Agt, that's not how microtransaction and F2P systems work. A small percentage spends money on microtransactions. F2P and community focus bring in the numbers so that small percentage makes the system viable.
It is a completely different approach to pricing for the game and a big shift in how the game itself is managed. Free to play works out well both for the free players and the paying players as both are needed for the system to work. To explain that, I'l cnp a post I had written on another forum.
So you think the DEVs (again, designers and companies) are immune to the desire and even necessity of increasing revenue by increasing the need/want for cash shop use? That is pretty naive.
A smart person doesn't try to squeeze blood from a stone - they find ways to use the stone to their advantage. I'm not going to get into the whole 'evil corpco is evil' thing with you. If you want an explanation of how the system works, there it is.
From your post history, it's obvious you're a very cautious person who likes to have safeguards to prevent abuse. That's understandable. I think, however, that in this scenario you're missing the point that abuse would actually cost a developer players, subscribers and revenue.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
It isn't evil or good, I don't think that way when it comes to companies. Farmville is not evil though it is a game with a model I find revolting and would never go near it - but I do not think of Zynga as evil. However, that said, when I see MMOs moving in that direction I find it alarming for reasons of taste and preference and because I think that at a very core level a cash shop game has to sell game advantages and to me that cheapens the playing for the buying and makes for a worse game.
By example, if I was a DEV and I saw what WoW did with that Sparkle Pony I would be deisnging some cool new mount to sell to all the idiots playing my game willing to fork over $25 for one because I am doing waht I do to make money. Nothing wrong with that. Of course the challenge in business is to find the line between where doing this makes you money and where it costs you money in other ways, say losing customers but I am speaking here in simple terms. But as a player it is a different thing to consider what happens as we set forth down that road and what happens to the game genre as that becomes more and more pervasive.
Originally posted by Loktofeit
I think, however, that in this scenario you're missing the point that abuse would actually cost a developer players, subscribers and revenue.
I don't think a broad look adn teh F2P genre justifies this at all, in fact it outright contradicts it. If not for the strong distaste of many people like myself then I have little doubt that all MMOs would be like Farmville more than what we have now. What holds that at bay is the absolute revold and avoidance many players have for F2P. What concenrs me about the DDO/LotRO hybrid model is that it is a case of the camels nose under the tent. Sure, now it is not so bad but as I have said over time it ends up in the same place.
Agt, that's not how microtransaction and F2P systems work. A small percentage spends money on microtransactions. F2P and community focus bring in the numbers so that small percentage makes the system viable.
It is a completely different approach to pricing for the game and a big shift in how the game itself is managed. Free to play works out well both for the free players and the paying players as both are needed for the system to work. To explain that, I'l cnp a post I had written on another forum.
I think it's more then just a shift in pricing and management for a game. I think it ends up being a major change if game itself. Converting over to F2P only helps existing players (IMO) if the community makes sure that their needs are being addressed too in the form of continued expansion of the current game beyond cash shop and payment plan management. I think F2P games are here to stay and I don't have any concerns about the converting over to this type of system as long as the game continues with legitimate long term development.
What I hope not to see is majority acceptance of F2P where you just end up with a revolving cart of MMO games being developed for short term visitors.
I see that there are 1 slot avaliable for a normal user, and 3 for a premium, then 5 for a VIP.
But I once bought this game, and played it, I created a few characters, around 4-5 - what happens to them now then? Will everyone have to start over because of this change? Or will chars below`a certain level be deleted?
There are man threads on this all arguing the same points but I wanted to point out more specifically, with Turbine's own resources that explain things, how this is a bad thing or at least just a disguised way of getting more from the core players.
First, in theory F2P games are necessarily about making people want/need to spend in the cash shop - this is fact. P2P games, on the other hand, are about creating a overall game expereince that is attractive enough to warrant a play buying a subscription. The difference may sound small but it is vast as with the F2P model, whether a bad one like Allods Online or a more gentle one like DDO, the DEVs are ONLY making money when you cannot get something you want or need through normal play - this means they have a distinct incentive to subtly or obviously make important/necessary/advantageous items only available through to cash shop or at least make them more and more difficult and time consuming to get through normal play.
That said, look at Turbine's own chart detailing the new ways to play or pay LotRO. Notice the clear annoucnement of premium class (something already in DDO, i.e. Favored Soul) that will require spending money for even for lifetimers and subscribers/VIPs. Also note a few other things like quest packs where they specify Eirador for VIPs making it obvious that anything not in Eriador would have to be bought - why include that without plans to add non-Eriador areas. Also take note of crafting - it says T1-T5 included- so it won't be long before there are better tiers you must buy, even as a VIP/lifer. Wardrobe is limited to 20 slots - cannot recall if that is current limit but clearly they are again leaving room to add more and make even VIPs and lifers pay for it and the same goes for skirmishes.
Plain and simple the idea of F2P is a myth in terms of you playing the same for free, everyone knows this. But more than that the idea that you can pay a sub and get the same things you got before (i.e. everything) is BS. They will do exactly what they did with DDO and carve out a very few things from subs that will require cash shop purchases and their little list makes that very clear even at this early stage.
The game is not going F2P, it's having a very extended free trial. Meaning that while a F2P option is available, it's so limited that players will be strongly encouraged to pay. Just look at the huge differences between F2P and VIP benefits. If all Turbine wanted to do was make money, why would they give out free shop points to subscribers every month? Perhaps because they want to make sure that subscribers still feel valuable and don't feel like they must pay extra to access all the game's features, including the shop?
Perhaps Turbine is trying to do things differently!?!? The shock is amazing when your assumptions and experiences with F2P thus far are thrown out the window, I understand.
Premium class - if you bothered to read - is just the Warden and the Runekeeper. Thus, if you already bought Mines of Moria (and throw in Mirkwood, since you can get both for a lower combined price) and you subscribe, you have full access to the game just like you do now. Everything else in your third paragraph deals with expansions, too. Now will Turbine make subscribers pay for their next expansion if it offers another Tier of crafting, non-Eriador areas, and another class? Probably. Just like almost every other P2P MMO out there. Big surprise.
Last paragraph - if it ends up happening the way you describe it, I'll admit I'm wrong. But I don't think Turbine is going to do that when the community is so vocal about this. Everything they've proposed so far says "We understand subscribers don't want to be affected by this change, so we're not going to mess with what they get. They'll get what they've always gotten."
I see that there are 1 slot avaliable for a normal user, and 3 for a premium, then 5 for a VIP.
But I once bought this game, and played it, I created a few characters, around 4-5 - what happens to them now then? Will everyone have to start over because of this change? Or will chars below`a certain level be deleted?
From how I understand it, if you start over again as a free player all your old characters will be there but you will have access to only one until you upgrade your slots or grab a vip sub. So you won't lose your existing characters just not be able to use them until you purchase the right.
Last paragraph - if it ends up happening the way you describe it, I'll admit I'm wrong. But I don't think Turbine is going to do that when the community is so vocal about this. Everything they've proposed so far says "We understand subscribers don't want to be affected by this change, so we're not going to mess with what they get. They'll get what they've always gotten."
I'm in the community and I think they are a bit too passive about the changes. The community has been pretty vocal about certain gameplay issues and very little of those concerns are ever addressed as game updates. I don't think the input provided (mine included) is ever a part of Turbine's game adjustments.
The part about they (we) will get what they've always gotten is true. I don't have any concerns about what is already currently in the game. However the new paid content will probably exceed the free point allotments given to lifetimes and VIP subscribers and I'm sure it's part of the business plan to extract future real money payments for new game features. I don't even mind paying extra money and supporting them for future game enhancements. My concern's (Tubine in specific) is that focus of the game will shift from serious game development and secondary concerns that WB won't support extensive development of the game. The profits generated from Lotro no longer belong to Turbine to be re-invested back into their games but may well be shifted out of the company. There is no guarantee that a revenue increase will go back into the products that earned it.
I am happy for casual players who dropped out of Lotro and don't want to (or can't) subscribe to the game now have a chance to visit. This is good news for them.
I see that there are 1 slot avaliable for a normal user, and 3 for a premium, then 5 for a VIP.
But I once bought this game, and played it, I created a few characters, around 4-5 - what happens to them now then? Will everyone have to start over because of this change? Or will chars below`a certain level be deleted?
From how I understand it, if you start over again as a free player all your old characters will be there but you will have access to only one until you upgrade your slots or grab a vip sub. So you won't lose your existing characters just not be able to use them until you purchase the right.
Correct, the first time you log in once the F2p game starts, it will show you the list of your characters and basically say 'pick 1 or 3 or 5 that you wish to play. Once you've picked those other characters will be grey'd out on your list and you won't be able to access them (unless you buy additional character slots just like in other P2p/F2p games.
A bummer for alt-aholics,although it only applies to each server, so a total F2p player could actually have 8?* characters, one on each server (*how many ever servers there are or will be)
And no, the interview specifically said no characters would be deleted from your old account, just make sure you use the same login / password when you start back up. Since you bought the game (and I assume to did a sub past the inital 30 day free play you got with the box, you'd be considered a premium player, not a free to play player.
I've been thinking about this. Nimrodel is my main server. I have 9 characters there, but I also have 7 on Vilya and 7 on Gladden. The last two were my get away and "toon experiment" servers. I have a 65 LM, 65 Hunt, 61 Minst, and 3x Champ, Capt, and RK on Nimrodel (the rest are in their 20s) on Nimrodel. I should have 7 slots open as a premium player (3 basic plus the 2 I got from Moria and 2 more from the AdPack) or maybe 5 at a minimum if they screw me out of my purchased Moria slots. I'm thinking I could still play everything wihtout having to buy slot unlocks if I spread it across 2 servers.
Since I'm a severe altaholic I guess I could still make this work. Nimrodel is kind of a ghetto server anyway.
If you have the maximum number of slots available now (9 if you have all of the expansions and the adventurer's pack), you will have the same number of slots available per server as long as you are either a lifetime subscriber or monthly subscriber. As I understand it, even if you quit paying a monthly sub now, and then come back and start paying a monthly sub after the change, you will still have access to all of the expansions and the addtional character slots as well.
"Oh my, how horrible, someone is criticizing a MMO. Oh yeah, that is what a forum is about, looking at both sides. You rather have to be critical of anything in this genre as of late because the track record of these major studios has just been appalling." -Ozmodan
So sad never really liked lotro but ehh now i know its doomed.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
Charslots: Free players get 1. Unless they have either MoM or Adventure pack. If you have both you get 5 slots as a free player. OK hands up, how many people actively play LOTRO but do not have or intend to get either?
Premium classes: Warden and Runekeeper. What this change does is make the SoA content F2P(sans quests), Warden and RK are not SoA content. You need to buy MoM for them, same as before.
Turbine Points: Will be possible to aquire ingame.
Quests: Level 1-~23 are free, the entire Volume 1 Epic questline is F2P, which goes from level 1-50. MoM and Mirkwood will have to be bought just like before.
Skirmishes: Even free and premium players will be able to play skirmishes, cap of 4 per day true, but i hardly play more currently either.
So leveling without buying questpacks is feasible, at most you need Lone Lands or Northdowns to get you past level 30 without grinding. Then you have about 15-20 skirmish assisted levels till you get into the MoM content which everyone has to buy since without it even VIPs have a levelcap of 50.
@AgtSmith: I enjoy your posts as they are well thought out, but you keep mentioning something i consider a misconception. What i mean is that devs will only focus on things that sell well in the Store, instead of free content(and bugfixes, class balancing etc, all the stuff that belongs in the base game). Those things are needed to attract customers, for example STO lacks content, thus im not playing it, thus there is no incentive for me to buy from the Store. Same with DDO, i dont like the gamemechanics, no manaregen, airbashing etcpp. I do not consider the game fun, so again, storecontent is irrelevant for me since i wont play the game, not even for free.
I think Turbine is expecting to cash in on those people who play only very little. They are the best kind of customers for them because:
1. They dont have much time to play, so they are more ready to pay for "shortcuts".
2. If you dont have much time to play, your likely working, thus you have a steady income --> money available.
3. Dont play much, which means they cause little load on the servers, and are longer happy with content cause they cant compelte it as fast.
4. Are unlikely to be lost to competeting P2P games since 15$ a month "feels" like a ripoff if you can only play once a week for example.
Dont get me wrong, they wont get much from these people, atleast not on average. But the point is those people will also not COST Turbine much, and if there are alot of people only spending 5$ here and there that can still be alot of money if you take it times a million.
So yeah, Turbine will design the Store in a way that it will be tied to playtime. For example lets say a questpack for an area costs 5$, obviously that questpack can hold 2 months for one person, or 2 days for another depending on how and how much you play.
In many ways F2P will be very different in LoTRO than what it is in DDO imho. For example it was confirmed that crafting will remain untouched by the F2P model, which will immensely devalue consumeables like food or potions or items in the store. It was also confirmed that the entire content of MoM and Mirkwood will be F2P for those that bought the expansions(and inaccessible for those that dont).
There are man threads on this all arguing the same points but I wanted to point out more specifically, with Turbine's own resources that explain things, how this is a bad thing or at least just a disguised way of getting more from the core players.
First, in theory F2P games are necessarily about making people want/need to spend in the cash shop - this is fact. P2P games, on the other hand, are about creating a overall game expereince that is attractive enough to warrant a play buying a subscription. The difference may sound small but it is vast as with the F2P model, whether a bad one like Allods Online or a more gentle one like DDO, the DEVs are ONLY making money when you cannot get something you want or need through normal play - this means they have a distinct incentive to subtly or obviously make important/necessary/advantageous items only available through to cash shop or at least make them more and more difficult and time consuming to get through normal play.
That said, look at Turbine's own chart detailing the new ways to play or pay LotRO. Notice the clear annoucnement of premium class (something already in DDO, i.e. Favored Soul) that will require spending money for even for lifetimers and subscribers/VIPs. Also note a few other things like quest packs where they specify Eirador for VIPs making it obvious that anything not in Eriador would have to be bought - why include that without plans to add non-Eriador areas. Also take note of crafting - it says T1-T5 included- so it won't be long before there are better tiers you must buy, even as a VIP/lifer. Wardrobe is limited to 20 slots - cannot recall if that is current limit but clearly they are again leaving room to add more and make even VIPs and lifers pay for it and the same goes for skirmishes.
Plain and simple the idea of F2P is a myth in terms of you playing the same for free, everyone knows this. But more than that the idea that you can pay a sub and get the same things you got before (i.e. everything) is BS. They will do exactly what they did with DDO and carve out a very few things from subs that will require cash shop purchases and their little list makes that very clear even at this early stage.
I've read your full post. I'm a lifetimer, I got all the expansions, I don't have the idea you are actually playing LOTRO.
Annyway, at this moment I don't care they will have this f2p model. I really don't give a shit. I'm having fun playing the game, like all my kinnies and all the people I meet ingame. And we will continue doing this even after this 'f2p' thing comes out.
But now I want to know, give me some reasons why I should hate Turbine for this move.
Tell me why, because I really don't understand what people are upset with it.
Oh, and of the record. The gaming industry is not a charity work, they are not making art or something, this is big bussiness so YES it is about the money, what did you expect? just face it
------------------------------------------------------------------- waiting for ... nothing..
I've read your full post. I'm a lifetimer, I got all the expansions, I don't have the idea you are actually playing LOTRO.
Annyway, at this moment I don't care they will have this f2p model. I really don't give a shit. I'm having fun playing the game, like all my kinnies and all the people I meet ingame. And we will continue doing this even after this 'f2p' thing comes out.
But now I want to know, give me some reasons why I should hate Turbine for this move.
Tell me why, because I really don't understand what people are upset with it.
Oh, and of the record. The gaming industry is not a charity work, they are not making art or something, this is big bussiness so YES it is about the money, what did you expect? just face it
I never regretted not becoming a lifetimer, because i never was sure if LotRO really was going to stay around. Now i know it will and DO regret not getting lifetime membership ...
The game is not going F2P, it's having a very extended free trial. Meaning that while a F2P option is available, it's so limited that players will be strongly encouraged to pay. Just look at the huge differences between F2P and VIP benefits. If all Turbine wanted to do was make money, why would they give out free shop points to subscribers every month? Perhaps because they want to make sure that subscribers still feel valuable and don't feel like they must pay extra to access all the game's features, including the shop?
That is what I am, mostly, arguing about - this idea that the DDO (and soon to be LotRO) hybrid models are some glorified trial meant to get free players to subscribe. I think that is patently false and looking at DDO it is obvious. More and more DDO becomes a typical F2P game with a bulk purchase option in the sub. This hybrid model is about getting sub players to accept F20, not about turning F2P players in to subscribers.
Originally posted by Comnitus
Perhaps Turbine is trying to do things differently!?!? The shock is amazing when your assumptions and experiences with F2P thus far are thrown out the window, I understand.
I went a looked at DDO after the change, just to see for myself how it played out. Yes, I admit it is not the cash shop whorefest that many, een most, F2P games are but it is very much in line with what they all do - selling in game advantages and conveniences for real money and over time the design of the game (already happening in DDO) shifts to facilitate such purchases more and more (i.e. longer and longer grinds to earn things in game, etc).
Originally posted by Comnitus
Premium class - if you bothered to read - is just the Warden and the Runekeeper. Thus, if you already bought Mines of Moria (and throw in Mirkwood, since you can get both for a lower combined price) and you subscribe, you have full access to the game just like you do now. Everything else in your third paragraph deals with expansions, too. Now will Turbine make subscribers pay for their next expansion if it offers another Tier of crafting, non-Eriador areas, and another class? Probably. Just like almost every other P2P MMO out there. Big surprise.
For now that is the case - for tomorrow - expect far, far, far more things to be either an incredible in game grind or purchasable on the cash shop whether you are F2P guy, monthly subscriber, or lifer. It has to happen to support the model.
Originally posted by Comnitus
Last paragraph - if it ends up happening the way you describe it, I'll admit I'm wrong. But I don't think Turbine is going to do that when the community is so vocal about this. Everything they've proposed so far says "We understand subscribers don't want to be affected by this change, so we're not going to mess with what they get. They'll get what they've always gotten."
Really? Turbine is so wise as to what the community will and won't accept that they would never use this as a way to temper people for a more full on or classic F2P shift? OK, I guess - I mean Turbine was wise enough to not get in bed with SuperRewards and violate people's privacy and account integrity - oh wait - no they where not. Look, Turbine is like any company, not evil but motivated by their own interests. They will do what they think they can get away to the end of maximizing profits, and now that they are owned by WB you can bet the farm that whatever small studio lovey dovies might have previously taken precedence over the bottom line will be pushed aside.
Oh, and of the record. The gaming industry is not a charity work, they are not making art or something, this is big bussiness so YES it is about the money, what did you expect? just face it
I don't begrudge this fact, I welcome it. However, in terms of what model produces the best game I feel strongly that a subscription (the all you can eat) model absolutely makes for better games. Once you start selling in game advantages and conveniences there is simply too much incentive to also design things to be more needing of those advantages and more inconvenient requiring more and more cash shop purchases.
Originally posted by Rocketeer
@AgtSmith: I enjoy your posts as they are well thought out, but you keep mentioning something i consider a misconception. What i mean is that devs will only focus on things that sell well in the Store, instead of free content(and bugfixes, class balancing etc, all the stuff that belongs in the base game). Those things are needed to attract customers, for example STO lacks content, thus im not playing it, thus there is no incentive for me to buy from the Store. Same with DDO, i dont like the gamemechanics, no manaregen, airbashing etcpp. I do not consider the game fun, so again, storecontent is irrelevant for me since i wont play the game, not even for free.
Sure, they are going to try to still make a fun game as that is important to attracting anyone at all. But in a subscription model the design goal pretty much ends with 'make a good game people will want to play'. F2P changes that to 'make a good game people will want to play AND design gameplay in such a way that they need and want to spend money in the cash shop', it has too. This later goal makes for big differences in gameplay and, over time, I think makes for worse games than the straight up subscriber model.
Wrong go read up on some of the official forum threads the base game most of us paid for alot of that content will not be given back but forced to rebuy so any alts or new characters you plan to start better be ready to whip out your wallet because your gonna have to pay for alot of the SOA content.
Forums full of other people who didnt read the details of the chart thoroughly? How can this be wrong, this is copied and pasted directly from their own official link & chart:
* Purchasers of the Mines of Moria™ expansion get access to the Mines of Moria region and content, premium classes (Rune-Keeper and Warden), legendary items feature, Tier 6 crafting feature, 2 extra character slots and a level cap of 60. Purchasers of the Siege of Mirkwood™ expansion get access to the Siege of Mirkwood region and content, a level cap of 65 and the Siege of Mirkwood skirmishes.
If thats wrong, then they need to update it.
Which is fine as a purcheasable expansion is the same as a shop item ....... Just another way of unlocking these elements.
I for one see LOTRO as a game going backwards so to be honest no reason they should not try to regenerate interest. Either that or they could call it a day and shut the game down.
________________________________________________________ Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel
@AgtSmith: I enjoy your posts as they are well thought out, but you keep mentioning something i consider a misconception. What i mean is that devs will only focus on things that sell well in the Store, instead of free content(and bugfixes, class balancing etc, all the stuff that belongs in the base game). and there that can still be alot of money if you take it times a million.
So yeah, Turbine will design the Store in a way that it will be tied to playtime. For example lets say a questpack for an area costs 5$, obviously that questpack can hold 2 months for one person, or 2 days for another depending on how and how much you play.
In many ways F2P will be very different in LoTRO than what it is in DDO imho.
Something I'd like to expand on and I've just pulled 3 items that all revolve around this from Agt Smiths post.
I think the way Turbine is going to have to handle quest packs in LotRO will be an area that will be different from how they handle the Adventure packs in DDO.
DDO; being a bunch of self contained units, allows them the flexibility to design and sell either low, mid or high level packs. Of the last three it's been mid (not totally sure on this one), high (sentials) and low (for the up coming one). Now this is a feature that lets marketing research have a heavy call. Lot's of new Pay as you go players - so the 'need' for low level packs is there, pure marketing. Can't help that one, pretty much the same as if a gas station only sold premium gas. Yes they'd get some customers, but that's not were the main market is. Is it a crappy deal for the high level players? Yes.
LotRO - I don't see where they'll really be able to do the same since they're selling zone's. Yea I guess you could toss in a special holiday theme pack for cheap and it would be of interest to all the levels that play, but it's not a zone. I'm thinking that this move is going to drive an expansion of zone's (and they can't go nuts since they're constrained by the LotR lore. This move might actually get them to put in more zones than they originally planned for on their way to Mordor.
As far as how many quests end up in a zone ... well ..... it's really already there since Hobbits have the most quests, then Humans, then Dwarves followed at the rear by Elves.
DDO has a sticky where people have rated the various adventure packs based on number of dungeons vs XP vs Favor vs loot vs getting the most bang for your buck so I see the same happening in LotRO.
I don't so much think the selling of zones, or quests, or even classes is so much the concern - that is largely six of one or half dozen of another. What I think is the bigger issues with F2P verse P2P and the merging of them is the smaller stuff. Selling tomes (stat boosts) on the cash shop, items, crafting bonuses, resurrection, xp boosts, etc, etc, etc.. Let's take something that is seemingly not a big deal like XP potions. Sure, starting out selling a +25% or +50% xp boost potion is no big deal but over time the incentive for DEVs is to lower the XP payout of things and/or to raise the XP requirements of levels to increase the grind/time it takes for things and encourage a cash shop potion. This is a basic, and detrimental, change to gameplay that is inevitable as the game becomes reliant on cash shop sales for revenue. That goes for many of the seemingly minor cash shop items. Once you monetize advancement, achievement, and/or gameplay elements it is unavoidable that design will follow that furthers more cash shop spending and that is the essential danger of the F2P model. It is just a simple fact that is you can play for free and enjoy the game then they make no money, so necessarily the design has to include longer and longer grinds or more and more gating to get you to need to spend in the cash shop to remove annoyances and get enjoyment.
I haven't read this whole thread, but I've gone through a good part of it. The overall theme seems to be that moving to the new payment system is bad for the players because it will cost more overall if you want "everything". My question is, why are MMO's relegated to the "cheap" entertainment. A $15 per month subscription is next to nothing. The amount some people play these games, they should probably be paying at least $50 per month. People have no problem going to a movie and dropping $20 on admission + snacks and get 2 hours of entertainment out of it. Yet when a development company attempts to make more than $15 per month on the entertainment they provide, people complain. Stop being so cheap. Welcome to capitalism. You pay for that which you consider valuable. If you consider entertainment through an MMORPG valuable, pay for it. Turbine is being nice by providing anything at all for free. The fact that you can log in and access the work they spent money on designing without paying anything is charity. Hell, the should get a tax break for it.
I don't so much think the selling of zones, or quests, or even classes is so much the concern - that is largely six of one or half dozen of another. What I think is the bigger issues with F2P verse P2P and the merging of them is the smaller stuff. Selling tomes (stat boosts) on the cash shop, items, crafting bonuses, resurrection, xp boosts, etc, etc, etc.. Let's take something that is seemingly not a big deal like XP potions. Sure, starting out selling a +25% or +50% xp boost potion is no big deal but over time the incentive for DEVs is to lower the XP payout of things and/or to raise the XP requirements of levels to increase the grind/time it takes for things and encourage a cash shop potion. This is a basic, and detrimental, change to gameplay that is inevitable as the game becomes reliant on cash shop sales for revenue. That goes for many of the seemingly minor cash shop items. Once you monetize advancement, achievement, and/or gameplay elements it is unavoidable that design will follow that furthers more cash shop spending and that is the essential danger of the F2P model. It is just a simple fact that is you can play for free and enjoy the game then they make no money, so necessarily the design has to include longer and longer grinds or more and more gating to get you to need to spend in the cash shop to remove annoyances and get enjoyment.
While true; and not having played in awhile to have exact facts, your example of the XP potion would be better if those didn't already exist in the P2p version via rest XP and destiny points. Yes by taking them away from the premium and free players it forces them to buy an item that while not truely free in the P2p version was atleast aval by subing.
I would say this as an example, really should be the wakeup call that 'the customer is in charge, not the company' . If you find that a) you really really have to have that item to play (which I don't see an XP boost as falling into that category) or b) you find you're shelling out more than $15.00 a month on the cash shop, the customer needs to decide if it's more cost effective to either walk away or sub.
Too often people don't think in those terms or get locked into lumping all games together as in 'I had to do it here, so I must have to do it there'. How often do we hear 'I powerleveled to end cap in X seconds and now there's nothing to do'?
While true; and not having played in awhile to have exact facts, your example of the XP potion would be better if those didn't already exist in the P2p version via rest XP and destiny points. Yes by taking them away from the premium and free players it forces them to buy an item that while not truely free in the P2p version was atleast aval by subing.
There is a big, big difference between rest XP or destiny points and XP pots and how they play in P2P verse F2P. For one, in P2P there is no incentive to increase the 'grind' to make rest XP or destiny points a requirement to avoid drawn out progress but in F2P there is such an incentive. That is the whole point.
Originally posted by Nebless
I would say this as an example, really should be the wakeup call that 'the customer is in charge, not the company' . If you find that a) you really really have to have that item to play (which I don't see an XP boost as falling into that category) or b) you find you're shelling out more than $15.00 a month on the cash shop, the customer needs to decide if it's more cost effective to either walk away or sub.
Too often people don't think in those terms or get locked into lumping all games together as in 'I had to do it here, so I must have to do it there'. How often do we hear 'I powerleveled to end cap in X seconds and now there's nothing to do'?
I suppose that is true to an degree. But the larger point about F2P verse P2P in terms of what I am outlining here is that in F2P only a few are actually buying things (or at least a few are responsible for the bulk of sales), so there exists a large disconnect between what makes the bulk of players happy and what pays the bills. In a typical P2P model this is not true as every player (or playstyle) contributes equally to the revenue of the game development company. Sure, some groups, say RPers, may be smaller in scale than power gamers or PvP types or whatever but all groups are individually paying the bills the same way for developers and that makes for, I think, a far more attentive and in touch developer than in F2P where the whole focus is on making money from a few while many pay little.
True in that regard and I generally agree. But ....
but all groups are individually paying the bills the same way for developers and that makes for, I think, a far more attentive and in touch developer than in F2P where the whole focus is on making money from a few while many pay little.
only if the developers are paying attention. I think we've seen too many examples in the past where the developers / bosses treat the paying customer as some kind of trapped market with no say in the matter; PotBS - our way or the highway, we're making a game we want to play, SWG - flying ewoks, zombies etc.... etc....
I will say that atleast with the Pay as you go team at DDO they seem to be directing their efforts at what will sell (to part of the game's population). As for LotRO we can only wait and see what they develope (hopefully it won't be flying hobbits although drunken flying hobbits for a festival just might be interesting :-) after all just what is pipeweed? LOL!!!!!
only if the developers are paying attention. I think we've seen too many examples in the past where the developers / bosses treat the paying customer as some kind of trapped market with no say in the matter; PotBS - our way or the highway, we're making a game we want to play, SWG - flying ewoks, zombies etc.... etc....
I think you are confusing the early days of MMOs - today's MMOs are much like today's movies - big budget, big business and making the game we want to play gives way to making the game to make revenue. Not an entirely evil thing but with budgets soaring in to the $50+ million range (ToR is over $100 million now) there is no building of games to the exclusion of what they believe will sell and there is no lack of continual optimization to increase revenue. Again, not a bad thing but coupled with the find line F2P games necessarily walk with regard to selling achievement and advantage it is a recipe for trouble over time.
Originally posted by Nebless
I will say that atleast with the Pay as you go team at DDO they seem to be directing their efforts at what will sell
Bingo, this is the 'danger'. Say sales/revenue drops off so the decision is made to sneak up XP requirements or lower XP payouts or change loot tables to encourage more cash shop sales, the slippery slope begins. F2P simply introduces a mechanic whereby revenue can come from design changes that make the game more of a pain in the arse (i.e. less loot, more grind, etc, etc) and that is trouble waiting to happen.
I will say that atleast with the Pay as you go team at DDO they seem to be directing their efforts at what will sell
Bingo, this is the 'danger'. Say sales/revenue drops off so the decision is made to sneak up XP requirements or lower XP payouts or change loot tables to encourage more cash shop sales, the slippery slope begins. F2P simply introduces a mechanic whereby revenue can come from design changes that make the game more of a pain in the arse (i.e. less loot, more grind, etc, etc) and that is trouble waiting to happen.
You're still not listening. 80% of the players will not be spending money on your game. If you try to milk that 80% of money, they leave, which in turn causes the paying 20% to leave. Your fears are unfounded as they are based in a lack of understanding of how fremium and free2play games work.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
only if the developers are paying attention. I think we've seen too many examples in the past where the developers / bosses treat the paying customer as some kind of trapped market with no say in the matter; PotBS - our way or the highway, we're making a game we want to play, SWG - flying ewoks, zombies etc.... etc....
I think you are confusing the early days of MMOs - today's MMOs are much like today's movies - big budget, big business and making the game we want to play gives way to making the game to make revenue. Not an entirely evil thing but with budgets soaring in to the $50+ million range (ToR is over $100 million now) there is no building of games to the exclusion of what they believe will sell and there is no lack of continual optimization to increase revenue. Again, not a bad thing but coupled with the find line F2P games necessarily walk with regard to selling achievement and advantage it is a recipe for trouble over time.
Originally posted by Nebless
I will say that atleast with the Pay as you go team at DDO they seem to be directing their efforts at what will sell
Bingo, this is the 'danger'. Say sales/revenue drops off so the decision is made to sneak up XP requirements or lower XP payouts or change loot tables to encourage more cash shop sales, the slippery slope begins. F2P simply introduces a mechanic whereby revenue can come from design changes that make the game more of a pain in the arse (i.e. less loot, more grind, etc, etc) and that is trouble waiting to happen.
If what you said was true why didnt Blizzard increase the costs of ingame mounts to make their storebound one more interesting? Or is it that Blizzard just has more buisness ethics than Turbine? /sarcasm off
I just dont think Turbine will do anything so obvious as to reduce levelspeed, the lack of rested XP for premium and free players already slows the game down enough, and for those that want normal levelspeed there will be(maybe) XP potions. Anything else would require major coding effort, arriving in agamaur at level 23, having grouped for the last 20 RED quests would not encourage people to buy XP potions, it would encourage them to quit.
I mean, lets concede they are not totally braindead here and would go out of their way to antagonize their playerbase ok?
Comments
A smart person doesn't try to squeeze blood from a stone - they find ways to use the stone to their advantage. I'm not going to get into the whole 'evil corpco is evil' thing with you. If you want an explanation of how the system works, there it is.
From your post history, it's obvious you're a very cautious person who likes to have safeguards to prevent abuse. That's understandable. I think, however, that in this scenario you're missing the point that abuse would actually cost a developer players, subscribers and revenue.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
It isn't evil or good, I don't think that way when it comes to companies. Farmville is not evil though it is a game with a model I find revolting and would never go near it - but I do not think of Zynga as evil. However, that said, when I see MMOs moving in that direction I find it alarming for reasons of taste and preference and because I think that at a very core level a cash shop game has to sell game advantages and to me that cheapens the playing for the buying and makes for a worse game.
By example, if I was a DEV and I saw what WoW did with that Sparkle Pony I would be deisnging some cool new mount to sell to all the idiots playing my game willing to fork over $25 for one because I am doing waht I do to make money. Nothing wrong with that. Of course the challenge in business is to find the line between where doing this makes you money and where it costs you money in other ways, say losing customers but I am speaking here in simple terms. But as a player it is a different thing to consider what happens as we set forth down that road and what happens to the game genre as that becomes more and more pervasive.
I don't think a broad look adn teh F2P genre justifies this at all, in fact it outright contradicts it. If not for the strong distaste of many people like myself then I have little doubt that all MMOs would be like Farmville more than what we have now. What holds that at bay is the absolute revold and avoidance many players have for F2P. What concenrs me about the DDO/LotRO hybrid model is that it is a case of the camels nose under the tent. Sure, now it is not so bad but as I have said over time it ends up in the same place.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
I think it's more then just a shift in pricing and management for a game. I think it ends up being a major change if game itself. Converting over to F2P only helps existing players (IMO) if the community makes sure that their needs are being addressed too in the form of continued expansion of the current game beyond cash shop and payment plan management. I think F2P games are here to stay and I don't have any concerns about the converting over to this type of system as long as the game continues with legitimate long term development.
What I hope not to see is majority acceptance of F2P where you just end up with a revolving cart of MMO games being developed for short term visitors.
I see that there are 1 slot avaliable for a normal user, and 3 for a premium, then 5 for a VIP.
But I once bought this game, and played it, I created a few characters, around 4-5 - what happens to them now then? Will everyone have to start over because of this change? Or will chars below`a certain level be deleted?
The game is not going F2P, it's having a very extended free trial. Meaning that while a F2P option is available, it's so limited that players will be strongly encouraged to pay. Just look at the huge differences between F2P and VIP benefits. If all Turbine wanted to do was make money, why would they give out free shop points to subscribers every month? Perhaps because they want to make sure that subscribers still feel valuable and don't feel like they must pay extra to access all the game's features, including the shop?
Perhaps Turbine is trying to do things differently!?!? The shock is amazing when your assumptions and experiences with F2P thus far are thrown out the window, I understand.
Premium class - if you bothered to read - is just the Warden and the Runekeeper. Thus, if you already bought Mines of Moria (and throw in Mirkwood, since you can get both for a lower combined price) and you subscribe, you have full access to the game just like you do now. Everything else in your third paragraph deals with expansions, too. Now will Turbine make subscribers pay for their next expansion if it offers another Tier of crafting, non-Eriador areas, and another class? Probably. Just like almost every other P2P MMO out there. Big surprise.
Last paragraph - if it ends up happening the way you describe it, I'll admit I'm wrong. But I don't think Turbine is going to do that when the community is so vocal about this. Everything they've proposed so far says "We understand subscribers don't want to be affected by this change, so we're not going to mess with what they get. They'll get what they've always gotten."
From how I understand it, if you start over again as a free player all your old characters will be there but you will have access to only one until you upgrade your slots or grab a vip sub. So you won't lose your existing characters just not be able to use them until you purchase the right.
I'm in the community and I think they are a bit too passive about the changes. The community has been pretty vocal about certain gameplay issues and very little of those concerns are ever addressed as game updates. I don't think the input provided (mine included) is ever a part of Turbine's game adjustments.
The part about they (we) will get what they've always gotten is true. I don't have any concerns about what is already currently in the game. However the new paid content will probably exceed the free point allotments given to lifetimes and VIP subscribers and I'm sure it's part of the business plan to extract future real money payments for new game features. I don't even mind paying extra money and supporting them for future game enhancements. My concern's (Tubine in specific) is that focus of the game will shift from serious game development and secondary concerns that WB won't support extensive development of the game. The profits generated from Lotro no longer belong to Turbine to be re-invested back into their games but may well be shifted out of the company. There is no guarantee that a revenue increase will go back into the products that earned it.
I am happy for casual players who dropped out of Lotro and don't want to (or can't) subscribe to the game now have a chance to visit. This is good news for them.
Correct, the first time you log in once the F2p game starts, it will show you the list of your characters and basically say 'pick 1 or 3 or 5 that you wish to play. Once you've picked those other characters will be grey'd out on your list and you won't be able to access them (unless you buy additional character slots just like in other P2p/F2p games.
A bummer for alt-aholics,although it only applies to each server, so a total F2p player could actually have 8?* characters, one on each server (*how many ever servers there are or will be)
And no, the interview specifically said no characters would be deleted from your old account, just make sure you use the same login / password when you start back up. Since you bought the game (and I assume to did a sub past the inital 30 day free play you got with the box, you'd be considered a premium player, not a free to play player.
SWG (pre-cu) - AoC (pre-f2p) - PotBS (pre-boarder) - DDO - LotRO (pre-f2p) - STO (pre-f2p) - GnH (beta tester) - SWTOR - Neverwinter
If you have the maximum number of slots available now (9 if you have all of the expansions and the adventurer's pack), you will have the same number of slots available per server as long as you are either a lifetime subscriber or monthly subscriber. As I understand it, even if you quit paying a monthly sub now, and then come back and start paying a monthly sub after the change, you will still have access to all of the expansions and the addtional character slots as well.
"Oh my, how horrible, someone is criticizing a MMO. Oh yeah, that is what a forum is about, looking at both sides. You rather have to be critical of anything in this genre as of late because the track record of these major studios has just been appalling." -Ozmodan
So sad never really liked lotro but ehh now i know its doomed.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
Lot of misconceptions here.
Charslots: Free players get 1. Unless they have either MoM or Adventure pack. If you have both you get 5 slots as a free player. OK hands up, how many people actively play LOTRO but do not have or intend to get either?
Premium classes: Warden and Runekeeper. What this change does is make the SoA content F2P(sans quests), Warden and RK are not SoA content. You need to buy MoM for them, same as before.
Turbine Points: Will be possible to aquire ingame.
Quests: Level 1-~23 are free, the entire Volume 1 Epic questline is F2P, which goes from level 1-50. MoM and Mirkwood will have to be bought just like before.
Skirmishes: Even free and premium players will be able to play skirmishes, cap of 4 per day true, but i hardly play more currently either.
So leveling without buying questpacks is feasible, at most you need Lone Lands or Northdowns to get you past level 30 without grinding. Then you have about 15-20 skirmish assisted levels till you get into the MoM content which everyone has to buy since without it even VIPs have a levelcap of 50.
@AgtSmith: I enjoy your posts as they are well thought out, but you keep mentioning something i consider a misconception. What i mean is that devs will only focus on things that sell well in the Store, instead of free content(and bugfixes, class balancing etc, all the stuff that belongs in the base game). Those things are needed to attract customers, for example STO lacks content, thus im not playing it, thus there is no incentive for me to buy from the Store. Same with DDO, i dont like the gamemechanics, no manaregen, airbashing etcpp. I do not consider the game fun, so again, storecontent is irrelevant for me since i wont play the game, not even for free.
I think Turbine is expecting to cash in on those people who play only very little. They are the best kind of customers for them because:
1. They dont have much time to play, so they are more ready to pay for "shortcuts".
2. If you dont have much time to play, your likely working, thus you have a steady income --> money available.
3. Dont play much, which means they cause little load on the servers, and are longer happy with content cause they cant compelte it as fast.
4. Are unlikely to be lost to competeting P2P games since 15$ a month "feels" like a ripoff if you can only play once a week for example.
Dont get me wrong, they wont get much from these people, atleast not on average. But the point is those people will also not COST Turbine much, and if there are alot of people only spending 5$ here and there that can still be alot of money if you take it times a million.
So yeah, Turbine will design the Store in a way that it will be tied to playtime. For example lets say a questpack for an area costs 5$, obviously that questpack can hold 2 months for one person, or 2 days for another depending on how and how much you play.
In many ways F2P will be very different in LoTRO than what it is in DDO imho. For example it was confirmed that crafting will remain untouched by the F2P model, which will immensely devalue consumeables like food or potions or items in the store. It was also confirmed that the entire content of MoM and Mirkwood will be F2P for those that bought the expansions(and inaccessible for those that dont).
I've read your full post. I'm a lifetimer, I got all the expansions, I don't have the idea you are actually playing LOTRO.
Annyway, at this moment I don't care they will have this f2p model. I really don't give a shit. I'm having fun playing the game, like all my kinnies and all the people I meet ingame. And we will continue doing this even after this 'f2p' thing comes out.
But now I want to know, give me some reasons why I should hate Turbine for this move.
Tell me why, because I really don't understand what people are upset with it.
Oh, and of the record. The gaming industry is not a charity work, they are not making art or something, this is big bussiness so YES it is about the money, what did you expect? just face it
-------------------------------------------------------------------
waiting for ... nothing..
I never regretted not becoming a lifetimer, because i never was sure if LotRO really was going to stay around. Now i know it will and DO regret not getting lifetime membership ...
That is what I am, mostly, arguing about - this idea that the DDO (and soon to be LotRO) hybrid models are some glorified trial meant to get free players to subscribe. I think that is patently false and looking at DDO it is obvious. More and more DDO becomes a typical F2P game with a bulk purchase option in the sub. This hybrid model is about getting sub players to accept F20, not about turning F2P players in to subscribers.
I went a looked at DDO after the change, just to see for myself how it played out. Yes, I admit it is not the cash shop whorefest that many, een most, F2P games are but it is very much in line with what they all do - selling in game advantages and conveniences for real money and over time the design of the game (already happening in DDO) shifts to facilitate such purchases more and more (i.e. longer and longer grinds to earn things in game, etc).
For now that is the case - for tomorrow - expect far, far, far more things to be either an incredible in game grind or purchasable on the cash shop whether you are F2P guy, monthly subscriber, or lifer. It has to happen to support the model.
Really? Turbine is so wise as to what the community will and won't accept that they would never use this as a way to temper people for a more full on or classic F2P shift? OK, I guess - I mean Turbine was wise enough to not get in bed with SuperRewards and violate people's privacy and account integrity - oh wait - no they where not. Look, Turbine is like any company, not evil but motivated by their own interests. They will do what they think they can get away to the end of maximizing profits, and now that they are owned by WB you can bet the farm that whatever small studio lovey dovies might have previously taken precedence over the bottom line will be pushed aside.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
I don't begrudge this fact, I welcome it. However, in terms of what model produces the best game I feel strongly that a subscription (the all you can eat) model absolutely makes for better games. Once you start selling in game advantages and conveniences there is simply too much incentive to also design things to be more needing of those advantages and more inconvenient requiring more and more cash shop purchases.
Sure, they are going to try to still make a fun game as that is important to attracting anyone at all. But in a subscription model the design goal pretty much ends with 'make a good game people will want to play'. F2P changes that to 'make a good game people will want to play AND design gameplay in such a way that they need and want to spend money in the cash shop', it has too. This later goal makes for big differences in gameplay and, over time, I think makes for worse games than the straight up subscriber model.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
Which is fine as a purcheasable expansion is the same as a shop item ....... Just another way of unlocking these elements.
I for one see LOTRO as a game going backwards so to be honest no reason they should not try to regenerate interest. Either that or they could call it a day and shut the game down.
________________________________________________________
Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel
Something I'd like to expand on and I've just pulled 3 items that all revolve around this from Agt Smiths post.
I think the way Turbine is going to have to handle quest packs in LotRO will be an area that will be different from how they handle the Adventure packs in DDO.
DDO; being a bunch of self contained units, allows them the flexibility to design and sell either low, mid or high level packs. Of the last three it's been mid (not totally sure on this one), high (sentials) and low (for the up coming one). Now this is a feature that lets marketing research have a heavy call. Lot's of new Pay as you go players - so the 'need' for low level packs is there, pure marketing. Can't help that one, pretty much the same as if a gas station only sold premium gas. Yes they'd get some customers, but that's not were the main market is. Is it a crappy deal for the high level players? Yes.
LotRO - I don't see where they'll really be able to do the same since they're selling zone's. Yea I guess you could toss in a special holiday theme pack for cheap and it would be of interest to all the levels that play, but it's not a zone. I'm thinking that this move is going to drive an expansion of zone's (and they can't go nuts since they're constrained by the LotR lore. This move might actually get them to put in more zones than they originally planned for on their way to Mordor.
As far as how many quests end up in a zone ... well ..... it's really already there since Hobbits have the most quests, then Humans, then Dwarves followed at the rear by Elves.
DDO has a sticky where people have rated the various adventure packs based on number of dungeons vs XP vs Favor vs loot vs getting the most bang for your buck so I see the same happening in LotRO.
SWG (pre-cu) - AoC (pre-f2p) - PotBS (pre-boarder) - DDO - LotRO (pre-f2p) - STO (pre-f2p) - GnH (beta tester) - SWTOR - Neverwinter
I don't so much think the selling of zones, or quests, or even classes is so much the concern - that is largely six of one or half dozen of another. What I think is the bigger issues with F2P verse P2P and the merging of them is the smaller stuff. Selling tomes (stat boosts) on the cash shop, items, crafting bonuses, resurrection, xp boosts, etc, etc, etc.. Let's take something that is seemingly not a big deal like XP potions. Sure, starting out selling a +25% or +50% xp boost potion is no big deal but over time the incentive for DEVs is to lower the XP payout of things and/or to raise the XP requirements of levels to increase the grind/time it takes for things and encourage a cash shop potion. This is a basic, and detrimental, change to gameplay that is inevitable as the game becomes reliant on cash shop sales for revenue. That goes for many of the seemingly minor cash shop items. Once you monetize advancement, achievement, and/or gameplay elements it is unavoidable that design will follow that furthers more cash shop spending and that is the essential danger of the F2P model. It is just a simple fact that is you can play for free and enjoy the game then they make no money, so necessarily the design has to include longer and longer grinds or more and more gating to get you to need to spend in the cash shop to remove annoyances and get enjoyment.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
I haven't read this whole thread, but I've gone through a good part of it. The overall theme seems to be that moving to the new payment system is bad for the players because it will cost more overall if you want "everything". My question is, why are MMO's relegated to the "cheap" entertainment. A $15 per month subscription is next to nothing. The amount some people play these games, they should probably be paying at least $50 per month. People have no problem going to a movie and dropping $20 on admission + snacks and get 2 hours of entertainment out of it. Yet when a development company attempts to make more than $15 per month on the entertainment they provide, people complain. Stop being so cheap. Welcome to capitalism. You pay for that which you consider valuable. If you consider entertainment through an MMORPG valuable, pay for it. Turbine is being nice by providing anything at all for free. The fact that you can log in and access the work they spent money on designing without paying anything is charity. Hell, the should get a tax break for it.
While true; and not having played in awhile to have exact facts, your example of the XP potion would be better if those didn't already exist in the P2p version via rest XP and destiny points. Yes by taking them away from the premium and free players it forces them to buy an item that while not truely free in the P2p version was atleast aval by subing.
I would say this as an example, really should be the wakeup call that 'the customer is in charge, not the company' . If you find that a) you really really have to have that item to play (which I don't see an XP boost as falling into that category) or b) you find you're shelling out more than $15.00 a month on the cash shop, the customer needs to decide if it's more cost effective to either walk away or sub.
Too often people don't think in those terms or get locked into lumping all games together as in 'I had to do it here, so I must have to do it there'. How often do we hear 'I powerleveled to end cap in X seconds and now there's nothing to do'?
SWG (pre-cu) - AoC (pre-f2p) - PotBS (pre-boarder) - DDO - LotRO (pre-f2p) - STO (pre-f2p) - GnH (beta tester) - SWTOR - Neverwinter
There is a big, big difference between rest XP or destiny points and XP pots and how they play in P2P verse F2P. For one, in P2P there is no incentive to increase the 'grind' to make rest XP or destiny points a requirement to avoid drawn out progress but in F2P there is such an incentive. That is the whole point.
I suppose that is true to an degree. But the larger point about F2P verse P2P in terms of what I am outlining here is that in F2P only a few are actually buying things (or at least a few are responsible for the bulk of sales), so there exists a large disconnect between what makes the bulk of players happy and what pays the bills. In a typical P2P model this is not true as every player (or playstyle) contributes equally to the revenue of the game development company. Sure, some groups, say RPers, may be smaller in scale than power gamers or PvP types or whatever but all groups are individually paying the bills the same way for developers and that makes for, I think, a far more attentive and in touch developer than in F2P where the whole focus is on making money from a few while many pay little.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
True in that regard and I generally agree. But ....
but all groups are individually paying the bills the same way for developers and that makes for, I think, a far more attentive and in touch developer than in F2P where the whole focus is on making money from a few while many pay little.
only if the developers are paying attention. I think we've seen too many examples in the past where the developers / bosses treat the paying customer as some kind of trapped market with no say in the matter; PotBS - our way or the highway, we're making a game we want to play, SWG - flying ewoks, zombies etc.... etc....
I will say that atleast with the Pay as you go team at DDO they seem to be directing their efforts at what will sell (to part of the game's population). As for LotRO we can only wait and see what they develope (hopefully it won't be flying hobbits
although drunken flying hobbits for a festival just might be interesting :-) after all just what is pipeweed? LOL!!!!!
SWG (pre-cu) - AoC (pre-f2p) - PotBS (pre-boarder) - DDO - LotRO (pre-f2p) - STO (pre-f2p) - GnH (beta tester) - SWTOR - Neverwinter
I think you are confusing the early days of MMOs - today's MMOs are much like today's movies - big budget, big business and making the game we want to play gives way to making the game to make revenue. Not an entirely evil thing but with budgets soaring in to the $50+ million range (ToR is over $100 million now) there is no building of games to the exclusion of what they believe will sell and there is no lack of continual optimization to increase revenue. Again, not a bad thing but coupled with the find line F2P games necessarily walk with regard to selling achievement and advantage it is a recipe for trouble over time.
Bingo, this is the 'danger'. Say sales/revenue drops off so the decision is made to sneak up XP requirements or lower XP payouts or change loot tables to encourage more cash shop sales, the slippery slope begins. F2P simply introduces a mechanic whereby revenue can come from design changes that make the game more of a pain in the arse (i.e. less loot, more grind, etc, etc) and that is trouble waiting to happen.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
You're still not listening. 80% of the players will not be spending money on your game. If you try to milk that 80% of money, they leave, which in turn causes the paying 20% to leave. Your fears are unfounded as they are based in a lack of understanding of how fremium and free2play games work.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
If what you said was true why didnt Blizzard increase the costs of ingame mounts to make their storebound one more interesting? Or is it that Blizzard just has more buisness ethics than Turbine? /sarcasm off
I just dont think Turbine will do anything so obvious as to reduce levelspeed, the lack of rested XP for premium and free players already slows the game down enough, and for those that want normal levelspeed there will be(maybe) XP potions. Anything else would require major coding effort, arriving in agamaur at level 23, having grouped for the last 20 RED quests would not encourage people to buy XP potions, it would encourage them to quit.
I mean, lets concede they are not totally braindead here and would go out of their way to antagonize their playerbase ok?