Remeber too, on top of The Agency, they are also releasing the MMO Free Realms. Its another F2P with "velvet rope" model, so they seem to be pretty keen on going down this path.
It will be interesting to see what they will make their DC MMO....F2P or P2P.
"If we don't attack them, they will attack us first. So we'd better retaliate before they have a chance to strike"
Smedley is such an idiot. Everytime he opens his mouth, nonsense spews forth.
You have to wonder how long Sony will put up with his antics. Considering the hot marketplace, should be pretty obvious that SOE has only one MMO in the top 5 and that won't be for long once some of these new games hit the ether.
I don't personally have anything against Sony. Of course, I wasn't playing any of the games which Sony supposedly came along and ruined, so they haven't done anything to personally tick me off.
The free to play model has the potential to bring in more money than the pay to play model because it has the potential to bring in more players. For instance, if you have a pay to play game that's $10 a month and you have 1,000 players, you're getting $10,000 a month. However, if you have a free to play game and you have 5,000 players, more players being attracted because it's free, and with some players spending more and some players spending less it works out to $5 a month per player, then you're getting $25,000 a month. So it works out to being less for each individual player, but more for the company.
Can we get someone in here that is currently happily engaged in a game that uses microtransactions?
I've tried one, Mobinogi, and didn't get hooked enough to form a real opinion from playing alone. Sitting here now, i am aginst the idea. I understand that in theory it has the ability to potentially bring in more folks, which coul lead to more profits and a more successful game, BUT we have seen that it certainly is not necessary in order to ensure a broad and growing playerbase. I just don't like it, as most of you have already stated, and i'd like to hear from the other side of the fence to see if my views are unfounded.
For me, this game is a casualty of SOE CS. I was never really motivated by this title, but I was planning to purchase it, if only to try it and to encourage different games, most likely quitting within the first week, but eh, who knows?
But after they mess it up and apply monthly fees for PotBS AFTER I cancel...this game is going to take the first hit, as I am vindicative. It is not about the amount of money, it is about the principle, the trust. If someone hit the cancel button, it is over. If you mess it, then you check your log to see when the player stop playing.
It is a shame as the devs there have little to do with the CS and the big brother thingy, but there is no way I will let's bad charging behaviors go unpunished.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
I must also express my disliking of SOE haters.. I am not a fanboi or hater of any company. Each game is different from the previous games put out. If people weren't so close minded about gaming, things would be a lot easier on these forums =P
It also occurs to me that it is funny that people are hating on SOE for the subscription plan and also hating on them for the F2P business model in the same thread. SOE could cure cancer and there'd still be haters
i've tried every game SOE has on it's station pass. i am completely under-impressed by all of them. maybe it's just that a lot of other games seem SOOOOOOOOOO much better in comparison? maybe it's because the station-pass-games are exactly what smed's goal is -- to have a bunch of average games on the station pass?
who knows.
i somehow doubt soe will ever have anything wonderful (read - cure cancer, or ANYTHING wonderful). all you have to do is attach 'soe is publishing' to a game, and you can pretty much write that game off as garbage. if soe doesn't force a game out early, then they're "helping" out games that are pretty crappy to start with and just sort of buying them out and stuff.
this game COULD be good. this game COULD be great. it's related to soe; it won't be. soe doesn't buy/produce/publish GREAT games. sorry.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
this game COULD be good. this game COULD be great. it's related to soe; it won't be. soe doesn't buy/produce/publish GREAT games. sorry.
Yes and Everquest hasnt been around for 10 years.
SWG is still making money or else they would shut it down
EQ2 has a strong subscriber base
It's a no brainer here, if SOE wasnt making money and if the sum of all their games was in the red, they would shut down servers! Frankly some of you haters dont really have much of a logic sense in you. They would probably shut down servers that arent generating money first and then try to consolidate servers as well. Which they have done and will do as their sub base shrink.
You guys need a good shake of your head.
Also this game is gona be frikkin free! Why are you even bitching again? I guess you probably figure that SOE has to pay you to have the honor to have you play their game?
If you dont like it, if it doesnt appeal to you just dont play! How's that for an idea?
this game COULD be good. this game COULD be great. it's related to soe; it won't be. soe doesn't buy/produce/publish GREAT games. sorry.
Yes and Everquest hasnt been around for 10 years.
UO has been around a couple of years longer than EQ. not sure where your point of quality/quantity is at here. you saw where i capitalized the word GREAT for emphasis, yes? i've tried and retried the SOE games and i can't honestly categorize any of them in the GREAT category. SWG is still making money or else they would shut it down rolling in the cash, didn't they just double the number of servers swg has? oh wait. EQ2 has a strong subscriber base yummy, another cookie-cutter fantasy game to be bored out of my mind in when they start talking raiding. YAY! It's a no brainer here, if SOE wasnt making money and if the sum of all their games was in the red, they would shut down servers! Frankly some of you haters dont really have much of a logic sense in you. They would probably shut down servers that arent generating money first and then try to consolidate servers as well. Which they have done and will do as their sub base shrink. and didn't vanguard shut down servers? swg also shut down servers? what about the others in the harem? doesn't take a huge amount of subs to keep a game afloat, especially if servers get shut down. no brainer indeed, so much whining and blind faith in companies that will ignore you completely and laugh at you when they finally break enough games to irk you. bravo. You guys need a good shake of your head. mcdonald's has a HUGE following. i don't normally eat at mcdonald's. i want a bit more QUALITY for my buck. yup, need to be shaking something somewhere. maybe we should settle for bacon that's raw and been run over by a truck? or, station pass games. same same.
Also this game is gona be frikkin free! Why are you even bitching again? I guess you probably figure that SOE has to pay you to have the honor to have you play their game? so sowwy dramafested-one. again, i was talking about quality. i don't really play any free to play games cuz a lot of them don't interest me because of ... quality. If you dont like it, if it doesnt appeal to you just dont play! How's that for an idea? but then, you would have nothing to cry online about... it shouldn't be player vs player, it should be players vs gaming companies; but alas, we have the fanboi camp to destroy what could be great games. kudos and bravo indeed.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
First, F2P means TONS of freeloaders, kids and ppl I dont want around, see Guild Wars. Never seen more immature Pron/Trash talking ppl than there.
Second, it means usually low quality and every really interesting stuff is bound to extra coin, which drives the REAL cost usually much higher than a constant subscription rate.
I am outta there too, Smed.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
.... First, F2P means TONS of freeloaders, kids and ppl I dont want around, see Guild Wars. Never seen more immature Pron/Trash talking ppl than there. Second, it means usually low quality and every really interesting stuff is bound to extra coin, which drives the REAL cost usually much higher than a constant subscription rate. ...
And that's how it makes money.
Everyone joins 'cause it's free. Then the players who like the game - but dislike the F2P crowd and the 'trash talk' complain.
Answer: If you don't like it pay for *premium* access and get your own *special area* and *special forums*.
So, they pay.
But they can come out of their area to pwn the kiddies - which (despite their self proclaimed maturity) they do.
So, the kiddies cry to mommy. "Mommy! I wan teh *Elite Bullet Proof Vest*! I want teh *James Bombed Tuxedo*! Please mommy! It's only $5... Please please please please please....
Then they get that and the "To Russia with Love" mission is another small fee ($0.50) but the reward is teh Laser Beam Watch! "MOMMY!!!!!"
And Mommy does not realise this is all adding up... or does not care because it keeps them quiet and stops them fighting with each other...
"MOMMY! I just got pwned" sob sob "and I can't beat him back without the *SLR Delux Sniper rifle and Heat Scope!*" sob sob... "Mommy...pleeeaaaaaaaase?"
That and people with no life and tons of money who are happy to PAY for the top gear to see their name on the top of the "Agency Double Oh Agents" list.
And the people who paid to get away from the trash talkers find they are followed to the *Special Places* by them... they complain
Answer: They paid their money just like you...
The only positive is that this sort of game really caters to gankers and griefers... but it makes them PAY for the privilage.
No thanks. I am crossing this game out from my list.
Good job, Smed, you lost another customer.
Also, you should not call it "free to play" when you have to pay to get into a certain area and use micro-transactions to advance. Micro-transactions are small by definition, but add up to exceed the usual subscription price, if you arent careful.
THAT IS NOT FREE.
Imagine if you had to pay $.05 dollars every time you went into a battlegrounds in WoW. Thats what Smed is asking.
That might work in China, but not in the west.
Also, if the future in western MMO market is micro-transactions, I will not be interested in playing MMOs anymore...
PAY ONCE FOR EVERYTHING, NOT UNLIMITED TIMES FOR SMALL FRACTIONS.
/golf clap
Agreed!! SOE has done it again - out of touch with the players as usual and out of touch with reality most of the time.
I am sure that if you added up all the micro transaction items, you know the stuff you would normally get for your normal monthly subscription, it will add up to be MORE than what a monthly sub would of cost.
They are money grabbing fools, who stick it to gamers any chance they get.
They have calculated that if a gamer wants to experience the whole game it wil cost them more than what they would normally pay for a monthly subsctiption. T
THAT is their only motivation, more profit and that is why they are doing this - because it will bring them more money and cost us more money than a monthly sub. You don't think they would even consider this model if it didn't mean MORE money for them.
I for one will not touch this game now, we need to make a stand now or be crapped on forever by these companies.
I think people are looking at this the wrong way. The Agency is going to be a persistent First Person Shooter and therefore its competition, although persistent, will really be with other shooters. Is anyone here paying a subscription for TF2, CoD, BF**42, etc? The sanswer is no.
If SOE really wants to pick up that shooter crowd, then by default, they can't be charging a subscription for a type of game everyone else is playing for free after the initial software purchase. They can make money with the velvet rope though, which is the objective of any business. If you don't like microtransactions and don't want to play because of it, that's all well and good but spouting off rhetoric about being out of touch with the consumer base is a bit silly. Clearly you aren't the primary demographic -- it's the shooter crowd they're looking to rope in with microtransactions.
I would rather pay a monthly fee. But if the game is any good, I might give it a go.
I think the folks who get addicted to these games will be the hardest hit, and the potential for spending more than 15 bucks a month is high. On the other hand, if you are playing casually, it might actually work out to be cheaper.
The problem I have with the microtransaction model is it basically allows the company to print their own money. For instance, suppose you need a certain weapon to advance, so you buy it. All they have to do is make monsters tougher, then you need to get the new gun they are selling. And with SOE's record of continual nerfs, I can see how people wil be demanding their money back when in one fell swoop SOE makes there newly purchased weapon obsolete.
Smed is the devil of gaming. He is the worst influence in this industry. I'm sure he has lots of money, so I wish he would just retire.
Comments
Lol good ol' Sony...Can they do anything right?
Remeber too, on top of The Agency, they are also releasing the MMO Free Realms. Its another F2P with "velvet rope" model, so they seem to be pretty keen on going down this path.
It will be interesting to see what they will make their DC MMO....F2P or P2P.
"If we don't attack them, they will attack us first. So we'd better retaliate before they have a chance to strike"
Its Free To Play for sure??
Neosteam.com
Smedley is such an idiot. Everytime he opens his mouth, nonsense spews forth.
You have to wonder how long Sony will put up with his antics. Considering the hot marketplace, should be pretty obvious that SOE has only one MMO in the top 5 and that won't be for long once some of these new games hit the ether.
I don't personally have anything against Sony. Of course, I wasn't playing any of the games which Sony supposedly came along and ruined, so they haven't done anything to personally tick me off.
The free to play model has the potential to bring in more money than the pay to play model because it has the potential to bring in more players. For instance, if you have a pay to play game that's $10 a month and you have 1,000 players, you're getting $10,000 a month. However, if you have a free to play game and you have 5,000 players, more players being attracted because it's free, and with some players spending more and some players spending less it works out to $5 a month per player, then you're getting $25,000 a month. So it works out to being less for each individual player, but more for the company.
Can we get someone in here that is currently happily engaged in a game that uses microtransactions?
I've tried one, Mobinogi, and didn't get hooked enough to form a real opinion from playing alone. Sitting here now, i am aginst the idea. I understand that in theory it has the ability to potentially bring in more folks, which coul lead to more profits and a more successful game, BUT we have seen that it certainly is not necessary in order to ensure a broad and growing playerbase. I just don't like it, as most of you have already stated, and i'd like to hear from the other side of the fence to see if my views are unfounded.
Oh well. I was going to look into the Agency. *sigh*
Microtransaction games are a sucker-bet. Just say no.
We've just finished a discussion on this in the general area. (More than one actually.)
Microtransaction games are a rip-off. They are NEVER good for the player.
For me, this game is a casualty of SOE CS. I was never really motivated by this title, but I was planning to purchase it, if only to try it and to encourage different games, most likely quitting within the first week, but eh, who knows?
But after they mess it up and apply monthly fees for PotBS AFTER I cancel...this game is going to take the first hit, as I am vindicative. It is not about the amount of money, it is about the principle, the trust. If someone hit the cancel button, it is over. If you mess it, then you check your log to see when the player stop playing.
It is a shame as the devs there have little to do with the CS and the big brother thingy, but there is no way I will let's bad charging behaviors go unpunished.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
i've tried every game SOE has on it's station pass. i am completely under-impressed by all of them. maybe it's just that a lot of other games seem SOOOOOOOOOO much better in comparison? maybe it's because the station-pass-games are exactly what smed's goal is -- to have a bunch of average games on the station pass?
who knows.
i somehow doubt soe will ever have anything wonderful (read - cure cancer, or ANYTHING wonderful). all you have to do is attach 'soe is publishing' to a game, and you can pretty much write that game off as garbage. if soe doesn't force a game out early, then they're "helping" out games that are pretty crappy to start with and just sort of buying them out and stuff.
this game COULD be good. this game COULD be great. it's related to soe; it won't be. soe doesn't buy/produce/publish GREAT games. sorry.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
SWG is still making money or else they would shut it down
EQ2 has a strong subscriber base
It's a no brainer here, if SOE wasnt making money and if the sum of all their games was in the red, they would shut down servers! Frankly some of you haters dont really have much of a logic sense in you. They would probably shut down servers that arent generating money first and then try to consolidate servers as well. Which they have done and will do as their sub base shrink.
You guys need a good shake of your head.
Also this game is gona be frikkin free! Why are you even bitching again? I guess you probably figure that SOE has to pay you to have the honor to have you play their game?
If you dont like it, if it doesnt appeal to you just dont play! How's that for an idea?
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
I dont like that at all.
First, F2P means TONS of freeloaders, kids and ppl I dont want around, see Guild Wars. Never seen more immature Pron/Trash talking ppl than there.
Second, it means usually low quality and every really interesting stuff is bound to extra coin, which drives the REAL cost usually much higher than a constant subscription rate.
I am outta there too, Smed.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
And that's how it makes money.
Everyone joins 'cause it's free. Then the players who like the game - but dislike the F2P crowd and the 'trash talk' complain.
Answer: If you don't like it pay for *premium* access and get your own *special area* and *special forums*.
So, they pay.
But they can come out of their area to pwn the kiddies - which (despite their self proclaimed maturity) they do.
So, the kiddies cry to mommy. "Mommy! I wan teh *Elite Bullet Proof Vest*! I want teh *James Bombed Tuxedo*! Please mommy! It's only $5... Please please please please please....
Then they get that and the "To Russia with Love" mission is another small fee ($0.50) but the reward is teh Laser Beam Watch! "MOMMY!!!!!"
And Mommy does not realise this is all adding up... or does not care because it keeps them quiet and stops them fighting with each other...
"MOMMY! I just got pwned" sob sob "and I can't beat him back without the *SLR Delux Sniper rifle and Heat Scope!*" sob sob... "Mommy...pleeeaaaaaaaase?"
That and people with no life and tons of money who are happy to PAY for the top gear to see their name on the top of the "Agency Double Oh Agents" list.
And the people who paid to get away from the trash talkers find they are followed to the *Special Places* by them... they complain
Answer: They paid their money just like you...
The only positive is that this sort of game really caters to gankers and griefers... but it makes them PAY for the privilage.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
Agreed!! SOE has done it again - out of touch with the players as usual and out of touch with reality most of the time.
I am sure that if you added up all the micro transaction items, you know the stuff you would normally get for your normal monthly subscription, it will add up to be MORE than what a monthly sub would of cost.
They are money grabbing fools, who stick it to gamers any chance they get.
They have calculated that if a gamer wants to experience the whole game it wil cost them more than what they would normally pay for a monthly subsctiption. T
THAT is their only motivation, more profit and that is why they are doing this - because it will bring them more money and cost us more money than a monthly sub. You don't think they would even consider this model if it didn't mean MORE money for them.
I for one will not touch this game now, we need to make a stand now or be crapped on forever by these companies.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
I think people are looking at this the wrong way. The Agency is going to be a persistent First Person Shooter and therefore its competition, although persistent, will really be with other shooters. Is anyone here paying a subscription for TF2, CoD, BF**42, etc? The sanswer is no.
If SOE really wants to pick up that shooter crowd, then by default, they can't be charging a subscription for a type of game everyone else is playing for free after the initial software purchase. They can make money with the velvet rope though, which is the objective of any business. If you don't like microtransactions and don't want to play because of it, that's all well and good but spouting off rhetoric about being out of touch with the consumer base is a bit silly. Clearly you aren't the primary demographic -- it's the shooter crowd they're looking to rope in with microtransactions.
I would rather pay a monthly fee. But if the game is any good, I might give it a go.
I think the folks who get addicted to these games will be the hardest hit, and the potential for spending more than 15 bucks a month is high. On the other hand, if you are playing casually, it might actually work out to be cheaper.
The problem I have with the microtransaction model is it basically allows the company to print their own money. For instance, suppose you need a certain weapon to advance, so you buy it. All they have to do is make monsters tougher, then you need to get the new gun they are selling. And with SOE's record of continual nerfs, I can see how people wil be demanding their money back when in one fell swoop SOE makes there newly purchased weapon obsolete.
Smed is the devil of gaming. He is the worst influence in this industry. I'm sure he has lots of money, so I wish he would just retire.