What does "unrated" even mean? I personally hope it means more sex and nudity. It was a joke hiring a prostitute in the game and only getting a "fade to black" and no boobies or anything. I could even make a female character and run around topless, but the hookers were just fade to black.
Edit: However, I'm really dissapointed that there is no love for people who bought a box of the game and subscribed previously. It seems to me that former subscribers should get more than the "Free" portion, but less than the "Premium" plan. If I have to play with all these restrictions of the free game when I previously experienced the game while subscribed, then I don't see why I would really want to bother.
What does "unrated" even mean? I personally hope it means more sex and nudity. It was a joke hiring a prostitute in the game and only getting a "fade to black" and no boobies or anything. I could even make a female character and run around topless, but the hookers were just fade to black.
Edit: However, I'm really dissapointed that there is no love for people who bought a box of the game and subscribed previously. It seems to me that former subscribers should get more than the "Free" portion, but less than the "Premium" plan. If I have to play with all these restrictions of the free game when I previously experienced the game while subscribed, then I don't see why I would really want to bother.
There are some dungeons and such that can be bought once and then accessed permanently.
Just as having bought the expansion pack unlocks all expansion dungeons permantently I'd think it fair if people who bought the box get all these dungeons for free. I mean technically you had them unlocked the moment you created your account, it would be weird for them to suddenly lock these dungeons again. We'll have to see how they handle this.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
Originally posted by Rhoklaw Well, after looking over the F2P model listed above, can't say it's very appealing. Same thing EQ2 Extended tried to do and Champions Online. Granted, it's still F2P, but if LOTRO can offer a substantial F2P model, no reason AoC can't. Sorry, but I have no desire to pay to unlock content I already paid for when I purchased the expansion. Nice try Funcom, but EQ2 Extended and Champions Online are not doing as well as LOTRO and for obvious reasons. So don't expect a massive influx of veteran players.
Exactly my thoughts. As much as I have defended some doubtful design choices of AoC in the past, when it comes to the business model you better don't mess up. This model is a royal mistake. The only thing missing in my eyes is making people pay for the steps their characters can make in advance.
"Extended trial" players (it's NOT F2P) won't be able to join any real raids, won't be competitive in PVP ever (due to the lack of alternative advancement) and won't ever be able to really fit into the community because they can't talk to anyone that isn't in the close proximity or the same guild/group. For me this approach is nothing but a turnoff for those that have been curious and tempted to try AoC, might do that now but quit due to the idiotic restrictions.
Well, after looking over the F2P model listed above, can't say it's very appealing. Same thing EQ2 Extended tried to do and Champions Online. Granted, it's still F2P, but if LOTRO can offer a substantial F2P model, no reason AoC can't. Sorry, but I have no desire to pay to unlock content I already paid for when I purchased the expansion.
Nice try Funcom, but EQ2 Extended and Champions Online are not doing as well as LOTRO and for obvious reasons. So don't expect a massive influx of veteran players.
I'm with you. Though a lot of people seem to really like the EQ 2 free to play model I feel it falls flat on it's face when put up against the Lotro/DDo model. It's odviously not providing a lot of incentives for vet players here. Must be trying to draw in players who havent wanted to shell out the £7.99 for a copy of the game. I wish it well but I for one will not be returning. Funcom have had enough of my money over this game.
What does "unrated" even mean? I personally hope it means more sex and nudity. It was a joke hiring a prostitute in the game and only getting a "fade to black" and no boobies or anything. I could even make a female character and run around topless, but the hookers were just fade to black.
Edit: However, I'm really dissapointed that there is no love for people who bought a box of the game and subscribed previously. It seems to me that former subscribers should get more than the "Free" portion, but less than the "Premium" plan. If I have to play with all these restrictions of the free game when I previously experienced the game while subscribed, then I don't see why I would really want to bother.
There are some dungeons and such that can be bought once and then accessed permanently.
Just as having bought the expansion pack unlocks all expansion dungeons permantently I'd think it fair if people who bought the box get all these dungeons for free. I mean technically you had them unlocked the moment you created your account, it would be weird for them to suddenly lock these dungeons again. We'll have to see how they handle this.
If they handle it the way Turbine did for LoTRO's switch, I would fully expect to have to pay for some of that content a second time if you go the F2P route. People have justified it by spinning and dancing around issue with remarks like "well, you didn't technically purchase the content before...". Actually, yes I did, or I wouldn't have been able to access it.
I raise the question someone else did earlier on... If their population is so "healthy" as the press release states, then why not continue with the subs only? Of course that's a rhetorical question. Companies are now catching the F2P bug, seeing how much more $$$ they can milk from players with nickel and dime purchases over a standard monthly sub. This entire move, I'm sure, is all about the $$$ to Funcom, and nothing more.
Further, did I read that wrong, or did they outright state they'll be selling weapons in the cash shop? So, right from the get-go, they're leaning toward the "pay to win" route. That is, unless those weapons are also available in-game by playing and not solely through the cash shop. Although, it says "exclusive items", which tells me it'll be cash shop only. Lame.
And finally, the name Age of Conan: Unrated, is corny as hell to me. Looks like they're re-playing the same "oooh mature content" card they played prior to and during the game's launch. It's so blatant.
I've been playing and enjoying AoC for a bit now and intend to continue playing, at least until this update hits. Then I'll get a chance to see how it all pans out. If I see that they are, in fact, selling exclusive weapons and such in the cash shop, or anything else that gives an advantage in gameplay, and those items are superior to what can be found in-game... I will be pressing the cancel button shortly afterward. I've already bought the game and they're already getting my monthly subscription money... Nickel and diming me for more $$$ on top of that is pure greed, plain and simple.
Cash Shops have always been the domain of F2P MMOs with no box purchase and no subscription fee. Leave it to greedy-ass Western developers and publishers, thinking only with their wallets, to decide to add them on top of a susbscription fee.
WTF is happening with this genre, seriously.
"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
Shouldn't this be called "pay to win" rather than "free to play"?
"and Funcom is also introducing an in-game store to the game where both free players and premium subscribers can purchase exclusive content such as weaponry and mounts"
"a healthy player base ever since launch in 2008, there is no doubt that ‘Age of Conan’ has been a true success story for Funcom"
That is a lie.
And is 'unrated' a marketing trick like 'mature' was at launch to make people think the game was going to be adult or edgy? How is unrated different from mature? Do they say what the change is?
I actually just started reading Chronicles of Conan, which is a compilation of Howard's work -- it's been quite good thusfar and has actually piqued my interest enough to snag a cheapy copy of the game. I'll probably still do it, even before this goes F2P.
I actually just started reading Chronicles of Conan, which is a compilation of Howard's work -- it's been quite good thusfar and has actually piqued my interest enough to snag a cheapy copy of the game. I'll probably still do it, even before this goes F2P.
It's a very fun game and I'm genuinely enjoying myself in it.
I just can not stomach a company saying "okay well you bought the game and we're getting your monthly sub as well... but hey, look, we have these exclusive weapons and other items in the cash shop that you'll have to buy if you want them as well".
If it was purely non-consequential items like fluff things... even mounts and xp potions I can deal with. I don't care how much faster than me others level because I'm playing for my own experience, not theirs.
But when it comes to actual gear that is beneficial to my character in some way and there's no in-game option to obtain it (through a quest, rare drop, etc)... that's when you lose me.
Ugh.
"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
I year or so ago I didn't want this to happen. However, in this competitive market, personally I think it is the right business decision. I think it will bring a lot of people to come back and check things out. Whether people like it or not it's now just a better option to get updated.
You excel in a competitve market by having a great product and a solid launch.
But yes, right money decision for FC, they will make more profit this way, but for play to achieve gamers buying your in game rewards from a cash shop is just a fail.
FC used to have my respect for the way they stuck to the sub model for this game, now they are thrown on the heap with all the other failed devs that couldnt develop/ launch/ maintain a quality AAA MMO and so had to retreat into the F2P market in order to scrape more cash out of a tiny fraction of players.
If it was good enough to pay for it would have been a success and profitable enough on a sub. I don't invest my time into games that arnt good enough.
"a healthy player base ever since launch in 2008, there is no doubt that ‘Age of Conan’ has been a true success story for Funcom"
That is a lie.
Wouldn't call it an outright lie, since we don't know what measurement Funcom is using to judge it a "success". Probably in as much as it's bringing in enough money to continue its development and probably some profit. It is a rather "shady" remark though.
But then, again, it makes the idea of adding a cash shop with exclusive items seem all the more "off" to me. "We're doing so well that we're adding a means to get even more money from players, including those already subscribing". On the F2P side, fine... that's how F2P MMOs have always gotten their money.
However, still requiring those items to be purchased on top of a sub? That decision solely benefits Funcom, 100%. Players gain no benefit from that as a subscribing player. Unless you consider "paying more money on top of the box purchase and monthly subs" to be a player benefit.
And is 'unrated' a marketing trick like 'mature' was at launch to make people think the game was going to be adult or edgy? How is unrated different from mature? Do they say what the change is?
It's entirely a marketing gimmick/trick. You noticed the same thing I did... they're playing the "mature content" card again.
Been there, seen that.
"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
It's a very fun game and I'm genuinely enjoying myself in it.
I just can not stomach a company saying "okay well you bought the game and we're getting your monthly sub as well... but hey, look, we have these exclusive weapons and other items in the cash shop that you'll have to buy if you want them as well".
If it was purely non-consequential items like fluff things... even mounts and xp potions I can deal with. I don't care how much faster than me others level because I'm playing for my own experience, not theirs.
But when it comes to actual gear that is beneficial to my character in some way and there's no in-game option to obtain it (through a quest, rare drop, etc)... that's when you lose me.
Ugh.
Are you sure it will play out this way?
I mean F2P will have to pay to access raids that premium have included. What's the use in paying for raids if you can just buy superior gear directly? Likely the raids would even cost more. Pay 10 bucks for content to earn gear that costs 5 bucks?
I'd say the smart decision would be to keep top-tier raid gear the best gear. Make all those F2P pay to buy every single raid ( with temporary passes, not permanent access ) to get profit. Selling the gear directly or superior gear would just cost them profit.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
If it was good enough to pay for it would have been a success and profitable enough on a sub. I don't invest my time into games that arnt good enough.
It's never been about the money..
You realize that's a contradiction right? You say it's not about the money, yet you judge how good a game is based solely on how profitable it is.
At least for you the answer is simple. WoW is the most profitable MMO, so according to your criteria it's the best. Why even bother looking at others?
I wish my needs were simple enough to satisfy with "whatever makes the most money is the best".
Also, Funcom was the first major MMO developer to move a successful MMO to a hybrid model back when they did it with AO. I still think that the LoTRO model is miles ahead of everyone else, but it's definitely a step in the right direction for AoC.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
Ultima Online, World of Warcraft and Age of Conan are all my top 3 favorite MMORPG. Ever. I am estatic to hear that at least one of them is going to free to play freemium business model. That way, I can continue playing one of them. Now, I just need the other two to turn to the same model.
I can't wait to log into my character and see what new things the world has brought.
Does anyone know when this goes into affect? Or is it just set for 'Summer' atm?
/played-mmorpgs
Total time played:9125 Days, 21 Hours, 29 Minutes, 27 Seconds Time played this level: 39 Days, 1 Hour, 24 Minutes, 5 Seconds
If it was good enough to pay for it would have been a success and profitable enough on a sub. I don't invest my time into games that arnt good enough.
It's never been about the money..
You realize that's a contradiction right? You say it's not about the money, yet you judge how good a game is based solely on how profitable it is.
At least for you the answer is simple. WoW is the most profitable MMO, so according to your criteria it's the best. Why even bother looking at others?
I wish my needs were simple enough to satisfy with "whatever makes the most money is the best".
No, it isnt a contradiction. You have answered to what you want me to be saying, rather then what I AM saying. Happens a lot around here tbh.
It's a response to all those 'It's not a good enough game that I would pay money for it, but I would waste my time on it if it's free' guys. I don't get that PoV at all. Time is more precious then money and yet people spend the little they get of their own on crap like it's nothing, just because it's free.
If it's good enough to play, then it would be played, sub or not. The cost is irrelevant.
If I didnt want to play AoC before, it going free dosent change that. It is the same game, and hence still not worth my time. The fact that it charged a sub before was irrelevant. I don't waste my time on sub par games just because they are 'free'.
FC adopting this model shows me very clearly that they have failed to develop/ launch/ maintain a game that can compete on terms of quality alone and has to resort to actually giving copies away to get people to play it (in the hope of fleecing them once in). This is to me is a fail.
"whatever makes the most money is the best"... I didnt say that at all, despite your use of quote marks, but it does underline your misinterpretation of my point.
To many limitations on the F2P model. They shouldn't cut off any content, but make it buyable in the Item Shop. Otheriwse, I wish them luck. What this is more like is a free trial.
@Vesavius: ? It should be obvious that not all people think like that, since DDO showed that going F2P got them 5 times as many players and a doubling of their revenues and LotrO gained a sortlike boost.
Also, the content of those games doesn't suddenly change when they change payment model, the games don't suddenly turn to crap.
To me personally, I think a hybrid F2P model is the superior choice when done right, where you can adjust the amount you pay to the amount you intend to play. Sort of a paying and gaming a la carte.
The fact is that the P2P model is pretty rigid: it's a yes/no switch situation. Either you pay in full regardless how much you'll play that month or you don't pay and then don't play at all. Most people won't pay multiple subs in the month, so in essence that means that you could only really play 1 MMO per month.
Luckily there's also MMO's that use other models, like GW, LotrO, DDO and EQ2 and the ones that were F2P in the first place, so that means you can switch playing MMO's in the same months if you feel like it and don't need to be tied up to only 1 MMORPG, the situation you'd be in if all the MMORPG's would be P2P.
How it'll go for AoC, will have to see that. I'm curious how they intend to make it work for AoC.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
I don't get this list though, what does it mean to people who already have an account with more than 4 characters and such, you'll not be able to play them in the F2P option, you have to sub to the game? Weird.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
To many limitations on the F2P model. They shouldn't cut off any content, but make it buyable in the Item Shop. Otheriwse, I wish them luck. What this is more like is a free trial.
It's not just content, all the character classes are not available in the F2P model, just 4 of them.
@Vesavius: ? It should be obvious that not all people think like that, since DDO showed that going F2P got them 5 times as many players and a doubling of their revenues and LotrO gained a sortlike boost.
Also, the content of those games doesn't suddenly change when they change payment model, the games don't suddenly turn to crap.
To me personally, I think a hybrid F2P model is the superior choice when done right, where you can adjust the amount you pay to the amount you intend to play. Sort of a paying and gaming a la carte.
The fact is that the P2P model is pretty rigid: it's a yes/no switch situation. Either you pay in full regardless how much you'll play that month or you don't pay and then don't play at all. Most people won't pay multiple subs in the month, so in essence that means that you could only really play 1 MMO per month.
Luckily there's also MMO's that use other models, like GW, LotrO, DDO and EQ2 and the ones that were F2P in the first place, so that means you can switch playing MMO's in the same months if you feel like it and don't need to be tied up to only 1 MMORPG, the situation you'd be in if all the MMORPG's would be P2P.
How it'll go for AoC, will have to see that. I'm curious how they intend to make it work for AoC.
See this is how I think F2P with item shop games should be - a la carte. That way if you wish to have access to a better mount or more content you can purchase access to it. The model Funcom is going with is to limiting and in my opinion no better than a free trial.
Comments
And yet Warhammer STILL won't do this...lol.
What does "unrated" even mean? I personally hope it means more sex and nudity. It was a joke hiring a prostitute in the game and only getting a "fade to black" and no boobies or anything. I could even make a female character and run around topless, but the hookers were just fade to black.
Edit: However, I'm really dissapointed that there is no love for people who bought a box of the game and subscribed previously. It seems to me that former subscribers should get more than the "Free" portion, but less than the "Premium" plan. If I have to play with all these restrictions of the free game when I previously experienced the game while subscribed, then I don't see why I would really want to bother.
There are some dungeons and such that can be bought once and then accessed permanently.
Just as having bought the expansion pack unlocks all expansion dungeons permantently I'd think it fair if people who bought the box get all these dungeons for free. I mean technically you had them unlocked the moment you created your account, it would be weird for them to suddenly lock these dungeons again. We'll have to see how they handle this.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
YES! YES! I love Age of conan, I've been waiting for it to go Free!
no no really, they weren't losing subs.
right move of course, a bit late but right nontheless
I need more vespene gas.
Exactly my thoughts. As much as I have defended some doubtful design choices of AoC in the past, when it comes to the business model you better don't mess up. This model is a royal mistake. The only thing missing in my eyes is making people pay for the steps their characters can make in advance.
"Extended trial" players (it's NOT F2P) won't be able to join any real raids, won't be competitive in PVP ever (due to the lack of alternative advancement) and won't ever be able to really fit into the community because they can't talk to anyone that isn't in the close proximity or the same guild/group. For me this approach is nothing but a turnoff for those that have been curious and tempted to try AoC, might do that now but quit due to the idiotic restrictions.
I'm with you. Though a lot of people seem to really like the EQ 2 free to play model I feel it falls flat on it's face when put up against the Lotro/DDo model. It's odviously not providing a lot of incentives for vet players here. Must be trying to draw in players who havent wanted to shell out the £7.99 for a copy of the game. I wish it well but I for one will not be returning. Funcom have had enough of my money over this game.
Are paying customers and players paying for free going to play on the same server?
If they handle it the way Turbine did for LoTRO's switch, I would fully expect to have to pay for some of that content a second time if you go the F2P route. People have justified it by spinning and dancing around issue with remarks like "well, you didn't technically purchase the content before...". Actually, yes I did, or I wouldn't have been able to access it.
I raise the question someone else did earlier on... If their population is so "healthy" as the press release states, then why not continue with the subs only? Of course that's a rhetorical question. Companies are now catching the F2P bug, seeing how much more $$$ they can milk from players with nickel and dime purchases over a standard monthly sub. This entire move, I'm sure, is all about the $$$ to Funcom, and nothing more.
Further, did I read that wrong, or did they outright state they'll be selling weapons in the cash shop? So, right from the get-go, they're leaning toward the "pay to win" route. That is, unless those weapons are also available in-game by playing and not solely through the cash shop. Although, it says "exclusive items", which tells me it'll be cash shop only. Lame.
And finally, the name Age of Conan: Unrated, is corny as hell to me. Looks like they're re-playing the same "oooh mature content" card they played prior to and during the game's launch. It's so blatant.
I've been playing and enjoying AoC for a bit now and intend to continue playing, at least until this update hits. Then I'll get a chance to see how it all pans out. If I see that they are, in fact, selling exclusive weapons and such in the cash shop, or anything else that gives an advantage in gameplay, and those items are superior to what can be found in-game... I will be pressing the cancel button shortly afterward. I've already bought the game and they're already getting my monthly subscription money... Nickel and diming me for more $$$ on top of that is pure greed, plain and simple.
Cash Shops have always been the domain of F2P MMOs with no box purchase and no subscription fee. Leave it to greedy-ass Western developers and publishers, thinking only with their wallets, to decide to add them on top of a susbscription fee.
WTF is happening with this genre, seriously.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Hmmmm,
Shouldn't this be called "pay to win" rather than "free to play"?
"and Funcom is also introducing an in-game store to the game where both free players and premium subscribers can purchase exclusive content such as weaponry and mounts"
"a healthy player base ever since launch in 2008, there is no doubt that ‘Age of Conan’ has been a true success story for Funcom"
That is a lie.
And is 'unrated' a marketing trick like 'mature' was at launch to make people think the game was going to be adult or edgy? How is unrated different from mature? Do they say what the change is?
I actually just started reading Chronicles of Conan, which is a compilation of Howard's work -- it's been quite good thusfar and has actually piqued my interest enough to snag a cheapy copy of the game. I'll probably still do it, even before this goes F2P.
It's a very fun game and I'm genuinely enjoying myself in it.
I just can not stomach a company saying "okay well you bought the game and we're getting your monthly sub as well... but hey, look, we have these exclusive weapons and other items in the cash shop that you'll have to buy if you want them as well".
If it was purely non-consequential items like fluff things... even mounts and xp potions I can deal with. I don't care how much faster than me others level because I'm playing for my own experience, not theirs.
But when it comes to actual gear that is beneficial to my character in some way and there's no in-game option to obtain it (through a quest, rare drop, etc)... that's when you lose me.
Ugh.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
You excel in a competitve market by having a great product and a solid launch.
But yes, right money decision for FC, they will make more profit this way, but for play to achieve gamers buying your in game rewards from a cash shop is just a fail.
FC used to have my respect for the way they stuck to the sub model for this game, now they are thrown on the heap with all the other failed devs that couldnt develop/ launch/ maintain a quality AAA MMO and so had to retreat into the F2P market in order to scrape more cash out of a tiny fraction of players.
If it was good enough to pay for it would have been a success and profitable enough on a sub. I don't invest my time into games that arnt good enough.
It's never been about the money..
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Are you sure it will play out this way?
I mean F2P will have to pay to access raids that premium have included. What's the use in paying for raids if you can just buy superior gear directly? Likely the raids would even cost more. Pay 10 bucks for content to earn gear that costs 5 bucks?
I'd say the smart decision would be to keep top-tier raid gear the best gear. Make all those F2P pay to buy every single raid ( with temporary passes, not permanent access ) to get profit. Selling the gear directly or superior gear would just cost them profit.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
You realize that's a contradiction right? You say it's not about the money, yet you judge how good a game is based solely on how profitable it is.
At least for you the answer is simple. WoW is the most profitable MMO, so according to your criteria it's the best. Why even bother looking at others?
I wish my needs were simple enough to satisfy with "whatever makes the most money is the best".
Also, Funcom was the first major MMO developer to move a successful MMO to a hybrid model back when they did it with AO. I still think that the LoTRO model is miles ahead of everyone else, but it's definitely a step in the right direction for AoC.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
Ultima Online, World of Warcraft and Age of Conan are all my top 3 favorite MMORPG. Ever. I am estatic to hear that at least one of them is going to free to play freemium business model. That way, I can continue playing one of them. Now, I just need the other two to turn to the same model.
I can't wait to log into my character and see what new things the world has brought.
Does anyone know when this goes into affect? Or is it just set for 'Summer' atm?
Total time played: 9125 Days, 21 Hours, 29 Minutes, 27 Seconds
Time played this level: 39 Days, 1 Hour, 24 Minutes, 5 Seconds
No, it isnt a contradiction. You have answered to what you want me to be saying, rather then what I AM saying. Happens a lot around here tbh.
It's a response to all those 'It's not a good enough game that I would pay money for it, but I would waste my time on it if it's free' guys. I don't get that PoV at all. Time is more precious then money and yet people spend the little they get of their own on crap like it's nothing, just because it's free.
If it's good enough to play, then it would be played, sub or not. The cost is irrelevant.
If I didnt want to play AoC before, it going free dosent change that. It is the same game, and hence still not worth my time. The fact that it charged a sub before was irrelevant. I don't waste my time on sub par games just because they are 'free'.
FC adopting this model shows me very clearly that they have failed to develop/ launch/ maintain a game that can compete on terms of quality alone and has to resort to actually giving copies away to get people to play it (in the hope of fleecing them once in). This is to me is a fail.
"whatever makes the most money is the best"... I didnt say that at all, despite your use of quote marks, but it does underline your misinterpretation of my point.
To many limitations on the F2P model. They shouldn't cut off any content, but make it buyable in the Item Shop. Otheriwse, I wish them luck. What this is more like is a free trial.
@Vesavius: ? It should be obvious that not all people think like that, since DDO showed that going F2P got them 5 times as many players and a doubling of their revenues and LotrO gained a sortlike boost.
Also, the content of those games doesn't suddenly change when they change payment model, the games don't suddenly turn to crap.
To me personally, I think a hybrid F2P model is the superior choice when done right, where you can adjust the amount you pay to the amount you intend to play. Sort of a paying and gaming a la carte.
The fact is that the P2P model is pretty rigid: it's a yes/no switch situation. Either you pay in full regardless how much you'll play that month or you don't pay and then don't play at all. Most people won't pay multiple subs in the month, so in essence that means that you could only really play 1 MMO per month.
Luckily there's also MMO's that use other models, like GW, LotrO, DDO and EQ2 and the ones that were F2P in the first place, so that means you can switch playing MMO's in the same months if you feel like it and don't need to be tied up to only 1 MMORPG, the situation you'd be in if all the MMORPG's would be P2P.
How it'll go for AoC, will have to see that. I'm curious how they intend to make it work for AoC.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Ah, just saw this list, nice one.
I don't get this list though, what does it mean to people who already have an account with more than 4 characters and such, you'll not be able to play them in the F2P option, you have to sub to the game? Weird.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
It's not just content, all the character classes are not available in the F2P model, just 4 of them.
no, but neither does it suddenly get better and become a game I want to play.
If I didnt want to play it then, there is no reason i would want to play it now.
My point was that I don't get why people will play a game simply because it's free when they didnt want to before.
See this is how I think F2P with item shop games should be - a la carte. That way if you wish to have access to a better mount or more content you can purchase access to it. The model Funcom is going with is to limiting and in my opinion no better than a free trial.