As I said, horrible business model for consumers. Although cites would not hurt. And no more analogies, please, they're painful to read.
How is giving the consumers more power, choice and flexibility bad for us?
It changes the way games are developed. Instead of devs having to retain you as a customer they only have to create a system or events that force you to buy something from the store. Instead of making content they make situations where you feel compelled to purchase. If he is correct subscriber rates went up 100% yet revenue spiked 500%, no new content was added to LotR:O, yet they managed to double their player base and increase revenue by five times. Five times. No new content, twice the players, five times the revenue. You pay more, hence it's a worse deal.
As I said, horrible business model for consumers. Although cites would not hurt. And no more analogies, please, they're painful to read.
How is giving the consumers more power, choice and flexibility bad for us?
It changes the way games are developed. Instead of devs having to retain you as a customer they only have to create a system or events that force you to buy something from the store. Instead of making content they make situations where you feel compelled to purchase. If he is correct subscriber rates went up 100% yet revenue spiked 500%, no new content was added to LotR:O, yet they managed to double their player base and increase revenue by five times. Five times. No new content, twice the players, five times the revenue. You pay more, hence it's a worse deal.
Your post doesnt make any sense to me... No new content??? +More players is better for players in a MMO
You could say that with a subscription devs just need to add as big time sinks as possible to keep people subscribing but if you are F2P and sell content they need to make higher quality content or people wont buy it.
Look at how much (quality) content DDO have added since going F2P. No P2P MMO come close to that.
If WoW = The Beatles and WAR = Led Zeppelin Then LotrO = Pink Floyd
It changes the way games are developed. Instead of devs having to retain you as a customer they only have to create a system or events that force you to buy something from the store. Instead of making content they make situations where you feel compelled to purchase. If he is correct subscriber rates went up 100% yet revenue spiked 500%, no new content was added to LotR:O, yet they managed to double their player base and increase revenue by five times. Five times. No new content, twice the players, five times the revenue. You pay more, hence it's a worse deal.
No one subbed to the game beforehand is paying more than their sub now. The only thing f2p did was open the game up to some that wouldn't be caught dead playing the game before for whatever reason and those that can't or won't submit to a subscription but are willing to spend a few dollars here and there.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
The one thing I don't understand is why SOE didn't try to go f2p with Vanguard? Do they simply feel it isn't worth the effort? Not applicable in that game?
Seems to me that would have been the perfect game for them to try out a f2p transition with. Guess they felt differently for whatever reason.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
According to Cryptics Twitter STO will go F2p if we support COs conversion.
Cryptic is impressed with Turbines offerings and wants a piece of the pie.
What do you guys think of that? Would you make an a free account for CO just so STO could go f2p also?
I think I would. The more Pay as you go options the better.
I wouldn't because it sounds like the typical "hostage holding" tactics this company often employs, if they don't go f2p they will fold as I doubt STO has the population to support the game with the sub fee as they have it and I will not even waste my time making a free account when the logic conclusion is for STO to already be a f2p hybrid model. So I say to them if they think they can make STO survive in the current environment then good luck but no I won't subject myself to becoming an advertising tool for them simply to get them to do the right thing.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
As I said, horrible business model for consumers. Although cites would not hurt. And no more analogies, please, they're painful to read.
How is giving the consumers more power, choice and flexibility bad for us?
It changes the way games are developed. Instead of devs having to retain you as a customer they only have to create a system or events that force you to buy something from the store. Instead of making content they make situations where you feel compelled to purchase. If he is correct subscriber rates went up 100% yet revenue spiked 500%, no new content was added to LotR:O, yet they managed to double their player base and increase revenue by five times. Five times. No new content, twice the players, five times the revenue. You pay more, hence it's a worse deal.
Your post doesnt make any sense to me... No new content??? +More players is better for players in a MMO
You could say that with a subscription devs just need to add as big time sinks as possible to keep people subscribing but if you are F2P and sell content they need to make higher quality content or people wont buy it.
Look at how much (quality) content DDO have added since going F2P. No P2P MMO come close to that.
It costs more to play than a sub model. They made more money by adding potions and books and charging you more money to play, not by improving their content or actual game and increasing their player base. If it was a sub game a 100 percent increase in the player base would mean a 100 percent increase in revenue. Not 500 percent. Where am I losing you on this? I can backtrack if need be but I feel you've already bought into it's the best deal ever and it's a freedom you'll never experience anywhere else. If you love freedom and liberty you love cash shops! *queue music*
You don't get more options, you get less with the ability to pay for more options. Now instead of choice you have to make choices on what you buy if you want into a certain part of the game. Flexability, if you want to play alts or change mains how much will that cost? Crafting? Sure you can pay a minimal amoutn, for a minimal experience. How large is the market for this even? People believing they have gotten a good deal at the expense of what? The day people start saying P2P games are almost as good as a cash shop game is the day we'll know cash shops are better. As it stands only failed MMOs and sub-par games are cash shop. People say they are almost as good as a AAA title, almost...
The one thing I don't understand is why SOE didn't try to go f2p with Vanguard? Do they simply feel it isn't worth the effort? Not applicable in that game?
Seems to me that would have been the perfect game for them to try out a f2p transition with. Guess they felt differently for whatever reason.
It does take effort to convert a game to cash shop. A system must be set up where you require purchases, but not so many people feel ripped off. Changes to game mechanics as well and as for the code, the game is set up for anyone to do anything, restrictions have to be coded in, exceptions to restrictions and hundreds of items as well. I think SOE isn't interested in spending that much money on it.
As I said, horrible business model for consumers. Although cites would not hurt. And no more analogies, please, they're painful to read.
How is giving the consumers more power, choice and flexibility bad for us?
It changes the way games are developed. Instead of devs having to retain you as a customer they only have to create a system or events that force you to buy something from the store. Instead of making content they make situations where you feel compelled to purchase. If he is correct subscriber rates went up 100% yet revenue spiked 500%, no new content was added to LotR:O, yet they managed to double their player base and increase revenue by five times. Five times. No new content, twice the players, five times the revenue. You pay more, hence it's a worse deal.
Please stop trying to push your opinion onto the consumer base as fact, the bottom line is you personally see no benefit in games with free to play hybrid models but you cannot speak for me. In my opinion (which I have no problem admitting to it being my opinion) I have not had any adverse effects by LOTRO going free to play, I have not spent a single penny more on the game since it went free to play than I did before it went free to play. And unless you can point me to a single post where someone is talking about either losing their shirt in the Turbine store or even being disapointed in having spent money in the shop I don't think you can tell those who contributed to the 500% revenue increase that it is a worse deal for them either.
The problem with your opinion is you tend to look at the fact that the company has learned to make alot more money with little extra content (for the record you are one hundred percent incorrect to say they did not release any new content there was an entire different zone added) and gain some misplaced sense of injustice because of that fact, as if there is a hard and fast rule about how much money a single mmorpg should be allowed to generate.
Show me one person who even claims to have spent more money than they feel they can comfortably afford to (whether it is more than the 15 dollar sub fee or not) and then maybe I can begin to consider your opinion as even having merit but right now this entire train of thought makes no sense at all.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
As I said, horrible business model for consumers. Although cites would not hurt. And no more analogies, please, they're painful to read.
How is giving the consumers more power, choice and flexibility bad for us?
It changes the way games are developed. Instead of devs having to retain you as a customer they only have to create a system or events that force you to buy something from the store. Instead of making content they make situations where you feel compelled to purchase. If he is correct subscriber rates went up 100% yet revenue spiked 500%, no new content was added to LotR:O, yet they managed to double their player base and increase revenue by five times. Five times. No new content, twice the players, five times the revenue. You pay more, hence it's a worse deal.
Your post doesnt make any sense to me... No new content??? +More players is better for players in a MMO
You could say that with a subscription devs just need to add as big time sinks as possible to keep people subscribing but if you are F2P and sell content they need to make higher quality content or people wont buy it.
Look at how much (quality) content DDO have added since going F2P. No P2P MMO come close to that.
It costs more to play than a sub model. They made more money by adding potions and books and charging you more money to play, not by improving their content or actual game and increasing their player base. If it was a sub game a 100 percent increase in the player base would mean a 100 percent increase in revenue. Not 500 percent. Where am I losing you on this? I can backtrack if need be but I feel you've already bought into it's the best deal ever and it's a freedom you'll never experience anywhere else. If you love freedom and liberty you love cash shops! *queue music*
No its not costing more money now, sure you CAN spend more if you want, but that is also true for 99% of P2P MMOs which have cash shops- LotrO/DDO even give you 500tp every month so you can get everything without paying extra, even expansions. I dont know what you get your numbers from, but all Ive read is a 100% increase of revenue for LotrO and 400% increase of active players. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-10-08-free-to-play-lotro-doubles-revenue
This is simillar to the numbers for DDO where the SUBSCRIBERS more than doubled and the revenue increased with 500% and active players with 1000% which makes perfect sense when adding the players who are not subbing.
You don't get more options, you get less with the ability to pay for more options. Now instead of choice you have to make choices on what you buy if you want into a certain part of the game. Flexability, if you want to play alts or change mains how much will that cost? Crafting? Sure you can pay a minimal amoutn, for a minimal experience. How large is the market for this even? People believing they have gotten a good deal at the expense of what? The day people start saying P2P games are almost as good as a cash shop game is the day we'll know cash shops are better. As it stands only failed MMOs and sub-par games are cash shop. People say they are almost as good as a AAA title, almost...
Seems like you are not basing anything you say by your own expereience but just your "idea" that F2P=Bad
I get more people to play with, I get more content and I get so much points I will not even have to pay extra for expansions!
There are several F2P MMOs now which are better than the majority of P2P who have cash shops in them anyway.
If WoW = The Beatles and WAR = Led Zeppelin Then LotrO = Pink Floyd
Well it's wrong to insinuate that creating a free subscription will influence their decision to make STO go free.
They're going to look at the success. Success as in money. As in creating a bunch of free accounts that never generate revenue isn't going to influence it.
That said, I fully expect CO to make substantially more money as a result of this move. It's still not that great of a game, but it'll certainly make more money F2P (nearly all MMORPGs do.)
It sounds like that lifetime sub beta access gambit they pulled for CO/STO.
Well switching to F2P -- unlike lifetime subs -- has a precedence for dramatically increasing a game's revenue. So it's a bit different.
I dunno, as lackluster as CO was it's better than a lot of the straight-to-F2P titles out there. I imagine it'll do alright as F2P.
It won't break any records, but if they don't critical fail their "design an item shop" roll they'll do much better than they were doing before.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
As I said, horrible business model for consumers. Although cites would not hurt. And no more analogies, please, they're painful to read.
How is giving the consumers more power, choice and flexibility bad for us?
It changes the way games are developed. Instead of devs having to retain you as a customer they only have to create a system or events that force you to buy something from the store. Instead of making content they make situations where you feel compelled to purchase. If he is correct subscriber rates went up 100% yet revenue spiked 500%, no new content was added to LotR:O, yet they managed to double their player base and increase revenue by five times. Five times. No new content, twice the players, five times the revenue. You pay more, hence it's a worse deal.
Please stop trying to push your opinion onto the consumer base as fact, the bottom line is you personally see no benefit in games with free to play hybrid models but you cannot speak for me. In my opinion (which I have no problem admitting to it being my opinion) I have not had any adverse effects by LOTRO going free to play, I have not spent a single penny more on the game since it went free to play than I did before it went free to play. And unless you can point me to a single post where someone is talking about either losing their shirt in the Turbine store or even being disapointed in having spent money in the shop I don't think you can tell those who contributed to the 500% revenue increase that it is a worse deal for them either.
The problem with your opinion is you tend to look at the fact that the company has learned to make alot more money with little extra content (for the record you are one hundred percent incorrect to say they did not release any new content there was an entire different zone added) and gain some misplaced sense of injustice because of that fact, as if there is a hard and fast rule about how much money a single mmorpg should be allowed to generate.
Show me one person who even claims to have spent more money than they feel they can comfortably afford to (whether it is more than the 15 dollar sub fee or not) and then maybe I can begin to consider your opinion as even having merit but right now this entire train of thought makes no sense at all.
Of course it makes no sense to you. 2x the player base 5x the revenue is perfect math.
As I said, horrible business model for consumers. Although cites would not hurt. And no more analogies, please, they're painful to read.
How is giving the consumers more power, choice and flexibility bad for us?
It changes the way games are developed. Instead of devs having to retain you as a customer they only have to create a system or events that force you to buy something from the store. Instead of making content they make situations where you feel compelled to purchase. If he is correct subscriber rates went up 100% yet revenue spiked 500%, no new content was added to LotR:O, yet they managed to double their player base and increase revenue by five times. Five times. No new content, twice the players, five times the revenue. You pay more, hence it's a worse deal.
Your post doesnt make any sense to me... No new content??? +More players is better for players in a MMO
You could say that with a subscription devs just need to add as big time sinks as possible to keep people subscribing but if you are F2P and sell content they need to make higher quality content or people wont buy it.
Look at how much (quality) content DDO have added since going F2P. No P2P MMO come close to that.
It costs more to play than a sub model. They made more money by adding potions and books and charging you more money to play, not by improving their content or actual game and increasing their player base. If it was a sub game a 100 percent increase in the player base would mean a 100 percent increase in revenue. Not 500 percent. Where am I losing you on this? I can backtrack if need be but I feel you've already bought into it's the best deal ever and it's a freedom you'll never experience anywhere else. If you love freedom and liberty you love cash shops! *queue music*
No its not costing more money now, sure you CAN spend more if you want, but that is also true for 99% of P2P MMOs which have cash shops- LotrO/DDO even give you 500tp every month so you can get everything without paying extra, even expansions. I dont know what you get your numbers from, but all Ive read is a 100% increase of revenue for LotrO and 400% increase of active players. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-10-08-free-to-play-lotro-doubles-revenue
This is simillar to the numbers for DDO where the SUBSCRIBERS more than doubled and the revenue increased with 500% and active players with 1000% which makes perfect sense when adding the players who are not subbing.
You don't get more options, you get less with the ability to pay for more options. Now instead of choice you have to make choices on what you buy if you want into a certain part of the game. Flexability, if you want to play alts or change mains how much will that cost? Crafting? Sure you can pay a minimal amoutn, for a minimal experience. How large is the market for this even? People believing they have gotten a good deal at the expense of what? The day people start saying P2P games are almost as good as a cash shop game is the day we'll know cash shops are better. As it stands only failed MMOs and sub-par games are cash shop. People say they are almost as good as a AAA title, almost...
Seems like you are not basing anything you say by your own expereience but just your "idea" that F2P=Bad
I get more people to play with, I get more content and I get so much points I will not even have to pay extra for expansions!
There are several F2P MMOs now which are better than the majority of P2P who have cash shops in them anyway.
It's obvious you have your opinion, I'm not trying to sway you personally, they need people like you. I've played pleanty of cash shop games and I've even enjoyed a few, but the fact is if you have the same amount of players spending more money it costs more. Don't give the impression these games are free to play is all I ask. They are not. Consume.
Originally posted by Wickedjelly The one thing I don't understand is why SOE didn't try to go f2p with Vanguard? Do they simply feel it isn't worth the effort? Not applicable in that game? Seems to me that would have been the perfect game for them to try out a f2p transition with. Guess they felt differently for whatever reason.
F2P Vanguard would be great.
Why rather going with EQ2?
1) Vanguard has pretty much non existent development team. 2) Vanguard has no player base you could built upon. 3) Vanguard already has bad reputation.
Some more reasons could be found, all in all EQ2 seems better bet to me.
According to Cryptics Twitter STO will go F2p if we support COs conversion.
Cryptic is impressed with Turbines offerings and wants a piece of the pie.
What do you guys think of that? Would you make an a free account for CO just so STO could go f2p also?
I think I would. The more Pay as you go options the better.
Im sure I will try CO as a F2P, and If STO goes F2P will sure play it too.
Heh I got so caught up in the whole "free to play is bad for you" debate I didn't really address STO much at all, as stated the way the statement read to me is like a "thinly veiled warning" that if we don't help CO succeed at f2p then we will not see STO go free to play and if that's the case that's just too bad for Cryptic and anyone with hopes that STO would go free to play. I have played Champions enough to know that I have absolutely zero interest in what they have to offer but truth be told I would play STO if it wasn't overly restrictive as a free to play game, if they followed Turbines system with a point allowance I may even sub to the game but i won't be bullied to supporting one of there games for the sake of another of there games.
The bottom line is my family doesn't eat off of what they make so I see no compelling reason to "help" them meet their needs anymore than they are concerned about meeting mine as a consumer.
If CO fails at free to play then what are they threatening us to continue to allow STO to languish as well? If they feel they can afford to do that then they should be my guest.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
It's obvious you have your opinion, I'm not trying to sway you personally, they need people like you. I've played pleanty of cash shop games and I've even enjoyed a few, but the fact is if you have the same amount of players spending more money it costs more. Don't give the impression these games are free to play is all I ask. They are not. Consume.
Now that was a nice way to say at you were wrong!
You said that F2P models were worse for the consumers than P2P but you have not been able to come up with one reason why. But this is maybe for another topic...th
If WoW = The Beatles and WAR = Led Zeppelin Then LotrO = Pink Floyd
Papadam, have a read of the post listed in my sig as to why F2P is a bad deal for players.
I remember that thread when it was written and unfortunately the long wall of text was just too much but there are things I can pick apart simply by skimming over the article. I'll take only the first part that I read through as example.
"The second big design consideration is that you only want to provide VALUE to a user of your application if they are willing to PAY for that value (either directly or indirectly). In fact, you want to actively limit the value that your users derive from the application unless you can "monetize them". You want them to see enough value in the base service to give you the opportunity to "monetize" them but if they aren't willing to be sufficiently monetized you want to discourage their use of the application as they are a drag on your revenue. You also want to encourage each user to spend as much as they can tolerate and still be willing to use the application. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but it is a much finer line to walk as a designer. In essence, the discussion shifts from "is this a feature that will provide significant benefit to our users at little cost to us" to "How can we put features in the application that will influence users to engage in behavior that makes us money....and how much can we push them to do this before it exceeds their tolerance threshold?"."
That statement in itself seems pretty defeatist, it's basically like assuming the minute a company finds a way to "monetize" the client they no longer care about anyone who does not/is not spending extra money and that is plain and simply an incorrect statement and an assumption of the op's not factual. Out of the seas of companies out there why should we believe that a game with f2p models cares any more or less about any one individual customer, because the op said so? What exactly other than his viewpoint shows us that SOE (before any f2p model to EQ2X)cared more about it's customers than LOTRO did, most people who have played SWG would disagree with the statement that because a game has a traditional sub fee they automatically somehow care more about there customer than another company does (hell I'm one for example).
As stated I didn't bother reading through the entire post but I remember even from the first time I read it that it is basically as I stated above it is basically the point of view and stance that the op takes not much factual in it at all, while a compelling argument with some points for thought there is nothing absolute in that article at all.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
No MMO really warrents a Sub. It's just an extremely overpriced system that encourages Devs to make things grindier and doesn't deliver your money's worth in any game.
Just different pricing mods.
Most people do not remember when internet got started. We had a few places (was very limited places that had any type of game) that charged by the hour to play text games:P
Up against an hourly (most were several dollars an hour) paying a sub is a very good deal.
Subs (IMO) are the best way to play. Get access to everything as long as you sub, and if you are not very careful, Buy as you play (What free to play games are mostly) can end up costing you much more than the sub price in the end.
That is the reason most games are going this route now. They make more in the end than they do with subs. People are stange, they balk at 15 bucks a month and the box price, but they will spend huge amounts of money over the same time frame, at 2-5 bucks a pop and not get that they are paying out more in the end.
At the end i think STO will go the same route. Switching pricing mods does absolutely nothing to improve the game, nor does it usually get the devs to put more money into developing the game more either. Just makes them more cash.
Servers are ridiculously cheap to run these days. Heck, they weren't that expensive 10 or more years ago. That's why so many games have free multi-player where the company runs the servers for it. MMOs charging a monthly fee of 15 bucks ARE ripping you off. You get very little content for the $180 dollars every year you pay. You certainly don't get anywhere close to 3-4 games worth of content each year (and content is easier to make than a whole new game). For that money, what you do get are grinds designed to stretch out the fun of the game as much as possible. You get screwed.
Most F2P games that are really popular are a lot cheaper to play than 15 bucks a month. They make money based on the fact they get a much larger number of players than if they went with a sub. Now I'm not saying every F2P model is great, but some of them are pretty good. B2P with cosmetic items in a shop like GW2 will be is pretty much the best way to go.
Of course, I don't expect F2P will save STO, as that game is just complete trash.
No MMO really warrents a Sub. It's just an extremely overpriced system that encourages Devs to make things grindier and doesn't deliver your money's worth in any game.
Just different pricing mods.
Most people do not remember when internet got started. We had a few places (was very limited places that had any type of game) that charged by the hour to play text games:P
Up against an hourly (most were several dollars an hour) paying a sub is a very good deal.
Subs (IMO) are the best way to play. Get access to everything as long as you sub, and if you are not very careful, Buy as you play (What free to play games are mostly) can end up costing you much more than the sub price in the end.
That is the reason most games are going this route now. They make more in the end than they do with subs. People are stange, they balk at 15 bucks a month and the box price, but they will spend huge amounts of money over the same time frame, at 2-5 bucks a pop and not get that they are paying out more in the end.
At the end i think STO will go the same route. Switching pricing mods does absolutely nothing to improve the game, nor does it usually get the devs to put more money into developing the game more either. Just makes them more cash.
Servers are ridiculously cheap to run these days. Heck, they weren't that expensive 10 or more years ago. That's why so many games have free multi-player where the company runs the servers for it. MMOs charging a monthly fee of 15 bucks ARE ripping you off. You get very little content for the $180 dollars every year you pay. You certainly don't get anywhere close to 3-4 games worth of content each year (and content is easier to make than a whole new game). For that money, what you do get are grinds designed to stretch out the fun of the game as much as possible. You get screwed.
Most F2P games that are really popular are a lot cheaper to play than 15 bucks a month. They make money based on the fact they get a much larger number of players than if they went with a sub. Now I'm not saying every F2P model is great, but some of them are pretty good. B2P with cosmetic items in a shop like GW2 will be is pretty much the best way to go.
Of course, I don't expect F2P will save STO, as that game is just complete trash.
One of the most reasonable and unemotional posts summing up the truth about free to play verses buy to play, one day down the line when there are less and less games just sticking that generic pay model on us some of those clinging to this system will see this truth as well.
What you point out is exactly why I as an avid gamer was always so reluctant to even try mmorpg's, and I still remember the "lies" perpetuated by in game friends of how I'm paying for the constant changes to the games. Most games don't change much at all throughout the games life and low and behold if they release too much new content they often slap it in a box and make us pay for that too.
The truth is standard sub fee games are not the worst thing to happen to games but it is not as good for the industry as many who tout it's benefits will have you believe. as it stands now it is simply a flat payment model that has restricted the growth that many companies have been claiming these games would have.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
You don't get more options, you get less with the ability to pay for more options. Now instead of choice you have to make choices on what you buy if you want into a certain part of the game. Flexability, if you want to play alts or change mains how much will that cost? Crafting? Sure you can pay a minimal amoutn, for a minimal experience. How large is the market for this even? People believing they have gotten a good deal at the expense of what? The day people start saying P2P games are almost as good as a cash shop game is the day we'll know cash shops are better. As it stands only failed MMOs and sub-par games are cash shop. People say they are almost as good as a AAA title, almost...
As I noted with DDO when it went F2P.
It was a "last ditch" move on Turbine to save DDO from going under, as the game was failing as as P2P MMO. It simply wasn't good enough to warrant a subscription for too many people. It went F2P as an attempt to save it...
Almost overnight, DDO became the Darling of the F2P scene, being hailed as proof that F2P MMOs *can* be as good as AAA P2P MMOs!
The incredible irony was lost only on the die-hard F2P fans.
Same with LoTRO. LoTRO went F2P and, again, you see F2P fans marvelling at how many options it has "for a F2P MMO". Go check out the MMOHut "first look" for LoTRO F2P on YouTube. Omer expresses that very sentiment right in the video.
F2P fans are so desensitized to fewer options, less gameplay and lower overall production quality that even a failure of a P2P MMO (DDO) was a gem to them.
That's not saying much for the F2P MMO scene.
As has been stated, the problem many have (myself included) with the F2P model is that instead of the gameplay being designed to keep the player engaged and playing, it's designed to direct them to the cash shop. It's designed to entice them with nifty items that provide convenience, and to get around obstacles and over road-bumps *deliberately designed into the game* in the first place. The difference in them is crystal clear.
It's like driving down a road you've driven a hundred times, to find one day that there's a wall in the middle of it. The wall was never there before, nor does it serve any purpose. On the side of the road is a sign that says "Detour" with an arrow pointing down a narrow side-road.
In the wall is a massive gate, large enough for traffic to flow through. Next to the gate is a guard. As each driver pulls up, but before they turn off to the detour, the guard approaches their car and says, "You'll have to take the detour here and drive around if you need to get through.... *Unless* you want to buy this handy key I can sell you for only $10! It'll save you the hassle of having to drive out of your way *and* save you time! Convenience!". When the drivers object, the guard says "Oh, now don't get testy.. I'm not *forcing* you to buy this key. You are free to drive around like the others. I'm merely offering you the convenience of not having to!". That's basically what F2P/Cash Shop games are like to me.... at least in that aspect.
I have other issues with them as well, such as how immersion-breaking it is to go up to a NPC that clearly has a quest, only to be told "You must purchase this content. Click Here To Go To Our Shop!" Why even indicate they have a quest if I can't access it? The answer, of course, is because it's one more opportunity to get me to open my wallet.
In a P2P MMO... I pay my monthly fee, and then do as I wish, at my own pace. In a F2P MMO, I'm hit with a constant barrage of "Sale!" and "Buy!" and other various distractions intended only to get me spend "a little more".
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Of course it makes no sense to you. 2x the player base 5x the revenue is perfect math.
O.k. On the LotRO stuff, I was going off of memory on the numbers so I was off on what they were. My statement however was not 2x the player base but 2x the subscribers. That's an important difference. Subscriptions are only one type of the payment system. If they DID increase revenue by 5x that does NOT mean they're making subscribers pay more...it means all those extra free players (over 1 million new accounts) had a large percentage of them that decided to pay for stuff in whatever amounts they desired.
Anyway, the point of my post was to show that an MMO that goes to free-play does not mean it was failing. LotRO is almost 4 years old now and has NEVER had to merge servers. If they HAD a server merge then I'd concede that the game wasn't doing well. However, since all indications pointed to it still going strong then we can only conclude (due to DDO's success going to free-play) that it's simply the right business model to use if you want to introduce the game to a whole new audience (being players who will NOT pay a monthly subscription).
Now, to tie it in with the thread topic, I may actually try CO when it goes free-play, though probably not as I'm not much into Superheroes, but if STO goes the same route I definitely WOULD try it out of curiosity though I'd have no intention of paying anything (I don't like Atari's business practices).
Comments
It changes the way games are developed. Instead of devs having to retain you as a customer they only have to create a system or events that force you to buy something from the store. Instead of making content they make situations where you feel compelled to purchase. If he is correct subscriber rates went up 100% yet revenue spiked 500%, no new content was added to LotR:O, yet they managed to double their player base and increase revenue by five times. Five times. No new content, twice the players, five times the revenue. You pay more, hence it's a worse deal.
Your post doesnt make any sense to me... No new content??? +More players is better for players in a MMO
You could say that with a subscription devs just need to add as big time sinks as possible to keep people subscribing but if you are F2P and sell content they need to make higher quality content or people wont buy it.
Look at how much (quality) content DDO have added since going F2P. No P2P MMO come close to that.
If WoW = The Beatles
and WAR = Led Zeppelin
Then LotrO = Pink Floyd
No one subbed to the game beforehand is paying more than their sub now. The only thing f2p did was open the game up to some that wouldn't be caught dead playing the game before for whatever reason and those that can't or won't submit to a subscription but are willing to spend a few dollars here and there.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
The one thing I don't understand is why SOE didn't try to go f2p with Vanguard? Do they simply feel it isn't worth the effort? Not applicable in that game?
Seems to me that would have been the perfect game for them to try out a f2p transition with. Guess they felt differently for whatever reason.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
I wouldn't because it sounds like the typical "hostage holding" tactics this company often employs, if they don't go f2p they will fold as I doubt STO has the population to support the game with the sub fee as they have it and I will not even waste my time making a free account when the logic conclusion is for STO to already be a f2p hybrid model. So I say to them if they think they can make STO survive in the current environment then good luck but no I won't subject myself to becoming an advertising tool for them simply to get them to do the right thing.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
It costs more to play than a sub model. They made more money by adding potions and books and charging you more money to play, not by improving their content or actual game and increasing their player base. If it was a sub game a 100 percent increase in the player base would mean a 100 percent increase in revenue. Not 500 percent. Where am I losing you on this? I can backtrack if need be but I feel you've already bought into it's the best deal ever and it's a freedom you'll never experience anywhere else. If you love freedom and liberty you love cash shops! *queue music*
You don't get more options, you get less with the ability to pay for more options. Now instead of choice you have to make choices on what you buy if you want into a certain part of the game. Flexability, if you want to play alts or change mains how much will that cost? Crafting? Sure you can pay a minimal amoutn, for a minimal experience. How large is the market for this even? People believing they have gotten a good deal at the expense of what? The day people start saying P2P games are almost as good as a cash shop game is the day we'll know cash shops are better. As it stands only failed MMOs and sub-par games are cash shop. People say they are almost as good as a AAA title, almost...
It does take effort to convert a game to cash shop. A system must be set up where you require purchases, but not so many people feel ripped off. Changes to game mechanics as well and as for the code, the game is set up for anyone to do anything, restrictions have to be coded in, exceptions to restrictions and hundreds of items as well. I think SOE isn't interested in spending that much money on it.
Please stop trying to push your opinion onto the consumer base as fact, the bottom line is you personally see no benefit in games with free to play hybrid models but you cannot speak for me. In my opinion (which I have no problem admitting to it being my opinion) I have not had any adverse effects by LOTRO going free to play, I have not spent a single penny more on the game since it went free to play than I did before it went free to play. And unless you can point me to a single post where someone is talking about either losing their shirt in the Turbine store or even being disapointed in having spent money in the shop I don't think you can tell those who contributed to the 500% revenue increase that it is a worse deal for them either.
The problem with your opinion is you tend to look at the fact that the company has learned to make alot more money with little extra content (for the record you are one hundred percent incorrect to say they did not release any new content there was an entire different zone added) and gain some misplaced sense of injustice because of that fact, as if there is a hard and fast rule about how much money a single mmorpg should be allowed to generate.
Show me one person who even claims to have spent more money than they feel they can comfortably afford to (whether it is more than the 15 dollar sub fee or not) and then maybe I can begin to consider your opinion as even having merit but right now this entire train of thought makes no sense at all.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
If WoW = The Beatles
and WAR = Led Zeppelin
Then LotrO = Pink Floyd
Well switching to F2P -- unlike lifetime subs -- has a precedence for dramatically increasing a game's revenue. So it's a bit different.
I dunno, as lackluster as CO was it's better than a lot of the straight-to-F2P titles out there. I imagine it'll do alright as F2P.
It won't break any records, but if they don't critical fail their "design an item shop" roll they'll do much better than they were doing before.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Im sure I will try CO as a F2P, and If STO goes F2P will sure play it too.
Of course it makes no sense to you. 2x the player base 5x the revenue is perfect math.
This. I just rather pay a small sum of money to get all the content in game and have a decent community in-game.
It's obvious you have your opinion, I'm not trying to sway you personally, they need people like you. I've played pleanty of cash shop games and I've even enjoyed a few, but the fact is if you have the same amount of players spending more money it costs more. Don't give the impression these games are free to play is all I ask. They are not. Consume.
F2P Vanguard would be great.
Why rather going with EQ2?
1) Vanguard has pretty much non existent development team.
2) Vanguard has no player base you could built upon.
3) Vanguard already has bad reputation.
Some more reasons could be found, all in all EQ2 seems better bet to me.
Heh I got so caught up in the whole "free to play is bad for you" debate I didn't really address STO much at all, as stated the way the statement read to me is like a "thinly veiled warning" that if we don't help CO succeed at f2p then we will not see STO go free to play and if that's the case that's just too bad for Cryptic and anyone with hopes that STO would go free to play. I have played Champions enough to know that I have absolutely zero interest in what they have to offer but truth be told I would play STO if it wasn't overly restrictive as a free to play game, if they followed Turbines system with a point allowance I may even sub to the game but i won't be bullied to supporting one of there games for the sake of another of there games.
The bottom line is my family doesn't eat off of what they make so I see no compelling reason to "help" them meet their needs anymore than they are concerned about meeting mine as a consumer.
If CO fails at free to play then what are they threatening us to continue to allow STO to languish as well? If they feel they can afford to do that then they should be my guest.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
Or it may be they do not buy into the whole F2P thing as of yet and are being cautious. The larger a company is the less likely they are to risk.
Now that was a nice way to say at you were wrong!
You said that F2P models were worse for the consumers than P2P but you have not been able to come up with one reason why. But this is maybe for another topic...th
If WoW = The Beatles
and WAR = Led Zeppelin
Then LotrO = Pink Floyd
Papadam, have a read of the post listed in my sig as to why F2P is a bad deal for players.
F2P/P2P excellent thread.
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/282517/F2P-An-Engineers-perspective.html
I remember that thread when it was written and unfortunately the long wall of text was just too much but there are things I can pick apart simply by skimming over the article. I'll take only the first part that I read through as example.
"The second big design consideration is that you only want to provide VALUE to a user of your application if they are willing to PAY for that value (either directly or indirectly). In fact, you want to actively limit the value that your users derive from the application unless you can "monetize them". You want them to see enough value in the base service to give you the opportunity to "monetize" them but if they aren't willing to be sufficiently monetized you want to discourage their use of the application as they are a drag on your revenue. You also want to encourage each user to spend as much as they can tolerate and still be willing to use the application. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but it is a much finer line to walk as a designer. In essence, the discussion shifts from "is this a feature that will provide significant benefit to our users at little cost to us" to "How can we put features in the application that will influence users to engage in behavior that makes us money....and how much can we push them to do this before it exceeds their tolerance threshold?"."
That statement in itself seems pretty defeatist, it's basically like assuming the minute a company finds a way to "monetize" the client they no longer care about anyone who does not/is not spending extra money and that is plain and simply an incorrect statement and an assumption of the op's not factual. Out of the seas of companies out there why should we believe that a game with f2p models cares any more or less about any one individual customer, because the op said so? What exactly other than his viewpoint shows us that SOE (before any f2p model to EQ2X)cared more about it's customers than LOTRO did, most people who have played SWG would disagree with the statement that because a game has a traditional sub fee they automatically somehow care more about there customer than another company does (hell I'm one for example).
As stated I didn't bother reading through the entire post but I remember even from the first time I read it that it is basically as I stated above it is basically the point of view and stance that the op takes not much factual in it at all, while a compelling argument with some points for thought there is nothing absolute in that article at all.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
Servers are ridiculously cheap to run these days. Heck, they weren't that expensive 10 or more years ago. That's why so many games have free multi-player where the company runs the servers for it. MMOs charging a monthly fee of 15 bucks ARE ripping you off. You get very little content for the $180 dollars every year you pay. You certainly don't get anywhere close to 3-4 games worth of content each year (and content is easier to make than a whole new game). For that money, what you do get are grinds designed to stretch out the fun of the game as much as possible. You get screwed.
Most F2P games that are really popular are a lot cheaper to play than 15 bucks a month. They make money based on the fact they get a much larger number of players than if they went with a sub. Now I'm not saying every F2P model is great, but some of them are pretty good. B2P with cosmetic items in a shop like GW2 will be is pretty much the best way to go.
Of course, I don't expect F2P will save STO, as that game is just complete trash.
Same here.
One of the most reasonable and unemotional posts summing up the truth about free to play verses buy to play, one day down the line when there are less and less games just sticking that generic pay model on us some of those clinging to this system will see this truth as well.
What you point out is exactly why I as an avid gamer was always so reluctant to even try mmorpg's, and I still remember the "lies" perpetuated by in game friends of how I'm paying for the constant changes to the games. Most games don't change much at all throughout the games life and low and behold if they release too much new content they often slap it in a box and make us pay for that too.
The truth is standard sub fee games are not the worst thing to happen to games but it is not as good for the industry as many who tout it's benefits will have you believe. as it stands now it is simply a flat payment model that has restricted the growth that many companies have been claiming these games would have.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
As I noted with DDO when it went F2P.
It was a "last ditch" move on Turbine to save DDO from going under, as the game was failing as as P2P MMO. It simply wasn't good enough to warrant a subscription for too many people. It went F2P as an attempt to save it...
Almost overnight, DDO became the Darling of the F2P scene, being hailed as proof that F2P MMOs *can* be as good as AAA P2P MMOs!
The incredible irony was lost only on the die-hard F2P fans.
Same with LoTRO. LoTRO went F2P and, again, you see F2P fans marvelling at how many options it has "for a F2P MMO". Go check out the MMOHut "first look" for LoTRO F2P on YouTube. Omer expresses that very sentiment right in the video.
F2P fans are so desensitized to fewer options, less gameplay and lower overall production quality that even a failure of a P2P MMO (DDO) was a gem to them.
That's not saying much for the F2P MMO scene.
As has been stated, the problem many have (myself included) with the F2P model is that instead of the gameplay being designed to keep the player engaged and playing, it's designed to direct them to the cash shop. It's designed to entice them with nifty items that provide convenience, and to get around obstacles and over road-bumps *deliberately designed into the game* in the first place. The difference in them is crystal clear.
It's like driving down a road you've driven a hundred times, to find one day that there's a wall in the middle of it. The wall was never there before, nor does it serve any purpose. On the side of the road is a sign that says "Detour" with an arrow pointing down a narrow side-road.
In the wall is a massive gate, large enough for traffic to flow through. Next to the gate is a guard. As each driver pulls up, but before they turn off to the detour, the guard approaches their car and says, "You'll have to take the detour here and drive around if you need to get through.... *Unless* you want to buy this handy key I can sell you for only $10! It'll save you the hassle of having to drive out of your way *and* save you time! Convenience!". When the drivers object, the guard says "Oh, now don't get testy.. I'm not *forcing* you to buy this key. You are free to drive around like the others. I'm merely offering you the convenience of not having to!". That's basically what F2P/Cash Shop games are like to me.... at least in that aspect.
I have other issues with them as well, such as how immersion-breaking it is to go up to a NPC that clearly has a quest, only to be told "You must purchase this content. Click Here To Go To Our Shop!" Why even indicate they have a quest if I can't access it? The answer, of course, is because it's one more opportunity to get me to open my wallet.
In a P2P MMO... I pay my monthly fee, and then do as I wish, at my own pace. In a F2P MMO, I'm hit with a constant barrage of "Sale!" and "Buy!" and other various distractions intended only to get me spend "a little more".
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
O.k. On the LotRO stuff, I was going off of memory on the numbers so I was off on what they were. My statement however was not 2x the player base but 2x the subscribers. That's an important difference. Subscriptions are only one type of the payment system. If they DID increase revenue by 5x that does NOT mean they're making subscribers pay more...it means all those extra free players (over 1 million new accounts) had a large percentage of them that decided to pay for stuff in whatever amounts they desired.
Anyway, the point of my post was to show that an MMO that goes to free-play does not mean it was failing. LotRO is almost 4 years old now and has NEVER had to merge servers. If they HAD a server merge then I'd concede that the game wasn't doing well. However, since all indications pointed to it still going strong then we can only conclude (due to DDO's success going to free-play) that it's simply the right business model to use if you want to introduce the game to a whole new audience (being players who will NOT pay a monthly subscription).
Now, to tie it in with the thread topic, I may actually try CO when it goes free-play, though probably not as I'm not much into Superheroes, but if STO goes the same route I definitely WOULD try it out of curiosity though I'd have no intention of paying anything (I don't like Atari's business practices).