things instead of paying a mandatory amount each month. Even if I end up spending more money on a F2P game than I would have for a monthly sub I at least feel like I spent my money how I wanted.

Now if a game is F2P but there's an option to sub and that sub provides various bonuses that are appealing enough I don't mind doing the sub for that. Like RIFT for instance. But even then I'll only maintain the sub if I feel like I'll play it often enough. Once my play time dropped off in RIFT I cancelled the sub and just log in now and then as F2P.

What it all boils down to I think is what a person's first experience is, the length of that experience, and how adaptable a person is. I've known gamers of different ages that had different experiences and some are vehemently for/against one way or another, and other gamers don't care what the payment model is as long as the game is fun.

I try to emulate the latter. If a game is fun to play, well then I'll do whatever it takes to play it. Whether I like or dislike the payment model won't matter. The game will still be there. I can either play it, or lose out on that fun.

The research indicates a decided preference against it in the "core gamer" demographic, but it is swamped by the overwhelming approval and interest from the casual/social/family demographic segments.

Personally, I have a somewhat accepting attitude for microtransactions and cash to in-game currency conversion (i.e., PLEX from Eve Online) as it allows a truly player driven economy AND it levels the playing field for those who have money, but not time (which, frankly, is an increasing segment of the player base).

There are times when I have time and I like "earning" something. There are also times when I don't have time and do not wish to be penalized for having to work the ridiculous hours that I do. Games that allow for either and treat them equally get my vote. (I do realize this is not a majority opinion among my age group or demographic, but I'm used to being the odd duck.)

In 2012, I contracted with a small studio as its MTx Manager and age was one of the indicators in my profit optimization model used to price its virtual goods.  Also of significance was localization, median hours played, gender & credit card duration.  

I play 2 F2P games. GW2 and PS2. But, I also sub to PS2. it has a sub model and a F2P model both.

Over my years of gaming, I tend to get the most enjoyment and fulfillment from the games I am putting money into. I think their might be a reason for that.

I am 34. I started with EQ, but never really got into it. But, when DAoC came out I "blossomed" into the MMO sphere and have played a majority of the MMOs over the years.

I'm older than the average bear here ( I think)....but I don't really care whether a game is F2P or sub.  If its interesting to me , I'll play it...free or sub.  As long as a game does not charge for content.  Having to Pay to open content will send me packing quicker than anything.

hmm well I'm 40, two of my boys have moved out and the youngest is 15 now, and I've been gaming since '08.  Money isn't a particular issue for me and I absolutely do not mind paying for my entertainment, be that through cash shops or sub fees, or both in some cases.  It doesn't matter to me if a game is sub or free.  I kind of look at it from a wider perspective, it doesn't bother me that I may not get my 'moneys worth' from a sub fee when I'm not playing, because I know that other folks 'are' playing and the dev's are probably working on improving the game, etc.  If I like a game, I will throw money at it as much as I can to help 'keep it alive' so to speak, I even buy stuff I don't particularly want (that kind of stuff makes good gifts for in game buddies), just to help keep the game funded. 

I suppose one could say I look at MMO sub's more like cable; I'm not watching cable all the time, but it's well worth the monthly rate to have it for when I 'do' want to watch...

I'm 36 and I have always preferred the sub fee model. Part of that might be because thats where i started out with EQ and SWG so I'm more comfortable with it. I'm also aware of my own faults enough to know that I have no control when it comes to p2p or cash store games. I was shocked by how much money I threw into the Rift store when that came out. It was a ridiculous amount. I'll probably buy everything ESO puts in their store too. New dance emote? Yep, I'll take it. And yes, I know its a sickness:)

  I have always played sub based mmos  , GW2 was the first f2p cash shop game i have played , i have never bought anything in gw2  from the game store have never even went to the web site to look at it .

 however i doubt i will ever play another f2p mmo again , i`d rather pay a sub and  know that my money is going towards  a team desging new content fixing bugs etc instead of a team desging the next  gimick for the game store to try and sell .

I have to wonder if it's really age, or related to the specific group interested in the game.

We're well aware that a huge portion of WoW players fall in the younger age group, and yet nobody even baulks at dishing out the $15/mo fee.

When I start playing EQ, I remember a < $10/mo fee (back in my day...).  At the time, I held a part time high school job, and as a result that $10 was a reasonable amount of money...although the epic-ness of the game made it more than worth it.

Even though many games have gone down the F2P route (with few doing it successfully), the P2P model is still alive and well.  I think the biggest complaints are coming from the hardcore ES community, all of which have never had to pay a monthly sub for any ES game...until now.

All of the "this game will fail, it will be f2p in 6mo, etc" talk will pass, as there will be a player base plenty large enough to sustain the game, and eventually even the most pessimistic will venture over and join the rest of us.

All of the "this game will fail, it will be f2p in 6mo, etc" talk will pass, as there will be a player base plenty large enough to sustain the game, and eventually even the most pessimistic will venture over and join the rest of us.

I sure hope so. It gets a bit old reading/hearing it every day.

Good/popular sub games have more stamina.  (Look at how many years EQ and WOW have been around, with new content being delivered regularly).   How many expansion packs did EQ have?  I think WOW is getting another expansion pack this year.

I like to invest in things that will last.  I've always believe that you get what you pay for.  

EverQuest just hit expansion pack #20...which is just incredible.  I thought the game was huge when I left after the 7th expansion.

Even more incredible:  EQ was pay-to-play from 1999-2012.  It actually stayed sub-based longer than EQ2 did, even though EQ2 came out 5 years after EQ.