Well, I didn’t see that one coming. Yes, the subscription model is back. Both Wildstar and The Elder Scrolls Online have announced that they’re going to be primarily subscription-based, with WildStar also offering an EVE-like “CREDD” that can theoretically be earned in-game to pay for one’s subscription.
It’s not hard to see why, from a business sense. You replace the frightning nebulousness of the F2P model with a solid, predictable cash-flow.
But will it work? That’s what the blogosphere has been wondering…
Gazimoff gives us a great overview of Wildstar’s plans and their potential advantages and drawbacks, not coming down on either side but making some good points on both.
The Ancient Gaming Noob has two interesting posts, one for each game – questioning whether TESO has the “must-have” appeal for a subscription model, and pointing out a comparison for Wildstar’s CREDD that may be more apt than PLEX.
Lots of bloggers are looking at both sides of these announcements – but not Ardwulf, who states bluntly that he expects each game to last six months or less.
Belghast makes the argument that this entire debate is much less about models than about whether he – or anyone – actually wants to play these games, and how much.
Rowan Blaze makes the argument that the “Subscription Plus” nature of Wildstar’s CREDD actually makes the entire thing less appealing, not more.
Ravious wonders if the fatter updates that are theoretically enabled by a subscription model will be enough to make the sub-based games viable, citing Guild Wars as having “constant but thin” updates.
Tobold thinks about the economic implications of CREDD, how much time it will take to “earn” a CREDD in Wildstar, and whether that’s fair and/or equitable.
And Healing The Masses comes down firmly on the pro-subscription side, looking at the economics of the entire thing as well as how it affects players.