I'm all for players paying for game--I've generally subscribed to games I've played. But that said, I've had issues with most of the payment models:
F2P cash shops typically sell aethetics only, with maybe some "booster" items (XP, etc.) or some "metagame" expandability (i.e., vault/pack space, etc) in order to avoid the "P2W" argument. But to me, this incentivizes development priority to add what many might call "fluff" over features/content, and/or leads to possible "nickel-and-diming" over QoL features.
The problem I have with B2P is what has already been mentioned--a high bar to entry that can't be significantly lowered over time since this is how the game is funded. And if you do offer significant "sales", then either people wait for the sale or people who bought full price feel gypped. Plus, it runs into the problem of "how often do you offer a paid expansion" and how do you co-exist with people who don't buy it (If you're familiar with Destiny, then you know the controversy over how the game has left those who did not buy with less "things to do" than when the game shipped).
Subs have the issue that the price is "one size fits all" (typically), which leads to people who play infrequently drop off because the full sub price is not worth it for an hour or two per week. I'm also not comfortable with the "sell a sub token for in-game money" for almost a similar reason: a person who plays a little is likely strapped for credits, so in essence, you are telling them to sub for 2x or more to get the game money that allows them to play for their limited time, thus exacerbating the "is the value worth the cost?" issue. Plus, now you put in front of the player the question of whether they should play "for fun" or farm credits just so they can play at a reduced cost. Depending on the economy, farming for credits can also cause its own imbalance.
Personally, I think a pure "sub" with no base cost for a game is where I'd like to see games move to. But along with this, I think subs should somewhat be not wholly time-based, in order to give the casual player more value for limited playtime. What I mean is that, for example, a sub's base life is one month or X number of "activity points". If you use all your activity points in a week, no matter, the sub is still good for a month. But if it takes you 3 months at a limited level of activity to use up those points, then your sub lasts that long.
I have typically avoided subbing to more than one MMO at a time, since most of these games presumes that it's a second job, and it feels like I'm wasting money if I don't play a game I've bought time for.
DevBlog: Monetization, player happiness and economic viability
in DevBlog Feedback
Posted
I'm all for players paying for game--I've generally subscribed to games I've played. But that said, I've had issues with most of the payment models:
Personally, I think a pure "sub" with no base cost for a game is where I'd like to see games move to. But along with this, I think subs should somewhat be not wholly time-based, in order to give the casual player more value for limited playtime. What I mean is that, for example, a sub's base life is one month or X number of "activity points". If you use all your activity points in a week, no matter, the sub is still good for a month. But if it takes you 3 months at a limited level of activity to use up those points, then your sub lasts that long.
I have typically avoided subbing to more than one MMO at a time, since most of these games presumes that it's a second job, and it feels like I'm wasting money if I don't play a game I've bought time for.