subjectRe: SOE's EQ "Next" needs to reinvent loyalty.
mailed-bysoe.sony.com
Important mainly because of your interaction with messages in the conversation.
hide details 9:37 PM (11 hours ago)
I mostly agree with you. However there is a new reality out there for companies that run online games. That reality is that f2p seems to be the new norm in business models.
- Show quoted text -
Playing the devil's advocate here, but I think Smed has a point.
While he agrees with your contention that anyone who pays a sub should be able to earn everything in the game, the market really IS pushing towards F2P + cash shops. Smed is simply looking for what works, and what will bring in players.
The original EQ might have a deeply loyal player base that's kept the game going for the last 12 years, but if SOE expects to survive to keep publishing games, they have to explore other options. That includes the F2P + cash shop model that people around here rail against.
Playing the devil's advocate here, but I think Smed has a point.
While he agrees with your contention that anyone who pays a sub should be able to earn everything in the game, the market really IS pushing towards F2P + cash shops. Smed is simply looking for what works, and what will bring in players.
The original EQ might have a deeply loyal player base that's kept the game going for the last 12 years, but if SOE expects to survive to keep publishing games, they have to explore other options. That includes the F2P + cash shop model that people around here rail against.
Personally, I think the railing is a bit .. ....well.. lets just say I do not agree with it.
World of Tanks IMHO is a good example of a 'better' f2p"ish" cash shop"ish" model.
In WoT cash buys you "gold". However, there are multiple ways to obtain "gold" that have nothing to do with spending real-world dollars.
Competing and winning in world pvp fights with a good clan can win your entire clan gold over time.
Certain special event competitions win you gold.
Certain out-of-game competitions win you gold.
99.99% of everything you can get with real-world cash can be got elsewhere. There is very, very few exceptions (a pre-order tank) and these exceptions are not "game breaking" in the least.
In addition, a fully $$$ loaded tank does not offer that much of an advantage over a zero $$$ tank.
Unlike the subscription model, the F2P cash shop has wild and varying degrees of success and community response. F2P with cash shop goes from games like Allods where the maximum money spent gives something like 10% more dmg/resists/health/mana etc. to a game like League of Legends where the maximum money spent just gives you access to new champions perhaps a few weeks before anyone who wishes to work for it, but eventually keeps the playing field even.
I personally hope EQ Next goes towards the LoL approach and keeps any item-shop only items to small things like EXP boosts, cosmetic items and maybe like 10% faster mounts. Stuff people will gladly pay for, but no one HAS to pay for.
The funny thing about F2P is that people are much more likely to drop $3 a week than $15 a month... oh humans you are so silly.
"They essentially want to say 'Correlation proves Causation' when it's just not true." - Sovrath
Originally posted by Caldrin it will be a massive shame if its coems out f2p with a cash shop.. The pay monthly system is the best option for any AAA MMORPG has been for a long time, only failing or cheap ass mmos should go f2p.. this seems to be the case at the moment only crappy and old dying MMOs are going f2p.. this is the way it shold stay. How the guys behid GW2 are going to be able to afford to keep the game running i dont know, i guess they will have some kind of item shop as well but i aint really looked into it too much..
I simply don't understand what the gaming community's fascination is with a company's business model. SoE is in the business of making money, and they are now noticing that the revenue stream is much better for a free-to-play game with a cash shop option. Only the investors of Sony and SoE have any real concern with how they generate revenue.
Let's face it. The subscription model, which is essentially the same payment model used by the magazine and newspaper industry for over a hundred years, isn't as capable as generating the same revenue flow as a micro-transaction model in the current economy. Even the most cash-crunched gamers buried under the ruins of the economy can stomach a $1-2 fee occasionally, and enough will exceed the normal amounts to cover those economic refugees and make the net income more than could be sustained by the pure subscription model. This is purely a capatilistic response -- the company wants / needs more income, but raising the subscription prices is deemed to be unacceptable to the gaming consumer. But the company wants the revenue from the increased rates, so they adapt to a different business model and set up a new pricing structure that they believe will generate higher revenues. Now, they can achieve the revenue streams they want. Imagine this as though a cola company only offered one size. By offering different sizes at different price levels, they can increase their income.
As gamers, consumers of the MMORPG products these companys deliver, we still have the ability to play, and the ability to pay for what we do want. More importantly, we have the ability to not pay. We shouldn't pay for inferior products. If an item seems like it would overbalance the game, don't buy it, even if your arch-enemy, Jim, buys it. They are counting on Jim's greed to buy UberWeaponV1, and your jealosy to sell you UberWeaponMkII next month.
In a cash-driven world, the consumer does hold the hammer, but they rarely recognize that fact, nor possess the ability to use that power wisely. If you don't like the free-to-play model or don't like the game or elements within the game, simply move along. Let the companies make or lose money depending on how well they develop a product. A rant thread on a gaming site isn't going to change their perception of their business realities. They will never hear your rant, and you aren't likely to change anyone's mind. Let the basic economic principles determine their success or failure.
And I, as a wise consumer, will be happy to let the cash-laden gamers subsidize my gaming habits.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I believe the email and I am pretty sure future SOE MMO's (and most other companies) will include a hybrid payment model in them.
I'm currently playing EQ2 Extended, paying 15.00 a month for a gold membership and have forked over about 40.00 for SC cash that I haven't even spent yet.
A friend I met on line spent 60.00 at Walmart on SC cards and turned them in for the double SC weekend and got about 120.00 worth of SC which he spent on everything from the latest expansion to numerous housing/fluff items.
Fact is, there's many players out there willing to spend more than 15.00 a month on a MMORPG and Smed and the rest of the industry have made note of it.
Like it or not, almost every game will look to maximize their revenue with some sort of cash shop, some more benign than others, but in the end the traditional P2P model is on its last legs.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Originally posted by Mendel *sigh* Another rant-against-f2p thread. I simply don't understand what the gaming community's fascination is with a company's business model. SoE is in the business of making money, and they are now noticing that the revenue stream is much better for a free-to-play game with a cash shop option. Only the investors of Sony and SoE have any real concern with how they generate revenue. Let's face it. The subscription model, which is essentially the same payment model used by the magazine and newspaper industry for over a hundred years, isn't as capable as generating the same revenue flow as a micro-transaction model in the current economy. Even the most cash-crunched gamers buried under the ruins of the economy can stomach a $1-2 fee occasionally, and enough will exceed the normal amounts to cover those economic refugees and make the net income more than could be sustained by the pure subscription model. This is purely a capatilistic response -- the company wants / needs more income, but raising the subscription prices is deemed to be unacceptable to the gaming consumer. But the company wants the revenue from the increased rates, so they adapt to a different business model and set up a new pricing structure that they believe will generate higher revenues. Now, they can achieve the revenue streams they want. Imagine this as though a cola company only offered one size. By offering different sizes at different price levels, they can increase their income. As gamers, consumers of the MMORPG products these companys deliver, we still have the ability to play, and the ability to pay for what we do want. More importantly, we have the ability to not pay. We shouldn't pay for inferior products. If an item seems like it would overbalance the game, don't buy it, even if your arch-enemy, Jim, buys it. They are counting on Jim's greed to buy UberWeaponV1, and your jealosy to sell you UberWeaponMkII next month. In a cash-driven world, the consumer does hold the hammer, but they rarely recognize that fact, nor possess the ability to use that power wisely. If you don't like the free-to-play model or don't like the game or elements within the game, simply move along. Let the companies make or lose money depending on how well they develop a product. A rant thread on a gaming site isn't going to change their perception of their business realities. They will never hear your rant, and you aren't likely to change anyone's mind. Let the basic economic principles determine their success or failure. And I, as a wise consumer, will be happy to let the cash-laden gamers subsidize my gaming habits.
because it sucks to play a game where the rich kick your ass just because they are rich?
when you prefer to play a game from 0 to 1000 without "cheating" (yes i realize it's not cheating .. but if I won't, or even worse, can't buy equipment .. its basically the same result as if someone has cheated to get way better gear) ... the p2w model is unattractive.
if the f2p model is truley only cosmetic in nature .. that is one thing .. as soon as it's not .. there is no reason for a lot of people to even consider it.
LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity. I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already
Originally posted by azmundai Originally posted by Mendel *sigh* Another rant-against-f2p thread. I simply don't understand what the gaming community's fascination is with a company's business model. SoE is in the business of making money, and they are now noticing that the revenue stream is much better for a free-to-play game with a cash shop option. Only the investors of Sony and SoE have any real concern with how they generate revenue. Let's face it. The subscription model, which is essentially the same payment model used by the magazine and newspaper industry for over a hundred years, isn't as capable as generating the same revenue flow as a micro-transaction model in the current economy. Even the most cash-crunched gamers buried under the ruins of the economy can stomach a $1-2 fee occasionally, and enough will exceed the normal amounts to cover those economic refugees and make the net income more than could be sustained by the pure subscription model. This is purely a capatilistic response -- the company wants / needs more income, but raising the subscription prices is deemed to be unacceptable to the gaming consumer. But the company wants the revenue from the increased rates, so they adapt to a different business model and set up a new pricing structure that they believe will generate higher revenues. Now, they can achieve the revenue streams they want. Imagine this as though a cola company only offered one size. By offering different sizes at different price levels, they can increase their income. As gamers, consumers of the MMORPG products these companys deliver, we still have the ability to play, and the ability to pay for what we do want. More importantly, we have the ability to not pay. We shouldn't pay for inferior products. If an item seems like it would overbalance the game, don't buy it, even if your arch-enemy, Jim, buys it. They are counting on Jim's greed to buy UberWeaponV1, and your jealosy to sell you UberWeaponMkII next month. In a cash-driven world, the consumer does hold the hammer, but they rarely recognize that fact, nor possess the ability to use that power wisely. If you don't like the free-to-play model or don't like the game or elements within the game, simply move along. Let the companies make or lose money depending on how well they develop a product. A rant thread on a gaming site isn't going to change their perception of their business realities. They will never hear your rant, and you aren't likely to change anyone's mind. Let the basic economic principles determine their success or failure. And I, as a wise consumer, will be happy to let the cash-laden gamers subsidize my gaming habits.
because it sucks to play a game where the rich kick your ass just because they are rich?
when you prefer to play a game from 0 to 1000 without "cheating" (yes i realize it's not cheating .. but if I won't, or even worse, can't buy equipment .. its basically the same result as if someone has cheated to get way better gear) ... the p2w model is unattractive.
if the f2p model is truley only cosmetic in nature .. that is one thing .. as soon as it's not .. there is no reason for a lot of people to even consider it.
"because it sucks to play a game where the rich kick your ass just because they are rich?"
- I disagree! It sucks to live in a real world where the filthy soul-less rich kick your ass just because they are rich!!! DEATH to the filthy-bourgeois-soulless-laissez-faire-capitalist-rich!!!
[quote]Originally posted by precious328 [b][color=#fff]So I emailed John Smedley. Why? I have no idea. I didn't think he'd actually reply. I wish I asked something more worthwhile. lol
My email in orange. His reply in yellow.
Being nickel & dimed to death is where the MMO is heading, e.g., cross-promotional items, cash shops, real money auction houses, etc. It's being done by everyone; it's getting old.
Bring it back, John. A person who purchases the game and pays the monthly fee should be able to obtain any item in the game though hard work.
---------
Reply |Smedley, John to me show details 9:37 PM (11 hours ago) fromSmedley, John [email=jsmedley@soe.sony.com] dateMon, Sep 5, 2011 at 9:37 PM subjectRe: SOE's EQ "Next" needs to reinvent loyalty. mailed-bysoe.sony.com Important mainly because of your interaction with messages in the conversation. hide details 9:37 PM (11 hours ago) I mostly agree with you. However there is a new reality out there for companies that run online games. That reality is that f2p seems to be the new norm in business models.[/color] - Show quoted text - [/b][/quote]
I assumed from the get-go that it would not be old-fashioned box+$14.99(whatever monthly). That model is well past dead at this point. My real concern is that they actually make something worth playing! EQ2 in it's versions is way too Wow-ified super -EZ- mode. God let them make a game that is actually fun and has some challenge!
I simply don't understand what the gaming community's fascination is with a company's business model. SoE is in the business of making money, and they are now noticing that the revenue stream is much better for a free-to-play game with a cash shop option. Only the investors of Sony and SoE have any real concern with how they generate revenue.
Let's face it. The subscription model, which is essentially the same payment model used by the magazine and newspaper industry for over a hundred years, isn't as capable as generating the same revenue flow as a micro-transaction model in the current economy. Even the most cash-crunched gamers buried under the ruins of the economy can stomach a $1-2 fee occasionally, and enough will exceed the normal amounts to cover those economic refugees and make the net income more than could be sustained by the pure subscription model. This is purely a capatilistic response -- the company wants / needs more income, but raising the subscription prices is deemed to be unacceptable to the gaming consumer. But the company wants the revenue from the increased rates, so they adapt to a different business model and set up a new pricing structure that they believe will generate higher revenues. Now, they can achieve the revenue streams they want. Imagine this as though a cola company only offered one size. By offering different sizes at different price levels, they can increase their income.
As gamers, consumers of the MMORPG products these companys deliver, we still have the ability to play, and the ability to pay for what we do want. More importantly, we have the ability to not pay. We shouldn't pay for inferior products. If an item seems like it would overbalance the game, don't buy it, even if your arch-enemy, Jim, buys it. They are counting on Jim's greed to buy UberWeaponV1, and your jealosy to sell you UberWeaponMkII next month.
In a cash-driven world, the consumer does hold the hammer, but they rarely recognize that fact, nor possess the ability to use that power wisely. If you don't like the free-to-play model or don't like the game or elements within the game, simply move along. Let the companies make or lose money depending on how well they develop a product. A rant thread on a gaming site isn't going to change their perception of their business realities. They will never hear your rant, and you aren't likely to change anyone's mind. Let the basic economic principles determine their success or failure.
And I, as a wise consumer, will be happy to let the cash-laden gamers subsidize my gaming habits.
because it sucks to play a game where the rich kick your ass just because they are rich?
when you prefer to play a game from 0 to 1000 without "cheating" (yes i realize it's not cheating .. but if I won't, or even worse, can't buy equipment .. its basically the same result as if someone has cheated to get way better gear) ... the p2w model is unattractive.
if the f2p model is truley only cosmetic in nature .. that is one thing .. as soon as it's not .. there is no reason for a lot of people to even consider it.
"because it sucks to play a game where the rich kick your ass just because they are rich?"
- I disagree! It sucks to live in a real world where the filthy soul-less rich kick your ass just because they are rich!!! DEATH to the filthy-bourgeois-soulless-laissez-faire-capitalist-rich!!!
Bourgeois means middle class ><... While a great word, please don't lump us in with the rest of those nouns and adjectives ;D!
World of Tanks is p2win, and despite being a fun game I won't pay a dime.
If you offer a kickass F2P MMORPG with lateral playstyle purchases (not verticle power increases) then you will make a lot of money from me.
Then again, if you don't create a MMORPG at least as enjoyable as WOW (and to do this you'd have to offer something different than WOW) then you're only going to get money if you charge an initial fee to buy the game; after which my confidence in your company may change considerably (fool me once...)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I wonder if it's ever going to be possible to microtransact your game time in the sense of paying for exactly however long you play?
And I wonder how that would affect MMO design?
Sadly, its been done. In the early days (early-mid 90s) America Online charged connection fees per minute (like the phone company) AND charged a premium per minute fee to play Neverwinter Nights. I never got involved in that particular scam, but I saw a friend's $400+ monthly AOL billing statements. I really saved him so much money when I addicted him to EQ in 99. Did I get any thanks? Not a chance.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
- I disagree! It sucks to live in a real world where the filthy soul-less rich kick your ass just because they are rich!!! DEATH to the filthy-bourgeois-soulless-laissez-faire-capitalist-rich!!!
Bourgeois means middle class ><... While a great word, please don't lump us in with the rest of those nouns and adjectives ;D!
What Vahrane said.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
If Everquest Next has a good freemium model like Turbine's Lotro, sign me up. I love having the option to either subscribe or spend money in a reasonable cash shop.
I simply don't understand what the gaming community's fascination is with a company's business model. SoE is in the business of making money, and they are now noticing that the revenue stream is much better for a free-to-play game with a cash shop option. Only the investors of Sony and SoE have any real concern with how they generate revenue.
Let's face it. The subscription model, which is essentially the same payment model used by the magazine and newspaper industry for over a hundred years, isn't as capable as generating the same revenue flow as a micro-transaction model in the current economy. Even the most cash-crunched gamers buried under the ruins of the economy can stomach a $1-2 fee occasionally, and enough will exceed the normal amounts to cover those economic refugees and make the net income more than could be sustained by the pure subscription model. This is purely a capatilistic response -- the company wants / needs more income, but raising the subscription prices is deemed to be unacceptable to the gaming consumer. But the company wants the revenue from the increased rates, so they adapt to a different business model and set up a new pricing structure that they believe will generate higher revenues. Now, they can achieve the revenue streams they want. Imagine this as though a cola company only offered one size. By offering different sizes at different price levels, they can increase their income.
As gamers, consumers of the MMORPG products these companys deliver, we still have the ability to play, and the ability to pay for what we do want. More importantly, we have the ability to not pay. We shouldn't pay for inferior products. If an item seems like it would overbalance the game, don't buy it, even if your arch-enemy, Jim, buys it. They are counting on Jim's greed to buy UberWeaponV1, and your jealosy to sell you UberWeaponMkII next month.
In a cash-driven world, the consumer does hold the hammer, but they rarely recognize that fact, nor possess the ability to use that power wisely. If you don't like the free-to-play model or don't like the game or elements within the game, simply move along. Let the companies make or lose money depending on how well they develop a product. A rant thread on a gaming site isn't going to change their perception of their business realities. They will never hear your rant, and you aren't likely to change anyone's mind. Let the basic economic principles determine their success or failure.
And I, as a wise consumer, will be happy to let the cash-laden gamers subsidize my gaming habits.
because it sucks to play a game where the rich kick your ass just because they are rich?
when you prefer to play a game from 0 to 1000 without "cheating" (yes i realize it's not cheating .. but if I won't, or even worse, can't buy equipment .. its basically the same result as if someone has cheated to get way better gear) ... the p2w model is unattractive.
if the f2p model is truley only cosmetic in nature .. that is one thing .. as soon as it's not .. there is no reason for a lot of people to even consider it.
"because it sucks to play a game where the rich kick your ass just because they are rich?"
- I disagree! It sucks to live in a real world where the filthy soul-less rich kick your ass just because they are rich!!! DEATH to the filthy-bourgeois-soulless-laissez-faire-capitalist-rich!!!
Someone didn't get their Marxist cheerios, did they?
I am longtime eq2 player and to be honest I think there is 0 chance eq next will be f2p. I mean think about it right now eq2 has p2p and all cool stuff in the item shop I dare say its the most costly mmo on the market to play. With that said still the best mmo though.
I am fine with a 'freemium model' as long as effort is rewarded and mainline content is accessible when you buy the game. One thing I felt was rather unfair to the customer during LoTRO's transition was how you had to re-buy the content for anything before Moria. One could argue that you bought the game simply to have access for their servers, which is not the case as that's what the subscription fee was for.
I am also fine with a company making a profit, they need to exist and flourish while providing us with the demanded product.
1. Smedley still CEO -> how in the world can this bastard keep his job? He screwed up all Soe games and yet still is the CEO?!
2. its Soe -> I don't trust them and judging by the screenshots I'm right to do so
3. P2W oh well scratch another game from my list, not interested in another p2w rip off modell such as AoC or Lotor
btw. WoT != MMOG, its a lobbygame with a coopmode.
Knowing Soe is expect Everquest Next to be nothing like our beloved Everquest was, but full with p2p + itemshops + DLC + small full priced expansions, instead of features.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play." "Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
If Everquest Next has a good freemium model like Turbine's Lotro, sign me up. I love having the option to either subscribe or spend money in a reasonable cash shop.
Sigh...personally wish they all wouldn't go the cash shop route...it's BS. But...guess I can't blame them if there are enough morons out there to use them and not realize they are spending more than a monthly fee. Guess my days as an MMO gamer are numbered if this trend continues.
I wonder if it's ever going to be possible to microtransact your game time in the sense of paying for exactly however long you play?
And I wonder how that would affect MMO design?
Sadly, its been done. In the early days (early-mid 90s) America Online charged connection fees per minute (like the phone company) AND charged a premium per minute fee to play Neverwinter Nights. I never got involved in that particular scam, but I saw a friend's $400+ monthly AOL billing statements. I really saved him so much money when I addicted him to EQ in 99. Did I get any thanks? Not a chance.
Why is it a "scam" though? Isn't it absolutely fair that you pay for exactly however long you use the servers and resources?
Especially in games in which time is the primary resource? (Time you put into the virtual world, time you put into skliling up, etc.)
The only issue would be the price - but that would obviously be set by the market (at the least price the devs were willing to give away use of their resources for, that's at the same time the highest price that customers would be willing to pay for those services).
As long as EQ NEXT goes back to its EQ roots of being a real time world with massive dungeons, no themeparks and very little instancing, the payment model of it is secondary.
We're sick of instanced, single player, easy mode, hand holding MMOs. Developers need to look into the content of the game; if they FINALLY get this right again, the money will come because everyone will toss aside their current half-assed game and play EQ NEXT.
The reason most games now are some sort of F2P hybrid isn't because the developers thought it would work out best this way, its because people won't pay to play the current stock of garbage.
Get back to developing immersive MMOs and your problems will go away.
Comments
Playing the devil's advocate here, but I think Smed has a point.
While he agrees with your contention that anyone who pays a sub should be able to earn everything in the game, the market really IS pushing towards F2P + cash shops. Smed is simply looking for what works, and what will bring in players.
The original EQ might have a deeply loyal player base that's kept the game going for the last 12 years, but if SOE expects to survive to keep publishing games, they have to explore other options. That includes the F2P + cash shop model that people around here rail against.
Personally, I think the railing is a bit .. ....well.. lets just say I do not agree with it.
World of Tanks IMHO is a good example of a 'better' f2p"ish" cash shop"ish" model.
In WoT cash buys you "gold". However, there are multiple ways to obtain "gold" that have nothing to do with spending real-world dollars.
Competing and winning in world pvp fights with a good clan can win your entire clan gold over time.
Certain special event competitions win you gold.
Certain out-of-game competitions win you gold.
99.99% of everything you can get with real-world cash can be got elsewhere. There is very, very few exceptions (a pre-order tank) and these exceptions are not "game breaking" in the least.
In addition, a fully $$$ loaded tank does not offer that much of an advantage over a zero $$$ tank.
I don't mind the FTP option, so long as I'm not forced to spend over 10-15 per month to actually play the game at a reasonable level of play.
The problem is when companies like Cryptic combine both monthly subscription play WITH cash shops etc. This is where I pu my foot down.
Btw, email is not fake. I'll forward it to anyone who asks.
Unlike the subscription model, the F2P cash shop has wild and varying degrees of success and community response. F2P with cash shop goes from games like Allods where the maximum money spent gives something like 10% more dmg/resists/health/mana etc. to a game like League of Legends where the maximum money spent just gives you access to new champions perhaps a few weeks before anyone who wishes to work for it, but eventually keeps the playing field even.
I personally hope EQ Next goes towards the LoL approach and keeps any item-shop only items to small things like EXP boosts, cosmetic items and maybe like 10% faster mounts. Stuff people will gladly pay for, but no one HAS to pay for.
The funny thing about F2P is that people are much more likely to drop $3 a week than $15 a month... oh humans you are so silly.
"They essentially want to say 'Correlation proves Causation' when it's just not true." - Sovrath
*sigh* Another rant-against-f2p thread.
I simply don't understand what the gaming community's fascination is with a company's business model. SoE is in the business of making money, and they are now noticing that the revenue stream is much better for a free-to-play game with a cash shop option. Only the investors of Sony and SoE have any real concern with how they generate revenue.
Let's face it. The subscription model, which is essentially the same payment model used by the magazine and newspaper industry for over a hundred years, isn't as capable as generating the same revenue flow as a micro-transaction model in the current economy. Even the most cash-crunched gamers buried under the ruins of the economy can stomach a $1-2 fee occasionally, and enough will exceed the normal amounts to cover those economic refugees and make the net income more than could be sustained by the pure subscription model. This is purely a capatilistic response -- the company wants / needs more income, but raising the subscription prices is deemed to be unacceptable to the gaming consumer. But the company wants the revenue from the increased rates, so they adapt to a different business model and set up a new pricing structure that they believe will generate higher revenues. Now, they can achieve the revenue streams they want. Imagine this as though a cola company only offered one size. By offering different sizes at different price levels, they can increase their income.
As gamers, consumers of the MMORPG products these companys deliver, we still have the ability to play, and the ability to pay for what we do want. More importantly, we have the ability to not pay. We shouldn't pay for inferior products. If an item seems like it would overbalance the game, don't buy it, even if your arch-enemy, Jim, buys it. They are counting on Jim's greed to buy UberWeaponV1, and your jealosy to sell you UberWeaponMkII next month.
In a cash-driven world, the consumer does hold the hammer, but they rarely recognize that fact, nor possess the ability to use that power wisely. If you don't like the free-to-play model or don't like the game or elements within the game, simply move along. Let the companies make or lose money depending on how well they develop a product. A rant thread on a gaming site isn't going to change their perception of their business realities. They will never hear your rant, and you aren't likely to change anyone's mind. Let the basic economic principles determine their success or failure.
And I, as a wise consumer, will be happy to let the cash-laden gamers subsidize my gaming habits.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I believe the email and I am pretty sure future SOE MMO's (and most other companies) will include a hybrid payment model in them.
I'm currently playing EQ2 Extended, paying 15.00 a month for a gold membership and have forked over about 40.00 for SC cash that I haven't even spent yet.
A friend I met on line spent 60.00 at Walmart on SC cards and turned them in for the double SC weekend and got about 120.00 worth of SC which he spent on everything from the latest expansion to numerous housing/fluff items.
Fact is, there's many players out there willing to spend more than 15.00 a month on a MMORPG and Smed and the rest of the industry have made note of it.
Like it or not, almost every game will look to maximize their revenue with some sort of cash shop, some more benign than others, but in the end the traditional P2P model is on its last legs.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
because it sucks to play a game where the rich kick your ass just because they are rich?
when you prefer to play a game from 0 to 1000 without "cheating" (yes i realize it's not cheating .. but if I won't, or even worse, can't buy equipment .. its basically the same result as if someone has cheated to get way better gear) ... the p2w model is unattractive.
if the f2p model is truley only cosmetic in nature .. that is one thing .. as soon as it's not .. there is no reason for a lot of people to even consider it.
LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity.
I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already
because it sucks to play a game where the rich kick your ass just because they are rich?
when you prefer to play a game from 0 to 1000 without "cheating" (yes i realize it's not cheating .. but if I won't, or even worse, can't buy equipment .. its basically the same result as if someone has cheated to get way better gear) ... the p2w model is unattractive.
if the f2p model is truley only cosmetic in nature .. that is one thing .. as soon as it's not .. there is no reason for a lot of people to even consider it.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
"because it sucks to play a game where the rich kick your ass just because they are rich?"
- I disagree! It sucks to live in a real world where the filthy soul-less rich kick your ass just because they are rich!!! DEATH to the filthy-bourgeois-soulless-laissez-faire-capitalist-rich!!!
[quote]Originally posted by precious328
[b][color=#fff]So I emailed John Smedley. Why? I have no idea. I didn't think he'd actually reply. I wish I asked something more worthwhile. lol
My email in orange. His reply in yellow.
Being nickel & dimed to death is where the MMO is heading, e.g., cross-promotional items, cash shops, real money auction houses, etc. It's being done by everyone; it's getting old.
Bring it back, John. A person who purchases the game and pays the monthly fee should be able to obtain any item in the game though hard work.
---------
Reply |Smedley, John to me
show details 9:37 PM (11 hours ago)
fromSmedley, John [email=jsmedley@soe.sony.com]
dateMon, Sep 5, 2011 at 9:37 PM
subjectRe: SOE's EQ "Next" needs to reinvent loyalty.
mailed-bysoe.sony.com
Important mainly because of your interaction with messages in the conversation.
hide details 9:37 PM (11 hours ago)
I mostly agree with you. However there is a new reality out there for companies that run online games. That reality is that f2p seems to be the new norm in business models.[/color]
- Show quoted text -
[/b][/quote]
I assumed from the get-go that it would not be old-fashioned box+$14.99(whatever monthly). That model is well past dead at this point. My real concern is that they actually make something worth playing! EQ2 in it's versions is way too Wow-ified super -EZ- mode. God let them make a game that is actually fun and has some challenge!
Bourgeois means middle class ><... While a great word, please don't lump us in with the rest of those nouns and adjectives ;D!
I wonder if it's ever going to be possible to microtransact your game time in the sense of paying for exactly however long you play?
And I wonder how that would affect MMO design?
The topic, in a nutshell:
F2P is completely fine.
p2win isn't.
LoL isn't p2win, and has earned tons of my money.
World of Tanks is p2win, and despite being a fun game I won't pay a dime.
If you offer a kickass F2P MMORPG with lateral playstyle purchases (not verticle power increases) then you will make a lot of money from me.
Then again, if you don't create a MMORPG at least as enjoyable as WOW (and to do this you'd have to offer something different than WOW) then you're only going to get money if you charge an initial fee to buy the game; after which my confidence in your company may change considerably (fool me once...)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Sadly, its been done. In the early days (early-mid 90s) America Online charged connection fees per minute (like the phone company) AND charged a premium per minute fee to play Neverwinter Nights. I never got involved in that particular scam, but I saw a friend's $400+ monthly AOL billing statements. I really saved him so much money when I addicted him to EQ in 99. Did I get any thanks? Not a chance.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
What Vahrane said.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
If Everquest Next has a good freemium model like Turbine's Lotro, sign me up. I love having the option to either subscribe or spend money in a reasonable cash shop.
Someone didn't get their Marxist cheerios, did they?
As long as the game is worth spending money in, I don't care. This almost never happens.
He who keeps his cool best wins.
I am longtime eq2 player and to be honest I think there is 0 chance eq next will be f2p. I mean think about it right now eq2 has p2p and all cool stuff in the item shop I dare say its the most costly mmo on the market to play. With that said still the best mmo though.
I am fine with a 'freemium model' as long as effort is rewarded and mainline content is accessible when you buy the game. One thing I felt was rather unfair to the customer during LoTRO's transition was how you had to re-buy the content for anything before Moria. One could argue that you bought the game simply to have access for their servers, which is not the case as that's what the subscription fee was for.
I am also fine with a company making a profit, they need to exist and flourish while providing us with the demanded product.
lets get the facts I'm gathering from this:
1. Smedley still CEO -> how in the world can this bastard keep his job? He screwed up all Soe games and yet still is the CEO?!
2. its Soe -> I don't trust them and judging by the screenshots I'm right to do so
3. P2W oh well scratch another game from my list, not interested in another p2w rip off modell such as AoC or Lotor
btw. WoT != MMOG, its a lobbygame with a coopmode.
Knowing Soe is expect Everquest Next to be nothing like our beloved Everquest was, but full with p2p + itemshops + DLC + small full priced expansions, instead of features.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play."
"Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
This.
Sigh...personally wish they all wouldn't go the cash shop route...it's BS. But...guess I can't blame them if there are enough morons out there to use them and not realize they are spending more than a monthly fee. Guess my days as an MMO gamer are numbered if this trend continues.
Why is it a "scam" though? Isn't it absolutely fair that you pay for exactly however long you use the servers and resources?
Especially in games in which time is the primary resource? (Time you put into the virtual world, time you put into skliling up, etc.)
The only issue would be the price - but that would obviously be set by the market (at the least price the devs were willing to give away use of their resources for, that's at the same time the highest price that customers would be willing to pay for those services).
As long as EQ NEXT goes back to its EQ roots of being a real time world with massive dungeons, no themeparks and very little instancing, the payment model of it is secondary.
We're sick of instanced, single player, easy mode, hand holding MMOs. Developers need to look into the content of the game; if they FINALLY get this right again, the money will come because everyone will toss aside their current half-assed game and play EQ NEXT.
The reason most games now are some sort of F2P hybrid isn't because the developers thought it would work out best this way, its because people won't pay to play the current stock of garbage.
Get back to developing immersive MMOs and your problems will go away.