Subscription- nobody likes paying a monthly fee for a game
Makes bold statement.
Sees over 50% of his poll at this point show that they prefer paying a subscription.
subscription - 55.6%
cash shop - 11.1%
pay what you want - 11.1%
In game advertising - 0.0%
player hosting - 0.0%
one time fee (guild wars) - 22.2%
I maintain that the best model, and one we haven't seen tried yet as far as I know, may be to offer a *free* client, give the player a 2 week unlimited trial, and then ask for a reasonable sub if they want to carry on playing.
EVE-Online gives you 3 weeks, free client and free expansions, only sub game I play btw.
That's interesting, I didn't know that.
And EvE is growing not shrinking it seems.
Of course with the plex system you can play eve for free. hmm.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Subscription- nobody likes paying a monthly fee for a game
Makes bold statement.
Sees over 50% of his poll at this point show that they prefer paying a subscription.
subscription - 55.6%
cash shop - 11.1%
pay what you want - 11.1%
In game advertising - 0.0%
player hosting - 0.0%
one time fee (guild wars) - 22.2%
I maintain that the best model, and one we haven't seen tried yet as far as I know, may be to offer a *free* client, give the player a 2 week unlimited trial, and then ask for a reasonable sub if they want to carry on playing.
EVE-Online gives you 3 weeks, free client and free expansions, only sub game I play btw.
That's interesting, I didn't know that.
And EvE is growing not shrinking it seems.
Of course with the plex system you can play eve for free. hmm.
You can, yes, but only after you have earned the ISK to buy the PLEX yes? Which I would guess for the majority means paying a sub for a decent amount of time?
Also, with the PLEX system a sub is still purchased from the dev by someone in the game I guess, even if it then sold on.
As a sub prefered player I actually like the concept of PLEX. It allows the invested, those that have paid into supporting the game, to eventually play for free and it evens off the field a bit and removes barriers for new players if they so choose. I like it.
Though I'm not bothered by a game that offers F2P and a full sub option I'll pay to not be poked. Poked by signs, blocked content or just being a bad game (in some B grade titles). If it's a quality game and it's free then you get hit somewhere because who pays if they don't have to?
That said I like to spend a good amount of time in each game I play. Hoppers may tolerate the possible annoyances more than I
I still like Subscription over any other plan. It inspires an obligation to play, and it's cheap enough that you can't go to the movies are even the lake anymore for less, and it lasts all month. Anything is better than what MMOs used to charge. You used to pay by the hour XD
Originally posted by bugmeno Lord of the Rings Online F2P Model works just fine. 2 Years playin´ and didn´t spend a $$ and have everything (every questpack, expansion, 7 slot characters) > notin´ beats LoTRo in Terms of "User Friendly" I don´t recommend doing what i did though, many hours of TP farming.
Long time Lotro player from before F2P. Tried after F2p came in and it just ruined the game for me, will never go back.
As of now , there arent many f2p models that doesnt offend the playerbase.
Subscription- nobody likes paying a monthly fee for a game, on top of that when you stop paying you have no access to the game. The amount of new games coming in means no-one is likely to remain in the same game for more than six months(gw2,stwor)..
Well your own poll votes for now shows otherwise about subscription. I rather have a sub-fee ach month and know that in most cases I will enter a game with a dedicated player base.
F2P- is it possible to be f2p with a cash shop ,NO!!!! most people wouldnt spend money in a cash shop if it doesnt give them an advantage over the player.
I believe there are three payment methods that will please both players
PWYW(pay what you want) - pay what you want with a cap of $15, so each day could cost you $0.50.. so if you only play for 12 days in a month, this will only cost you $6 plus it pays for staff and removes kids from the game.
Don't see how it removes "kids" from the game with your PWYW
dayz/warz/minecraft model- buy the game and then host it, expansions come out every six months . this model works because the company can pay for some servers, pay staff and the pricing of the game is relatively low..
So you want more limited games or none-mmo type of games? Or is Arma today also called a MMO?
Adverts- an advert system could work, the game could be free or a small fee and we watch an advert before we play.
No, no and no, I don't mind sneaky adds, lets say a real world ingame setting with familiar brands on billboards or something. But to watch a add before playing is something I don't want and don't feel the majority would want that I mean even a simple loading screen gets on some people nerves.
what do you think?
What do I think? A good F2P system to me would be that everything that people can buy in a cashshop should be what people can earn ingame pure by playing the game, sure ingame it takes some effort and time but it's more rewarding towards a gamer then pulling out your CC and just pay for it as that's just isn't why I play games.
c) no obnoxious players, this largely depends on the game and any game that includes a rush to endgame attracts assholes. I'd love to see a game where you simply could not achieve more than 1 level per week no matter what you did, you could achieve wealth, craft weapons, etc. but no matter how much you killed, once you hit that level mark, you were stuck there for 7 days minimum.
Subscription- nobody likes paying a monthly fee for a game
Makes bold statement.
Sees over 50% of his poll at this point show that they prefer paying a subscription.
subscription - 55.6%
cash shop - 11.1%
pay what you want - 11.1%
In game advertising - 0.0%
player hosting - 0.0%
one time fee (guild wars) - 22.2%
I maintain that the best model, and one we haven't seen tried yet as far as I know, may be to offer a *free* client, give the player a 2 week unlimited trial, and then ask for a reasonable sub if they want to carry on playing.
This poll obvious is not representive of the market. Here is some market data.
I think they can all be done equitably under the right circumstances. Some are more equitable to the customer, while others are safer for the developer, but all of them have possibilities. My concern is with dysfunctional or abusive sales methods.
The worst abuse usually comes from cash shops, hamstringing the game so it is unbearable or inaccessible to play unless you pay for something in a "free to play" game is unacceptable. Even worse is gamble purchases where the advertised goods are part of some gamble where your likely to get something other than what is advertised, enter hydra mount from Atlantica, buy a $10 box with a possibility of getting the mount or 15 other items, mostly including bulk craft materials... Absolute consumer abuse. LoL has shown that completely optional and cosmetic to efficiency sales are adequate to make a fortune, abusive sales ultimately fail to compel responsible players.
But my other pet peeve is subscription + anything. You don't own the game, you can only play if you remain subscribed, yet they want to include retail, expansion retail, and digital goods... All of which a wholly forfeit if you discontinue subscription. I could pay up to $15 a month for an MMO, I would even accept a small retail cost with a small subscription cost, but a full retail plus full subscription and maybe even digital goods, all of which I can only keep if I remain subscribed, is sharking. I don't expect to spend a dime on digital goods with a subscription, no matter how low. The only thing they should be selling me is occasional expansions, and only if the subscription is $5-$10, and the retail/expansions are $10-$30. Don't sell me digital goods which honestly arn't mine when I fan only access them while I'm subscribed...
The smart and efficient way to sell things is make something players want, the game has to be fun or its just a gimmick, and no educated player will buy it. Things like mounts, pets, character slots, their all acceptable goods, but the prices expected are silly. Their trying to make a living off of the few players who find it worth buying, when simply making it cheap so everyone will gladly buy it, and start purchasing anything is far more effective. Your better off selling 20 mounts for $2, than 4 mounts for $10. Your better off selling character slots for $1 and make a game where effective use of several characters is compelling instead of trying to sell one for $10. Make the player glad to buy it, make them happy when they purchase, make them happy about the game before they even buy. That's how you keep customers and drive sales...
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry, they'll be a mile away... and barefoot.
Subscription- nobody likes paying a monthly fee for a game
Makes bold statement.
Sees over 50% of his poll at this point show that they prefer paying a subscription.
subscription - 55.6%
cash shop - 11.1%
pay what you want - 11.1%
In game advertising - 0.0%
player hosting - 0.0%
one time fee (guild wars) - 22.2%
I maintain that the best model, and one we haven't seen tried yet as far as I know, may be to offer a *free* client, give the player a 2 week unlimited trial, and then ask for a reasonable sub if they want to carry on playing.
This poll obvious is not representive of the market. Here is some market data.
And "The good news is that in 2012, F2P MMOs made more than their P2P counterparts, capturing the majority of the MMO US market’s revenue."
So not only more people play F2P games, F2P games made more money.
What the figures of this report (that we can see) do not recognise is that a lot, and by that I mean pretty much all of the converted AAA games, still feature (rely on, even) the sub. And those subs are included in their revenue... they should be called hybrid models, not 'F2P'. They could as easily be labelled 'Sub', if the agenda was to promote that model instead of 'F2P'.
The enduring popularity of the sub is proof in itself that it isn't going anywhere. The demand for it is clear.
What this report seems to be saying, without seeing the full thing, is that having no client cost will get more folks to try your game (surpise surprise...) and that having a cash shop in your game will make you extra money (again, not really a surprise).
I have actually read what is shown there of that report before though, and in all honesty I wasn't impressed with it. There is a lot of apparent guess work inolved in how they gather their 'facts'.
I never said the poll here was representative of the market though btw... Just for the record. I just made the point that it's kinda funny to see such a strong statement made by the OP, only to see it squashed in his own poll.
As of now , there arent many f2p models that doesnt offend the playerbase.
Subscription- nobody likes paying a monthly fee for a game, on top of that when you stop paying you have no access to the game. The amount of new games coming in means no-one is likely to remain in the same game for more than six months(gw2,stwor)..
.....
work, the game could be free or a small fee and we watch an advert before we play.
what do you think?
Wrong. I'm one of those players that plays ONLY sub games. Had tried in past also F2P ... but will never do it again. My stomach is still crawling.
Only exception - but is not truly F2P - is Gw2 which is great game and it is B2P.
And "The good news is that in 2012, F2P MMOs made more than their P2P counterparts, capturing the majority of the MMO US market’s revenue."
So not only more people play F2P games, F2P games made more money.
You do see that the poll shows what "some" people want and your link data shows what people have right? See the difference?
Sine there are choices, what people have is what they want. If they don't want F2P, why bother spending a second in those games?
BECAUSE THEY ARE FREE.......
dERP.. if a game has 1Million users because it is free, not all those people even care about the game, or even have intentions of playing it for any length of time. They are just trying it out. Some College kids are now using any free to play game as phun shops, to run around in a free game and create problems for the player-base... it's free you can do whatever you want.
If... if... they buy something, then the developer's makes something, otherwise their server space and effort is for NOTHING.
Narius.. you skew facts all the time... the term "players" in a Free to Play game means ZERO revenue... Players are just potential customer, but they are not your customer, until they actually buy something. So please stop trying to insinuate that players = customers.
Coincidentally, that means that 2 million people trying a F2P game, is about the the same as 100k paying a monthly sub...
FREE... means a college student can send a link to his buds & that next weekend, their whole floor can get on and tear up the "starter area" and greif all the little kids with their shiny $5 trinkets.
It's a free game, no rules, no repercusions, no harm & no foul..
FREE = CHEAP & it is no surprise that a free game has more register users than a payed game. Or Narius, are you just comming around to realize that MORE PLAYERS doesn't equil more revenues. Because in a F2P game, not all players are customers... not even 50% of them...
Lastly, I would pay $25/month for a good old fashioned MMORPG. I would pay $35/month for a MMORPG with active roleplaying CS reps in game.
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
Subscription- nobody likes paying a monthly fee for a game,
Thats a myth propagated by the industry.
I don't like it, I prefer it! I really hope they change EQNext to a sub, but probably not.
I like something to atleast be b2p, for a mmo, if you have no investment into it, I think that leads to it beingmore easily subjected to hackers/farmers and grief....Ban someone, they can just make a new account and act like a jerk in a couple minutes....If they had to pay for that account, not so much, if done right.
I have no problem paying, if the mmo is worth it, and I have stated elsewhere, if it isn't worth it, it being free will not keep me playing it, even being paid to play it will not keep me playing it (unless it was something absurd that would never happen, just to argue it).
It isn't the money...it's the game. f2p b2p p2p I don't care. If the game is fun and I want to log in and play it I don't care what type of payment model the game has.
The problem has never been the cost of the games. The problem is you get to a point in the game and think this is boring or broken to the point where it isn't fun and you quit.
I've never quit a game because I couldn't afford the $15.
Subscription- nobody likes paying a monthly fee for a game,
Thats a myth propagated by the industry.
I don't like it, I prefer it! I really hope they change EQNext to a sub, but probably not.
I like something to atleast be b2p, for a mmo, if you have no investment into it, I think that leads to it beingmore easily subjected to hackers/farmers and grief....Ban someone, they can just make a new account and act like a jerk in a couple minutes....If they had to pay for that account, not so much, if done right.
I have no problem paying, if the mmo is worth it, and I have stated elsewhere, if it isn't worth it, it being free will not keep me playing it, even being paid to play it will not keep me playing it (unless it was something absurd that would never happen, just to argue it).
Sure, serious gamer looking for quality and not just games which offer limited access in form of "free". Many dont care if it is free or not, quality counts.
The point is that the industry want to make the masses believe that allegedly a subscription is outdated, which is not since a lot of the sub based games are/were successfull and many things in our daily life are based on subs i.e. appartement, electricity, magazines/newspapers, gym, and so on.
There is a certain amount of players who are game hoppers which like the F2P concept, they switch games within a short time and dont play games for longer or even years.
The F2P concept draws of course the masses and have a huge rush of players, since you can access it for free even it is limited and this again influence the industry with this successfull concept. Since mmorpgs gameplay is a lot based on humans greed, of course the industry did find out how to make a clever business out of it.
Only a small percentage of either financially strong player and players who spend uncontrolled higher amounts is enough to make profit, besides the percentage of players who spend average amounts in the cash shop. In addition there is often the question if you really can participate the high end game without spending anything.
They work with all the tricks that you actually will probably spend a certain amount, often sometimes a lot more than just with a subscription, if you are a serious gamer and not a game hopper who will switch already to the next released F2P game. At the end such a concept may raise the revenues but destroys a lot what more serious mmorpg players are actually looking for and the genre reprobates.
And "The good news is that in 2012, F2P MMOs made more than their P2P counterparts, capturing the majority of the MMO US market’s revenue."
So not only more people play F2P games, F2P games made more money.
You do see that the poll shows what "some" people want and your link data shows what people have right? See the difference?
Are you saying that there are people that want subscription games but for some reason do not have access to them? If not, then what he presented is correct. These aren't utilities, they are leisure activities. In that light, the numbers show exactly what people want.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
And "The good news is that in 2012, F2P MMOs made more than their P2P counterparts, capturing the majority of the MMO US market’s revenue."
So not only more people play F2P games, F2P games made more money.
You do see that the poll shows what "some" people want and your link data shows what people have right? See the difference?
Are you saying that there are people that want subscription games but for some reason do not have access to them? If not, then what he presented is correct. These aren't utilities, they are leisure activities. In that light, the numbers show exactly what people want.
I love Age of Conan's free to play system, it almost has no restrictions except 50% bank space and advanced mount training
At lvl80 you are invested in the game and it makes sense to switch to sub or game time cards, because there is lots of premium endgame content and alternate advancement perks.
If you decide to invest 45$ into the game you have the Rotgs expansion, the Jewels of turan DLC and two months of premium time
Comments
Of course with the plex system you can play eve for free. hmm.
You can, yes, but only after you have earned the ISK to buy the PLEX yes? Which I would guess for the majority means paying a sub for a decent amount of time?
Also, with the PLEX system a sub is still purchased from the dev by someone in the game I guess, even if it then sold on.
As a sub prefered player I actually like the concept of PLEX. It allows the invested, those that have paid into supporting the game, to eventually play for free and it evens off the field a bit and removes barriers for new players if they so choose. I like it.
That said I like to spend a good amount of time in each game I play. Hoppers may tolerate the possible annoyances more than I
B2p for me.
Long time Lotro player from before F2P. Tried after F2p came in and it just ruined the game for me, will never go back.
Currently bored with MMO's.
I'd pay a subscription for a fun game assumnig:
a) I had time to play, which usually isn't true.
b) no cash shop at all, not even for vanity items
c) no obnoxious players, this largely depends on the game and any game that includes a rush to endgame attracts assholes. I'd love to see a game where you simply could not achieve more than 1 level per week no matter what you did, you could achieve wealth, craft weapons, etc. but no matter how much you killed, once you hit that level mark, you were stuck there for 7 days minimum.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
That's like asking Americans about Champions League: why ask someone who isn't in a position to have a well-thought out rational response?
This poll obvious is not representive of the market. Here is some market data.
In the US, F2P outnumber P2P 6 to 1.
http://www.superdataresearch.com/us-free-to-play-does-it-pay-to-switch/
And "The good news is that in 2012, F2P MMOs made more than their P2P counterparts, capturing the majority of the MMO US market’s revenue."
So not only more people play F2P games, F2P games made more money.
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, if they get angry, they'll be a mile away... and barefoot.
I think they can all be done equitably under the right circumstances. Some are more equitable to the customer, while others are safer for the developer, but all of them have possibilities. My concern is with dysfunctional or abusive sales methods.
The worst abuse usually comes from cash shops, hamstringing the game so it is unbearable or inaccessible to play unless you pay for something in a "free to play" game is unacceptable. Even worse is gamble purchases where the advertised goods are part of some gamble where your likely to get something other than what is advertised, enter hydra mount from Atlantica, buy a $10 box with a possibility of getting the mount or 15 other items, mostly including bulk craft materials... Absolute consumer abuse. LoL has shown that completely optional and cosmetic to efficiency sales are adequate to make a fortune, abusive sales ultimately fail to compel responsible players.
But my other pet peeve is subscription + anything. You don't own the game, you can only play if you remain subscribed, yet they want to include retail, expansion retail, and digital goods... All of which a wholly forfeit if you discontinue subscription. I could pay up to $15 a month for an MMO, I would even accept a small retail cost with a small subscription cost, but a full retail plus full subscription and maybe even digital goods, all of which I can only keep if I remain subscribed, is sharking. I don't expect to spend a dime on digital goods with a subscription, no matter how low. The only thing they should be selling me is occasional expansions, and only if the subscription is $5-$10, and the retail/expansions are $10-$30. Don't sell me digital goods which honestly arn't mine when I fan only access them while I'm subscribed...
The smart and efficient way to sell things is make something players want, the game has to be fun or its just a gimmick, and no educated player will buy it. Things like mounts, pets, character slots, their all acceptable goods, but the prices expected are silly. Their trying to make a living off of the few players who find it worth buying, when simply making it cheap so everyone will gladly buy it, and start purchasing anything is far more effective. Your better off selling 20 mounts for $2, than 4 mounts for $10. Your better off selling character slots for $1 and make a game where effective use of several characters is compelling instead of trying to sell one for $10. Make the player glad to buy it, make them happy when they purchase, make them happy about the game before they even buy. That's how you keep customers and drive sales...
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, if they get angry, they'll be a mile away... and barefoot.
What the figures of this report (that we can see) do not recognise is that a lot, and by that I mean pretty much all of the converted AAA games, still feature (rely on, even) the sub. And those subs are included in their revenue... they should be called hybrid models, not 'F2P'. They could as easily be labelled 'Sub', if the agenda was to promote that model instead of 'F2P'.
The enduring popularity of the sub is proof in itself that it isn't going anywhere. The demand for it is clear.
What this report seems to be saying, without seeing the full thing, is that having no client cost will get more folks to try your game (surpise surprise...) and that having a cash shop in your game will make you extra money (again, not really a surprise).
I have actually read what is shown there of that report before though, and in all honesty I wasn't impressed with it. There is a lot of apparent guess work inolved in how they gather their 'facts'.
I never said the poll here was representative of the market though btw... Just for the record. I just made the point that it's kinda funny to see such a strong statement made by the OP, only to see it squashed in his own poll.
subscription - 58.2%
cash shop - 9.2%
pay what you want - 8.2%
In game advertising - 0.0%
player hosting - 1.0%
one time fee (guild wars) - 23.5%
You do see that the poll shows what "some" people want and your link data shows what people have right? See the difference?
Wrong. I'm one of those players that plays ONLY sub games. Had tried in past also F2P ... but will never do it again. My stomach is still crawling.
Only exception - but is not truly F2P - is Gw2 which is great game and it is B2P.
Sine there are choices, what people have is what they want. If they don't want F2P, why bother spending a second in those games?
BECAUSE THEY ARE FREE.......
dERP.. if a game has 1Million users because it is free, not all those people even care about the game, or even have intentions of playing it for any length of time. They are just trying it out. Some College kids are now using any free to play game as phun shops, to run around in a free game and create problems for the player-base... it's free you can do whatever you want.
If... if... they buy something, then the developer's makes something, otherwise their server space and effort is for NOTHING.
Narius.. you skew facts all the time... the term "players" in a Free to Play game means ZERO revenue... Players are just potential customer, but they are not your customer, until they actually buy something. So please stop trying to insinuate that players = customers.
Coincidentally, that means that 2 million people trying a F2P game, is about the the same as 100k paying a monthly sub...
FREE... means a college student can send a link to his buds & that next weekend, their whole floor can get on and tear up the "starter area" and greif all the little kids with their shiny $5 trinkets.
It's a free game, no rules, no repercusions, no harm & no foul..
FREE = CHEAP & it is no surprise that a free game has more register users than a payed game. Or Narius, are you just comming around to realize that MORE PLAYERS doesn't equil more revenues. Because in a F2P game, not all players are customers... not even 50% of them...
Lastly, I would pay $25/month for a good old fashioned MMORPG. I would pay $35/month for a MMORPG with active roleplaying CS reps in game.
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
-Nariusseldon
Thats a myth propagated by the industry.
I don't like it, I prefer it! I really hope they change EQNext to a sub, but probably not.
I like something to atleast be b2p, for a mmo, if you have no investment into it, I think that leads to it beingmore easily subjected to hackers/farmers and grief....Ban someone, they can just make a new account and act like a jerk in a couple minutes....If they had to pay for that account, not so much, if done right.
I have no problem paying, if the mmo is worth it, and I have stated elsewhere, if it isn't worth it, it being free will not keep me playing it, even being paid to play it will not keep me playing it (unless it was something absurd that would never happen, just to argue it).
It isn't the money...it's the game. f2p b2p p2p I don't care. If the game is fun and I want to log in and play it I don't care what type of payment model the game has.
The problem has never been the cost of the games. The problem is you get to a point in the game and think this is boring or broken to the point where it isn't fun and you quit.
I've never quit a game because I couldn't afford the $15.
Sure, serious gamer looking for quality and not just games which offer limited access in form of "free". Many dont care if it is free or not, quality counts.
The point is that the industry want to make the masses believe that allegedly a subscription is outdated, which is not since a lot of the sub based games are/were successfull and many things in our daily life are based on subs i.e. appartement, electricity, magazines/newspapers, gym, and so on.
There is a certain amount of players who are game hoppers which like the F2P concept, they switch games within a short time and dont play games for longer or even years.
The F2P concept draws of course the masses and have a huge rush of players, since you can access it for free even it is limited and this again influence the industry with this successfull concept. Since mmorpgs gameplay is a lot based on humans greed, of course the industry did find out how to make a clever business out of it.
Only a small percentage of either financially strong player and players who spend uncontrolled higher amounts is enough to make profit, besides the percentage of players who spend average amounts in the cash shop. In addition there is often the question if you really can participate the high end game without spending anything.
They work with all the tricks that you actually will probably spend a certain amount, often sometimes a lot more than just with a subscription, if you are a serious gamer and not a game hopper who will switch already to the next released F2P game. At the end such a concept may raise the revenues but destroys a lot what more serious mmorpg players are actually looking for and the genre reprobates.
Are you saying that there are people that want subscription games but for some reason do not have access to them? If not, then what he presented is correct. These aren't utilities, they are leisure activities. In that light, the numbers show exactly what people want.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Nope that's not what I said.
I love Age of Conan's free to play system, it almost has no restrictions except 50% bank space and advanced mount training
At lvl80 you are invested in the game and it makes sense to switch to sub or game time cards, because there is lots of premium endgame content and alternate advancement perks.
If you decide to invest 45$ into the game you have the Rotgs expansion, the Jewels of turan DLC and two months of premium time
Secrets of Dragon?s Spine Trailer.. !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwT9cFVQCMw
Best MMOs ever played: Ultima, EvE, SW Galaxies, Age of Conan, The Secret World
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2X_SbZCHpc&t=21s
.
.
The Return of ELITE !