When is a population too low to consider shutting down a mmorpg or making it F2P?

bezado

When you can't find anyone to do things with, or when you know you have no economy because there is no population, when do you decide to close up shop or start venturing in a new direction with a different model plan? In question and up for debate is a current game I am playing that is over 12 years old now. Considering it's counterpart being the same age but with 250% to 300% more players online, should tell you something isn't working.

First off, I am waiting for GW2, that said my current favorite mmorpg that I consistently go back to over the years for fun has dwindled down to but a memory for most. Just to put things into perspective I took liberty of logging on each server the past 2 weeks during prime time to take the number of players online from each world and then tonight for the final night took all numbers and got an average over the 8 worlds.

With 8 worlds we have an unfavorable average of 118 players on during Monday-Thursday during PEEK hours, while Friday-Sunday has an average of 135 players per server on during peek hours. This doesn't even take into consideration two other important details, one of them is very important in that we only have 2 favorite servers where the populations exceed 200 players online during PEEK hours and a couple servers are below 100 and with one server consistently around 25-35 players online during PEEK hours, the other important thing to note is that each server has approximately 50% of the players dual logging accounts, meaning players are playing two accounts or more at a time. I say approximately 50% because everyone I run into usually has two accounts logged on at once.

Now to the sad state of affairs, this leads me to point out the game in question. Asheron's Call. It's sad that Turbine isn't doing anything about it to get more players. The game still requires a hefty $12.95 a month subscription fee. So much of the player-base is paying double or more a month, this is where Turbine is getting the extra subscriptions from players with multiple accounts.

So if you were a man in charge what would you do about something like this to get more players? I have created another thread before asking Turbine to create a model like SONY did with it's station pass so players from the other Turbine games could play every Turbine game for a fixed price, I even asked them to lower the monthly subscription price to a competitive price point of $5.99 a month.

But as time progresses on it seems more and more harder to get things done or to find players interested in doing things. I can only imagine those players who are not on the two top servers for decent populations, even off peek hours the top two servers are below 150 players online.

dubyahite

Simple answer when it costs more to operate than it creates in revenue.


And as for your example of AC, I would imagine those older games are easier to keep on a sub. The players that are still around are very dedicated. The game has obviously payed for all development costs long ago, and they probably have a very bare bones staff led working on it.

In short, the cost of running AC is probaly very low. There is enough subs left to keep making profit for the company. It's probably operating at a high margin these days (same with games like daoc, planetside, uo, and up until recently EQ).


The thing with f2p on these older games is that there are actually costs an resources involved with going f2p. It takes some extra coding as well as creating new content and cash shops/cash shop items for thegame.

With a game as old as AC or daoc or planetside, is it really worth it? Will they actually be able to attract new revenue and grow their profits? Probably not for long. People won't stick with those old games, except for those that already are paying a sub.

I think those older games could lose revenue by going f2p.

bezado

---

Originally posted by dubyahite
Simple answer when it costs more to operate than it creates in revenue. And as for your example of AC, I would imagine those older games are easier to keep on a sub. The players that are still around are very dedicated. The game has obviously payed for all development costs long ago, and they probably have a very bare bones staff led working on it. In short, the cost of running AC is probaly very low. There is enough subs left to keep making profit for the company. It's probably operating at a high margin these days (same with games like daoc, planetside, uo, and up until recently EQ). The thing with f2p on these older games is that there are actually costs an resources involved with going f2p. It takes some extra coding as well as creating new content and cash shops/cash shop items for thegame. With a game as old as AC or daoc or planetside, is it really worth it? Will they actually be able to attract new revenue and grow their profits? Probably not for long. People won't stick with those old games, except for those that already are paying a sub. I think those older games could lose revenue by going f2p.

---

EQ went F2P and is doing very well. The kind of F2P that doesn't involve item shop is based on the same design Sony uses, in that it just limits what you can do or get based on playing for Free and if you want more like higher levels unlocked or whatever then you got to pay monthly plan, but the plans are reasonable and low enough that they attract players who managed to play for Free and like the game. So Turbine should at least try it and then lower the cost monthly to unlock all for around $6 a month, sure would help the populations out and current players who love to play the game.

dubyahite

Yeah EQ is a good point. I guess it's possible.

Who knows why others have chosen not to go free.

Axehilt

No population is too high to consider going F2P.  As long as you have a good game and an item shop setup like LoL/Tribes/TF2 (ie, you don't sell overt power increases), you're going to make more money by removing the barrier to entry and letting more players realize how awesome your game is (and thus eventually become payers.)

As for shutting down, that's a simple matter of cost vs. revenue.