Originally Posted by
Krisalee
I dunno, I think the addition of Shadowlands more than justifies the subscription price, and I think the RK content alone is compelling and robust enough to give a free player a great experience. Perhaps opening Nascence as a froob-facing teaser would be good, and allowing some SL only items, but I wouldn't make the whole expansion free. However, I'm not opposed to the idea of a lowered subscription price given the title's age. I don't mind the price where it is, but it's an older title, and the precedent is there.
For comparable titles, Ultima Online (now nearly 17 years old) is $12.99 and has no f2p variant. I don't mind subscription costs as long as I can afford them, and I actually prefer to pay for older games just for the sake of supporting them, so I'm fine at this price for UO.
Asheron's Call is now Buy-to-Play with the promise of zero future development, but before development ceased earlier this year it was a cool $9.99 monthly. It's about 15 years old, I believe?
And as for Everquest, while it does have a free option, SOE has done something unique. For $14.99 / month, you get a sub to *all* of their games: EQ, EQ2, DCUO, Planetside/Planetside 2, and it will include EQNext when it's released. I'm probably missing one, but I can't be bothered to check, as I only play EQ and occasionally EQ2.
It's worked pretty darn well for SOE, and it may be effective at Funcom to leave the sub cost where it is, but make it "all access." I do play TSW as well, and I know several other players who do, and/or AOC. "One sub to rule them all" would likely encourage more microtransactions across the board, and may even entice some AOC and TSW vets to give AO a try.