Could being "single player friendly" result in subscription split for online/offline?

[Iscah]

As I squeezed into the title slot, could becoming "single player friendly" result in the game having a subscription split for online/offline play?

Aside of the barrier of the game being multiplayer, I've also seen people dislike the prospect of having to pay a monthly subscription for the game, which you don't have to do for any other single player RPG. So if the devs want people to be able to treat it like one, does it need a different approach for these players?

I could see a structure working where "single players" would only need to purchase the game and then could interact with all the single-player aspects of it (MSQ strictly with trusts) but not have access to anything involving other players, ruling out side content by default unless they pay for the subscription to get online. A bit like most PlayStation games now need PS Plus to do multiplayer.

(This would create a sticking point in ARR with the required completion of trials and CT of course, but the whole game is a long way off being fully single player for MSQ anyway.)

[Deveryn]

That seems unlikely, especially with the free trial in place. There's ample time to try and wait and see and potentially warm up to the idea of playing with others.

These updates aren't being done solely to appeal to a few single player folks, but also make the game easier for anyone to enter and get comfortable with.

PS Plus for multiplay is there because someone has to pay for those servers. XIV is only playable online. There's no way to really have a full single player experience because you're definitely going to run into people and interact with them in someway, including by way of the marketboard.

[Espon]

Why would they do something that would ultimately make them less money when what they have now works?

[TaleraRistain]

I don't see that being likely. They said they want people to be able to enjoy FFXIV solo or with friends. But they never said anything about removing the aspect of being online with others and being able to interact if you choose. Plus that would close off the possibility for someone to engage with the online group content. I fully got the impression they still wanted to retain the MMO aspect, but not scare off people who had certain ideas about what an MMO is and what it requires. The subscription will still turn off some of those people, but given that subscriptions are something that's entered the mainstream a bit more with things like streaming services or game pass platforms I could see that being more palatable to fans of the single player games if they didn't have to fear the MMO shadow of being forced to interact with others in the world.

[Iscah]

That seems unlikely, especially with the free trial in place. There's ample time to try and wait and see and potentially warm up to the idea of playing with others.

My thinking is that if such a thing happened, it would be the inverse of the free trial restrictions: access to the full MSQ but none of the side content that requires other players. Long and narrow instead of short and wide – and unlike the free trial, they'd have to pay to own the game before they can move into the later chapters.

And even then, there would be plenty of carrots to lure them out into the full subscribed game, given that side content plots often directly support the MSQ.

[KurohNeko]

As I squeezed into the title slot, could becoming "single player friendly" result in the game having a subscription split for online/offline play?

Aside of the barrier of the game being multiplayer, I've also seen people dislike the prospect of having to pay a monthly subscription for the game, which you don't have to do for any other single player RPG. So if the devs want people to be able to treat it like one, does it need a different approach for these players?

I could see a structure working where "single players" would only need to purchase the game and then could interact with all the single-player aspects of it (MSQ strictly with trusts) but not have access to anything involving other players, ruling out side content by default unless they pay for the subscription to get online. A bit like most PlayStation games now need PS Plus to do multiplayer.

(This would create a sticking point in ARR with the required completion of trials and CT of course, but the whole game is a long way off being fully single player for MSQ anyway.)

Sorry but I'm going to be blunt. That's retarded. Not to say you are as I've heard other people come up with this so it's not a first but, this is an MMO. Stop trying to turn shit into what it's not. No there is no way in all of the seven Hells and Heavens, in all of the reflections and every other God damn world in this universe that, that is ever going to happen. It's an MMO, just because you CAN do a lot of thing solo in it doesn't mean it's possible to make it solo. If you're so God damn anti-social and are too God damn strapped to pay the 14 a month sub go play something else. This suggestion, and it's not the first time I've heard it genuinely offends me due to the headache it gives me even trying to take seriously and figure out how it would even function and I don't code.

[Iscah]

If you're so anti-social and are too strapped to pay the 14 a month sub go play something else.

I'm not actually asking for this for myself, and I think my tragically high forum post count should speak for my degree of social avoidance (at least in a text-based game-focused context).

It was a thought bubble, really. And the devs are trying to make the whole MSQ playable solo – I'm not suggested they should but observing that they already are – and yet possibly that intention is misplaced if they don't have the one-initial-payment structure of a solo game to match.

Of course it's not even really a valid thing to consider until the whole game can be soloed, which is a long way off, and would be the result of number crunchers at SE deciding they'll draw in enough initial sales to overcome the lack of guaranteed ongoing payment in that case.

[Illmaeran]

That's an interesting thought bubble, but with so many of the game's assets server-side, I doubt it's possible to have an offline option. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the fundamental design of an MMO vs single-player is dramatically different with both being incompatible with the other.

I think the best they're going to get is making a lot of the game solo-friendly so people who don't want to be forced to have real-time interactions with others (duties, etc) can play "alone among the many".

[Tlamila]

Why would they do something that would ultimately make them less money when what they have now works?

Honestly this.
No matter what, that'd be less money for them and no way they'd do on purpose something that lowers the revenue, let alone putting effort into making it a thing.

[Hanayumi]

If anything they could take the $12.99 sub drop it under $10 and only allow a single per data center. That being said even if you were just playing solo and for the story sub isnt that big as you can easily beat the story within a month anyway, especially since you wouldnt be involved in any of the multiplayer content, correct?