Free to play is the future. Korea is 5 years ahead of us. They always have been. The rise of the free to play game killed the subscription model over there.. just as it is over here. Turbine just announced one of their subscription games is turning F2P.
If cash shop games, they are not free to play especially over there, are the future then the future is a bleak wasteland devoid of intellegent life. You really don't understand the Western market. It's an entirely different gaming culture.
I do understand the Western market... and no, the mmo industry is still nowhere near Korea is in number of players, percentage of the population playing, and percentage of players that purchase items (in free to play games.)
The problem is this: the Koreans are bringing over their most up to date games to a market that is not as mature as the one that made that individual game a success. How is it an entirely different gaming culture? Sure, there have been failures here... but there have been others (MapleStory) that have toppled every single game in America except WoW.
Korea used to be completely dominated by subscription games until enough quality free to play games forced P2P developers into F2P as well. I think we will see the major shift when Aion is released to less than amazing subscription rates. (by Aion hype standards at least)
Again, who wants to have to 'grind' like that? Obviously there are 'grinds' of some type in nearly every game... I get that. I would need to grind in most of these games anyway, then to have a secondary grind for currency just to exchange for RMT currency just to exchange for the items.... bah.
I never said it is an exiting way to get gold - all I said it is still there. You stated "it is impossible to play without spending real money" and I just reminded you that it is not. Just a usual trade - if you are tide on money you can spend your time. Sounds like fair trade to me.
Btw, do you know ANY game where you do not have to grind for cash? (Ok, there is CoH, but it is not about economy anyway, hence not counted) F2P just give you an option to legally replace grind with buying gold.
I would have to disagree and say that it is not a fair trade off. As was explained, its either time or money, yet time is central factor. If I can spend money and get what I want in 5 minutes what it takes someone a day to grind, that means I will always be ahead of the person who has to get everything via time. At the end of the day its about who gets what first, be it information or items or levels. Purchasing any of these with cash versus traditional grinding methods will leave the grinder in the dust every time. Just having both options does not mean its an equal trade off. For those who like to compete this is unacceptable. For those who don't care thats another story. Either way, its far from a fair trade off.
Their most up to date games are unmarketable in the West. Seriously they are contentless sub par grinders. They don't translate well culturally to the Western market that will not accept accept them or their business model. Westerners do not go to cyber cafes and play on game time cards for hours on end doing the same repetative tasks. We don't share the same cultural experiences, mores and mythology. The technology of their best games is five years behind Western MMOs.
I'm speaking in terms of "up to date" monetization features and not graphics. I think that graphics actually play a small role in making an mmo successful.
I'm speaking in terms of "up to date" monetization features and not graphics. I think that graphics actually play a small role in making an mmo successful.
Who are you fooling? Graphics are giant in terms of initial success of an mmo game. I would be bold as to say its the number one factor (after IP/brand recognition). This has been proven time and time again. As for long time success less so but ultimately if the graphics are crap then the game will never be more than niche (assuming its any good).
Who are you fooling? Graphics are giant in terms of initial success of an mmo game. I would be bold as to say its the number one factor (after IP/brand recognition). This has been proven time and time again. As for long time success less so but ultimately if the graphics are crap then the game will never be more than niche (assuming its any good). I wish it werent so but it is.
No. Marketing dollars spent on a pre-launch campaign are giant in terms of initial success of an mmo game. I think the trend right now is where the big name companies (EA, Turbine, FunCom) are focusing all their advertising dollars on the graphic intensive games simply because they look better in a trailer. If that is what you mean by "initial success," then yes, I may have to give you that one.
However, I think in terms of success, several games have stood out without being cutting edge. MapleStory is the obvious choice, as well as many other F2P games and a few other subscription games like EVE. (yes, EVE is a success)
I think the trend right now is where the big name companies (EA, Turbine, FunCom) are focusing all their advertising dollars on the graphic intensive games simply because they look better in a trailer
However, I think in terms of success, several games have stood out without being cutting edge. MapleStory is the obvious choice, as well as many other F2P games and a few other subscription games like EVE. (yes, EVE is a success)
To borrow your intro, “No”. Companies don’t make games for multiple markets and then decide “Hey, our games with stunning graphics look best with trailers so let’s focus all our ad dollars there!”. There is no “trend” to focus ad-money on graphic intensive games “…simply because they look better in a trailer…”. That’s silly.
In fact, they have always been advertised with trailers. Contemporary video games, for a the most part, are a visual medium. Sure graphic intensive games look good in a trailer, but these games get all the ad money AND development money because they have the highest potential for large returns, because they are the most popular, because they are the most successful.
Keep in mind companies can make a pretty trailer for any game. If you look at the SWTOR trailer posted somewhere on here, you can see that many trailers for graphic intensive games don’t even have in-game footage. In other words, you can make an amazing trailer for chess if you wanted too.
Next, Maplestory? You can’t site F2P mmo's as a comparison for ”success despite graphics” over P2P mmo's. F2P games as a brand are known for lower quality graphics. Players of F2P games expect lesser graphics there by eliminating that factor effecting sales.
As for EVE, it was based on graphic superiority, that’s how it was marketed when it first came out, and it worked. It crushed all related games at the time, and they knew it (Mankind, Jumpgate, Space above and Beyond, to name a few) so you are actually supporting my point with that one. Over time Eve became known for its gameplay but even now the latest add-on was based around graphic intense campaign.
Now, if you were to say that in the realm of F2P games graphics don’t matter much in terms of success I would say that you could make a valid argument, but I would argue that it does make a difference since better graphics than the next guy would be a bonus in a market filled with below average graphics. This is actually closer to the parent post ;p
I kinda lost track of what you two are arguing about, a little of everything I guess 8)
My question remains unanswered.
Before you can say that the ftp model will "take over" or "not stand a chance" You kinda need to know if it is possible to apply a ftp model on all sorts of mmo's. I suspect that it's not, but my knowledge is limited and my analysis is poor.
If anyone could shed some light on this crucial aspect, it would be easier to make assumptions.
I would have to disagree and say that it is not a fair trade off. As was explained, its either time or money, yet time is central factor. If I can spend money and get what I want in 5 minutes what it takes someone a day to grind, that means I will always be ahead of the person who has to get everything via time. At the end of the day its about who gets what first, be it information or items or levels. Purchasing any of these with cash versus traditional grinding methods will leave the grinder in the dust every time. Just having both options does not mean its an equal trade off. For those who like to compete this is unacceptable. For those who don't care thats another story. Either way, its far from a fair trade off.
So, if some schoolboy has unlimited time and a working man can play only 2 hours a week (hence, has to grind for months without any chance to become equal with the boy) - it is still fair. However if that working man buys stuff which schoolboy simply grinded - it is not fair at all? Interesting. You refuse to see obvious and I think just because at that moment in your life you have more time on your hands then money. Let's discuss it again, when situation will be different and you would not be able to compete with all those kids because of your game-time limitation.
Is articles are decent... but when I read them, I get the feeling he is lightyears behind... it's as if he as wooken from a deep slumber --
Most if not all the stuff he writes about... people know already, it's nothing new.
He talks as if FTP MMOs are a new discovered jem -- and he has found it. FTP are not new... he should right with the times... his articles seem out of date.
i agree with u pal... the artics posted by him are all vague and nt clear... moreover.. he posts obvious facts and nothing new which is of interese and he posts news of the past!
Comments
If cash shop games, they are not free to play especially over there, are the future then the future is a bleak wasteland devoid of intellegent life. You really don't understand the Western market. It's an entirely different gaming culture.
I do understand the Western market... and no, the mmo industry is still nowhere near Korea is in number of players, percentage of the population playing, and percentage of players that purchase items (in free to play games.)
The problem is this: the Koreans are bringing over their most up to date games to a market that is not as mature as the one that made that individual game a success. How is it an entirely different gaming culture? Sure, there have been failures here... but there have been others (MapleStory) that have toppled every single game in America except WoW.
Korea used to be completely dominated by subscription games until enough quality free to play games forced P2P developers into F2P as well. I think we will see the major shift when Aion is released to less than amazing subscription rates. (by Aion hype standards at least)
I never said it is an exiting way to get gold - all I said it is still there. You stated "it is impossible to play without spending real money" and I just reminded you that it is not. Just a usual trade - if you are tide on money you can spend your time. Sounds like fair trade to me.
Btw, do you know ANY game where you do not have to grind for cash? (Ok, there is CoH, but it is not about economy anyway, hence not counted) F2P just give you an option to legally replace grind with buying gold.
I would have to disagree and say that it is not a fair trade off. As was explained, its either time or money, yet time is central factor. If I can spend money and get what I want in 5 minutes what it takes someone a day to grind, that means I will always be ahead of the person who has to get everything via time. At the end of the day its about who gets what first, be it information or items or levels. Purchasing any of these with cash versus traditional grinding methods will leave the grinder in the dust every time. Just having both options does not mean its an equal trade off. For those who like to compete this is unacceptable. For those who don't care thats another story. Either way, its far from a fair trade off.
www.TXcomics.com "Your daily webcomics broadcast"
I'm speaking in terms of "up to date" monetization features and not graphics. I think that graphics actually play a small role in making an mmo successful.
I'm speaking in terms of "up to date" monetization features and not graphics. I think that graphics actually play a small role in making an mmo successful.
Who are you fooling? Graphics are giant in terms of initial success of an mmo game. I would be bold as to say its the number one factor (after IP/brand recognition). This has been proven time and time again. As for long time success less so but ultimately if the graphics are crap then the game will never be more than niche (assuming its any good).
I wish it werent so but it is.
www.TXcomics.com "Your daily webcomics broadcast"
No. Marketing dollars spent on a pre-launch campaign are giant in terms of initial success of an mmo game. I think the trend right now is where the big name companies (EA, Turbine, FunCom) are focusing all their advertising dollars on the graphic intensive games simply because they look better in a trailer. If that is what you mean by "initial success," then yes, I may have to give you that one.
However, I think in terms of success, several games have stood out without being cutting edge. MapleStory is the obvious choice, as well as many other F2P games and a few other subscription games like EVE. (yes, EVE is a success)
No. Marketing dollars spent...
I think the trend right now is where the big name companies (EA, Turbine, FunCom) are focusing all their advertising dollars on the graphic intensive games simply because they look better in a trailer
However, I think in terms of success, several games have stood out without being cutting edge. MapleStory is the obvious choice, as well as many other F2P games and a few other subscription games like EVE. (yes, EVE is a success)
To borrow your intro, “No”. Companies don’t make games for multiple markets and then decide “Hey, our games with stunning graphics look best with trailers so let’s focus all our ad dollars there!”. There is no “trend” to focus ad-money on graphic intensive games “…simply because they look better in a trailer…”. That’s silly.
In fact, they have always been advertised with trailers. Contemporary video games, for a the most part, are a visual medium. Sure graphic intensive games look good in a trailer, but these games get all the ad money AND development money because they have the highest potential for large returns, because they are the most popular, because they are the most successful.
Keep in mind companies can make a pretty trailer for any game. If you look at the SWTOR trailer posted somewhere on here, you can see that many trailers for graphic intensive games don’t even have in-game footage. In other words, you can make an amazing trailer for chess if you wanted too.
Next, Maplestory? You can’t site F2P mmo's as a comparison for ”success despite graphics” over P2P mmo's. F2P games as a brand are known for lower quality graphics. Players of F2P games expect lesser graphics there by eliminating that factor effecting sales.
As for EVE, it was based on graphic superiority, that’s how it was marketed when it first came out, and it worked. It crushed all related games at the time, and they knew it (Mankind, Jumpgate, Space above and Beyond, to name a few) so you are actually supporting my point with that one. Over time Eve became known for its gameplay but even now the latest add-on was based around graphic intense campaign.
Now, if you were to say that in the realm of F2P games graphics don’t matter much in terms of success I would say that you could make a valid argument, but I would argue that it does make a difference since better graphics than the next guy would be a bonus in a market filled with below average graphics. This is actually closer to the parent post ;p
www.TXcomics.com "Your daily webcomics broadcast"
I kinda lost track of what you two are arguing about, a little of everything I guess 8)
My question remains unanswered.
Before you can say that the ftp model will "take over" or "not stand a chance" You kinda need to know if it is possible to apply a ftp model on all sorts of mmo's. I suspect that it's not, but my knowledge is limited and my analysis is poor.
If anyone could shed some light on this crucial aspect, it would be easier to make assumptions.
So, if some schoolboy has unlimited time and a working man can play only 2 hours a week (hence, has to grind for months without any chance to become equal with the boy) - it is still fair. However if that working man buys stuff which schoolboy simply grinded - it is not fair at all? Interesting. You refuse to see obvious and I think just because at that moment in your life you have more time on your hands then money. Let's discuss it again, when situation will be different and you would not be able to compete with all those kids because of your game-time limitation.
i agree with u pal... the artics posted by him are all vague and nt clear... moreover.. he posts obvious facts and nothing new which is of interese and he posts news of the past!