How the free to play games has to do with low quality?
Nobody knows Path of Exile?
And if companies adopt the model free to play is because their customers are not as loyal as well.
Don't use Path of Exile as "high quality" stuff.
The animations, art assets, and skills are all free-use stuff. It's pretty "meh" quality, it makes a nice picture.
It's great for a free ARPG...but there are much, much better ones out there, that you can buy.
I've followed POE for a year now and played abit myself...but the game is so boring. It has nothing going for it except that people who hate Diablo 3 play it.
It's superior to D3 in almost every aspect.
The skills aren't as good, the graphics aren't as good, the combat isn't as smooth & weighty, the story isn't as good (well, more like completely absent)... so yeah, you're just wrong on almost every level. PoE is fun but it's just leagues below D3 in nearly every conceivable category.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Originally posted by Golelorn Just like MJ missed with ToA, NF, and Warhammer he is wrong about this, too.
Really? Because he seems far FAR more in touch about just about everything happening in the MMO space than any other developer.
Notice how devs don't rave about their increased revenue over the long haul? They get a big boost when they go free, of people trying it, and it has saved a few games that went frrom making -10 money to +1 money, but it has not lasted in most games. And even some games that started as FTP (Tribes) is adding back in a BTP option.
The rush to FTP will die. FTP won't go away, it fits some games, but it does not fit nearly as many as are going for it. Darkfall and Eve prove that a niche MMO with the right design can do a monthly fee and do well.
I would love to see some numbers on that. I've definatly noticed a drop off over time after the initial surge in population for most games going f2p... but almost all the games that have gone f2p had declining subscription rates so moving from one declining model to another is not shocking. It would be interesting to compare where they are now vs. where they were projected to be had they stayed subscription. For aging games like L2 there is really only so much you can hope for regarless of model.
Also you're ignoring how insanely fast the f2p market has ramped up. L2 when it went f2p a little over a year ago was one of the better f2p games on the market. Now it's fairly far down the list since Aion/swtor/tera/rift/ect have all gone f2p. Some of the drop off has to be the surge in competition in the f2p market.
Originally posted by jesteralways even though i have no interest in camelot unchained, i agree with Mark Jacobs. i hope more developers and publishers come to realize this. pay2play is where the quality is.
I hate to come back into a forum that has already been discussed to the death. Unfortunately I hate seeing posts likes these (no offense to you). However, the quality of the product lies with the companies willingness to create something great and continue it's developement post production. Not the payment model they use to obtain money from their customers.
There's a reason why companies who make games such as Tera Online, AoC, and DCUO which start out with a subscription model end up forced to convert to a different payment method. It's because of the amount of content they're producing post release isn't sufficient enough to keep a customer coming back for more. These games still have great combat systems and incredible graphics for MMO's. They are truly good products for what they are.
However, I don't see how you think that a P2P model makes the quality of a product better. Please explain how you're coming to this conclusion?
You basically provided the evidence yourself. If the quality of content provided is sub par or a steady flow of content becomes a problem people quit or unsub forcing the game to go F2P. Even if the game play is fun it can't offset lack or quality of content. I don't see this being a problem with CU mainly because the content will come in the form of new areas, classes, races, etc. The hook of the game will be the game play itself (RvR) and not the content because you will have multitudes more of unique encounters by having the main interaction being between Players and not having to deal with an excessive amount of scripted NPCs who actions at some point become predictable.
If you've read my mosts in this thread before. You'll easily understand that I have no issue with the P2P model. There's also more to the issue then people just quitting before a company can get it's footing. The game needs to be able to last long enough for the customer and sorry but there haven't been many titles that have been able to hold their customers attention in recent years.
If game developers want to chase the "content locust" that's their choice. However you can't please the crowds who seek instant gratification. Those who want the easy life in a video game such as, quick teleportation, auction houses for fast or instant trade, quick and easy content so they don't have to work hard to obtain better gear, automatic quest routes and pin-point QPS, and easy class repec's. These things make MMO's live for short periods of time and if companies want a product to last long (especially MMO's) they need to stop holding these consumers hands.
When I hear/read about someone complaining on how they, "don't have the time for the long haul and work that goes through a classic MMO". I have to simply say to them, "It's about time you start thinking of quitting the MMO genre". Because MMO's are about getting the customer invested in their character and the world around them.
F2P titles are going to produce quality updates regardless:
Apologies I wasn't clear as to what I was addressing with what you said. You asked how one might come to the conclusion a P2P model makes the qualtiy of a product better. My response was that you list games which had to go F2P because of the lack of quantity of content but I'd go further and say in most cases it was also the quality. Build a game around a mechanic that is interesting and always presents new encounters and you have a much higher chance of surviving as P2P in my opinion frankly because the content is there to add variety to the mechanics. Maybe this isn't the case but hopefully we will see with CU.
@Dren_Utogi I'm not sure how much of each post you've looked at here because I always find reading your broken english a good challenge, not the point, but I don't think anyone here is saying what you posted. I do think they are saying a P2P model has a place in the market and it can do the things you listed which makes for a much more enjoyable time for those who are looking for that F2P fails to do completely. F2P games give people who don't invest in the game a much larger voice than those who support the game. This influences design choices and often leads to ruining the game for the players who support it with money.
"Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth."
Just another developer standing on a platform preaching to his choir. A lot of developers who are trying to work with other models are calling F2P a problem in one way or another.
What he's missing is that in business every single way of doing business has changed over X number of years. His prediction is simply that (as all things do) some free to play publishers and developers will collapse in the next 5-10 years.
That has nothing at all to do with F2P, that's just how business works.
I'm going to make a bold prediction.
Are you ready?
In 5-10 years because of the explosion of cell phone and Internet providers some of them won't exist anymore.
Don't ask me which ones of course because if I actually told you which ones I felt would no longer exist there is a higher chance I'd be wrong.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Originally posted by jesteralways even though i have no interest in camelot unchained, i agree with Mark Jacobs. i hope more developers and publishers come to realize this. pay2play is where the quality is.
I hate to come back into a forum that has already been discussed to the death. Unfortunately I hate seeing posts likes these (no offense to you). However, the quality of the product lies with the companies willingness to create something great and continue it's developement post production. Not the payment model they use to obtain money from their customers.
There's a reason why companies who make games such as Tera Online, AoC, and DCUO which start out with a subscription model end up forced to convert to a different payment method. It's because of the amount of content they're producing post release isn't sufficient enough to keep a customer coming back for more. These games still have great combat systems and incredible graphics for MMO's. They are truly good products for what they are.
However, I don't see how you think that a P2P model makes the quality of a product better. Please explain how you're coming to this conclusion?
You basically provided the evidence yourself. If the quality of content provided is sub par or a steady flow of content becomes a problem people quit or unsub forcing the game to go F2P. Even if the game play is fun it can't offset lack or quality of content. I don't see this being a problem with CU mainly because the content will come in the form of new areas, classes, races, etc. The hook of the game will be the game play itself (RvR) and not the content because you will have multitudes more of unique encounters by having the main interaction being between Players and not having to deal with an excessive amount of scripted NPCs who actions at some point become predictable.
If you've read my mosts in this thread before. You'll easily understand that I have no issue with the P2P model. There's also more to the issue then people just quitting before a company can get it's footing. The game needs to be able to last long enough for the customer and sorry but there haven't been many titles that have been able to hold their customers attention in recent years.
If game developers want to chase the "content locust" that's their choice. However you can't please the crowds who seek instant gratification. Those who want the easy life in a video game such as, quick teleportation, auction houses for fast or instant trade, quick and easy content so they don't have to work hard to obtain better gear, automatic quest routes and pin-point QPS, and easy class repec's. These things make MMO's live for short periods of time and if companies want a product to last long (especially MMO's) they need to stop holding these consumers hands.
When I hear/read about someone complaining on how they, "don't have the time for the long haul and work that goes through a classic MMO". I have to simply say to them, "It's about time you start thinking of quitting the MMO genre". Because MMO's are about getting the customer invested in their character and the world around them.
F2P titles are going to produce quality updates regardless:
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Originally posted by jesteralways even though i have no interest in camelot unchained, i agree with Mark Jacobs. i hope more developers and publishers come to realize this. pay2play is where the quality is.
I hate to come back into a forum that has already been discussed to the death. Unfortunately I hate seeing posts likes these (no offense to you). However, the quality of the product lies with the companies willingness to create something great and continue it's developement post production. Not the payment model they use to obtain money from their customers.
There's a reason why companies who make games such as Tera Online, AoC, and DCUO which start out with a subscription model end up forced to convert to a different payment method. It's because of the amount of content they're producing post release isn't sufficient enough to keep a customer coming back for more. These games still have great combat systems and incredible graphics for MMO's. They are truly good products for what they are.
However, I don't see how you think that a P2P model makes the quality of a product better. Please explain how you're coming to this conclusion?
You basically provided the evidence yourself. If the quality of content provided is sub par or a steady flow of content becomes a problem people quit or unsub forcing the game to go F2P. Even if the game play is fun it can't offset lack or quality of content. I don't see this being a problem with CU mainly because the content will come in the form of new areas, classes, races, etc. The hook of the game will be the game play itself (RvR) and not the content because you will have multitudes more of unique encounters by having the main interaction being between Players and not having to deal with an excessive amount of scripted NPCs who actions at some point become predictable.
If you've read my mosts in this thread before. You'll easily understand that I have no issue with the P2P model. There's also more to the issue then people just quitting before a company can get it's footing. The game needs to be able to last long enough for the customer and sorry but there haven't been many titles that have been able to hold their customers attention in recent years.
If game developers want to chase the "content locust" that's their choice. However you can't please the crowds who seek instant gratification. Those who want the easy life in a video game such as, quick teleportation, auction houses for fast or instant trade, quick and easy content so they don't have to work hard to obtain better gear, automatic quest routes and pin-point QPS, and easy class repec's. These things make MMO's live for short periods of time and if companies want a product to last long (especially MMO's) they need to stop holding these consumers hands.
When I hear/read about someone complaining on how they, "don't have the time for the long haul and work that goes through a classic MMO". I have to simply say to them, "It's about time you start thinking of quitting the MMO genre". Because MMO's are about getting the customer invested in their character and the world around them.
F2P titles are going to produce quality updates regardless:
The game is developed in korea and intended for the korean market. If you are going to argue about f2p producing quality updates, at least pick one that is f2p in its main market.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
I do not think using a mmo that was designed to be made p2p, regardless of market, is a good example of f2p producing quality. A much better example would be one that is designed to be f2p, and not b2p, from concept.
I am sure their are some good ones, but regardless of the pay model, I think their has been a lot of trash flooding the market, people play them 1-2 weeks/months (if that), and then jump to the next game.
Also, some f2p cash shops are not bad, but some give me the creeps, it is like someone is always trying to grab my wallet, and you are reminded constantly, while you play...It is annoying, I would rather pay a sub, than deal with the over zealous money grab that some games have. P2P has not been doing themselves a lot of favors either, a lot of them are trying to double dip, they tend to stay more cosmetic on average, but it is still kind of slimey.
Originally posted by jesteralways even though i have no interest in camelot unchained, i agree with Mark Jacobs. i hope more developers and publishers come to realize this. pay2play is where the quality is.
I hate to come back into a forum that has already been discussed to the death. Unfortunately I hate seeing posts likes these (no offense to you). However, the quality of the product lies with the companies willingness to create something great and continue it's developement post production. Not the payment model they use to obtain money from their customers.
There's a reason why companies who make games such as Tera Online, AoC, and DCUO which start out with a subscription model end up forced to convert to a different payment method. It's because of the amount of content they're producing post release isn't sufficient enough to keep a customer coming back for more. These games still have great combat systems and incredible graphics for MMO's. They are truly good products for what they are.
However, I don't see how you think that a P2P model makes the quality of a product better. Please explain how you're coming to this conclusion?
You basically provided the evidence yourself. If the quality of content provided is sub par or a steady flow of content becomes a problem people quit or unsub forcing the game to go F2P. Even if the game play is fun it can't offset lack or quality of content. I don't see this being a problem with CU mainly because the content will come in the form of new areas, classes, races, etc. The hook of the game will be the game play itself (RvR) and not the content because you will have multitudes more of unique encounters by having the main interaction being between Players and not having to deal with an excessive amount of scripted NPCs who actions at some point become predictable.
If you've read my mosts in this thread before. You'll easily understand that I have no issue with the P2P model. There's also more to the issue then people just quitting before a company can get it's footing. The game needs to be able to last long enough for the customer and sorry but there haven't been many titles that have been able to hold their customers attention in recent years.
If game developers want to chase the "content locust" that's their choice. However you can't please the crowds who seek instant gratification. Those who want the easy life in a video game such as, quick teleportation, auction houses for fast or instant trade, quick and easy content so they don't have to work hard to obtain better gear, automatic quest routes and pin-point QPS, and easy class repec's. These things make MMO's live for short periods of time and if companies want a product to last long (especially MMO's) they need to stop holding these consumers hands.
When I hear/read about someone complaining on how they, "don't have the time for the long haul and work that goes through a classic MMO". I have to simply say to them, "It's about time you start thinking of quitting the MMO genre". Because MMO's are about getting the customer invested in their character and the world around them.
F2P titles are going to produce quality updates regardless:
The game is developed in korea and intended for the korean market. If you are going to argue about f2p producing quality updates, at least pick one that is f2p in its main market.
I'm talking about a F2P in the U.S. market. Which I'm sorry if you don't understand is our main market.
The profits in korea is what pays the for updates, the money from f2p only pays for the translation costs and keeping up the servers in the west. The game is a giant in korea and had 2-3 million payers during its peak and the western market is irrelevant for the games future.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
Originally posted by jesteralways even though i have no interest in camelot unchained, i agree with Mark Jacobs. i hope more developers and publishers come to realize this. pay2play is where the quality is.
I hate to come back into a forum that has already been discussed to the death. Unfortunately I hate seeing posts likes these (no offense to you). However, the quality of the product lies with the companies willingness to create something great and continue it's developement post production. Not the payment model they use to obtain money from their customers.
There's a reason why companies who make games such as Tera Online, AoC, and DCUO which start out with a subscription model end up forced to convert to a different payment method. It's because of the amount of content they're producing post release isn't sufficient enough to keep a customer coming back for more. These games still have great combat systems and incredible graphics for MMO's. They are truly good products for what they are.
However, I don't see how you think that a P2P model makes the quality of a product better. Please explain how you're coming to this conclusion?
You basically provided the evidence yourself. If the quality of content provided is sub par or a steady flow of content becomes a problem people quit or unsub forcing the game to go F2P. Even if the game play is fun it can't offset lack or quality of content. I don't see this being a problem with CU mainly because the content will come in the form of new areas, classes, races, etc. The hook of the game will be the game play itself (RvR) and not the content because you will have multitudes more of unique encounters by having the main interaction being between Players and not having to deal with an excessive amount of scripted NPCs who actions at some point become predictable.
If you've read my mosts in this thread before. You'll easily understand that I have no issue with the P2P model. There's also more to the issue then people just quitting before a company can get it's footing. The game needs to be able to last long enough for the customer and sorry but there haven't been many titles that have been able to hold their customers attention in recent years.
If game developers want to chase the "content locust" that's their choice. However you can't please the crowds who seek instant gratification. Those who want the easy life in a video game such as, quick teleportation, auction houses for fast or instant trade, quick and easy content so they don't have to work hard to obtain better gear, automatic quest routes and pin-point QPS, and easy class repec's. These things make MMO's live for short periods of time and if companies want a product to last long (especially MMO's) they need to stop holding these consumers hands.
When I hear/read about someone complaining on how they, "don't have the time for the long haul and work that goes through a classic MMO". I have to simply say to them, "It's about time you start thinking of quitting the MMO genre". Because MMO's are about getting the customer invested in their character and the world around them.
F2P titles are going to produce quality updates regardless:
The game is developed in korea and intended for the korean market. If you are going to argue about f2p producing quality updates, at least pick one that is f2p in its main market.
I'm talking about a F2P in the U.S. market. Which I'm sorry if you don't understand is our main market.
/facepalm
But its not Aion's primary market. If you are proving that F2P games provide great content, you need to pick an example where that content isnt primarily being produced for a P2P playerbase.
Originally posted by VorthanionI sure hope this buisiness model collapses. I'm tired of the crappy quality games that have resulted from this movement.
are you also tired of all the crappy quality P2P MMO's that continue to release?
I'll take subscription based SWTOR over any of the current F2P pieces of garbage anyday.
How did f2p change the content of the game ?
It was designed for subscription, which means it had a higher quality development than those I have played that were F2P from the start
Really ? what games would that be ?
I find it a lot higher in quality than Neverwinter or Planetside 2 or any of the plethora of asian F2P monstrosities. I don't know about Archeage, it may start off as F2P or not, but the jury is still out on whether it's of high quality or not. As far as I know, Wildstar is starting as subscription as will EverQuest Next and Elder Scrolls Online. All three of which look good on paper, but we'll see. The potential already looks better than most games built for F2P from the start.
Everquest Next is f2p. The payment models of Wildstar and TESO are currently unknown.
I highly doubt that. At the least, it will be a freemium game. They've invested way too much money, far beyond what they put into Planetside 2, to go strictly F2P.
Originally posted by VorthanionI sure hope this buisiness model collapses. I'm tired of the crappy quality games that have resulted from this movement.
are you also tired of all the crappy quality P2P MMO's that continue to release?
I'll take subscription based SWTOR over any of the current F2P pieces of garbage anyday.
How did f2p change the content of the game ?
It was designed for subscription, which means it had a higher quality development than those I have played that were F2P from the start
Really ? what games would that be ?
I find it a lot higher in quality than Neverwinter or Planetside 2 or any of the plethora of asian F2P monstrosities. I don't know about Archeage, it may start off as F2P or not, but the jury is still out on whether it's of high quality or not. As far as I know, Wildstar is starting as subscription as will EverQuest Next and Elder Scrolls Online. All three of which look good on paper, but we'll see. The potential already looks better than most games built for F2P from the start.
Everquest Next is f2p. The payment models of Wildstar and TESO are currently unknown.
I highly doubt that. At the least, it will be a freemium game. They've invested way too much money, far beyond what they put into Planetside 2, to go strictly F2P.
Actually most people reckon EQN will be F2P in a similar vein to Vanguard (no real restrictions besides 1-2 points which will get people interested in subbing and EQN can pull this off because it has similar clout in the market as WoW had at launch) while Wildstar and TESO are most likely gonna be B2P with cash shop like GW2.
I will state this much about the P2P fanatics running around in here trying to make it sound like a way better model than F2P because of x,y,z without any credible (and preferably ample) proof: The only game which is P2P which is growing at this moment is EVE-Online, a FFA PVP, full-loss/partial loot space game that's a full on MMO sandbox where outside of High Security space you can run into some pretty weird and wonderful (or horrific) things. The fact that game even 10 years down the line is gaining sub numbers should tell people just what kind of game is viable with the P2P system post-"I don't have to pay to play shitty games because there are exactly the same type of shitty games free to play!" revelation. By what I've read CU will sink as a P2P game because its PVP aspect is restricted to Hell (RvRvR, whereas in EVE you could have schisms in corporations, guilds, which lead to basically civil war within that guild) and back and the sandbox elements aren't there much.
I get what MJ and his fans would want, a rebirth of DAoC basically with more odds and ends strapped on, but to think CU would work in the MMO landscape in 3-5 years as a P2P is... delluded, we've got so many options already and more are on the way this year alone (Hell I am looking towards Archeage personally and thinking: if the devs play their cards right that'll be the next EVE-level game). In 3-5 years Embers of Caerus will likely be out, EVE-Online would've cemented it's grip on its niche further with iterations and expansions on current systems (more 0.0 space is innevitable, the summer expansion is set to mix up things from an explorations stand point again and if it is like Apocrypha then a portion of space will again become like the Wild West), World of Darkness might be well into closed beta stages by then, EQN will at the very least be on the near horizon,etc. Now you may say: But most of those don't have a declared payment model or are P2P! and I say: exactly, if all those games are P2P and are good enough to retain their subscribers then CU will face a crippling lack of initial subbers.
I will state this much about the P2P fanatics running around in here trying to make it sound like a way better model than F2P because of x,y,z without any credible (and preferably ample) proof: The only game which is P2P which is growing at this moment is EVE-Online, a FFA PVP, full-loss/partial loot space game that's a full on MMO sandbox where outside of High Security space you can run into some pretty weird and wonderful (or horrific) things. The fact that game even 10 years down the line is gaining sub numbers should tell people just what kind of game is viable with the P2P system post-"I don't have to pay to play shitty games because there are exactly the same type of shitty games free to play!" revelation.
Let's change this to checkout f2p/b2p MMOs and the behaviour those games have beyond the three months after launch/conversion. GW2 and PS2 had the exact same player behaviour as a P2P game during launch, TSW, tera, swtor had a big increase in amount of players when it converted to f2p/b2p and is shrinking now, DDO and lotro, the two games that has been most hyped due to f2p no longer have that magical push with more players now.
There is no miracle system that creates an evergrowing playerbase.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
I will state this much about the P2P fanatics running around in here trying to make it sound like a way better model than F2P because of x,y,z without any credible (and preferably ample) proof: The only game which is P2P which is growing at this moment is EVE-Online, a FFA PVP, full-loss/partial loot space game that's a full on MMO sandbox where outside of High Security space you can run into some pretty weird and wonderful (or horrific) things. The fact that game even 10 years down the line is gaining sub numbers should tell people just what kind of game is viable with the P2P system post-"I don't have to pay to play shitty games because there are exactly the same type of shitty games free to play!" revelation. By what I've read CU will sink as a P2P game because its PVP aspect is restricted to Hell (RvRvR, whereas in EVE you could have schisms in corporations, guilds, which lead to basically civil war within that guild) and back and the sandbox elements aren't there much...
To start with, nobody has said that P2P is inherently a better model than F2P. This entire thread has been the other way around with F2P fanatics saying that no P2P games are ever allowed to made again forever.
We have said that P2P is a better model for us for a specific game that we want to play.
The F2P zealots are the ones intentionally coming onto subforums set up for a game that has been specifically stated to not be F2P and saying "this sucks because its not what I want".
The sandbox enviornment of EVE is very interesting, but its a completely different game. Its basically a different genre from fantasy RPG's and I personally just dont have an attraction to the EVE setting.
CU is the most interesting concept we've been presented as a fantasy based PvP MMORPG. If it is really successful, I could see that eventually leading to a full PvP alternate ruleset server as well just like it did for DAOC.
Do I think F2P will have an apocalyptic outcome in 3-5 years? absolutely not. It's a model that has been around for almost as long as the P2P model.
Is it possible that some of our disagreement is simply over the fact that when I used the word apocalypse, it was to describe what was going to happen to the developers/publishers? I know that F2P isn't going away anytime soon. I used that term to describe all the studios that were going to be shut down because that there will be too many of them turning out too much expensive content, all chasing the same customers.
Anyway, time to hit the sack. I enjoyed the exchange. Cya!
ugh, this is one of those things that really turn people off MJ! You should know this already going into making a niche game, you're not chasing all "MMO Customers" you're chasing a select group of MMO players. I hope you realize this rather than just stating it. The people who play DAoC are different from those who play EQ1. The ones who play PlanetSide2 are different from WoW.
I think this is the giant leap of logic in your analysis on the F2P model, assuming that all MMO companies(which by your definition includes yours) are targetting the same players. You're attempting to make a niche PvP-only game that targets group PvP players, but you're not dealing with the same customers who play Darkfall which is also a PvP-only game, except designed more for world domination and is a first person shooter.
The more I read your posts the more I feel like you are just ignoring some of the customer base, just like you did in DAoC. You're targetting the masses of interest in the game, rather than the niche core who you think you're enticing.
Do I think F2P will have an apocalyptic outcome in 3-5 years? absolutely not. It's a model that has been around for almost as long as the P2P model.
Is it possible that some of our disagreement is simply over the fact that when I used the word apocalypse, it was to describe what was going to happen to the developers/publishers? I know that F2P isn't going away anytime soon. I used that term to describe all the studios that were going to be shut down because that there will be too many of them turning out too much expensive content, all chasing the same customers.
Anyway, time to hit the sack. I enjoyed the exchange. Cya!
ugh, this is one of those things that really turn people off MJ! You should know this already going into making a niche game, you're not chasing all "MMO Customers" you're chasing a select group of MMO players. I hope you realize this rather than just stating it. The people who play DAoC are different from those who play EQ1. The ones who play PlanetSide2 are different from WoW.
I think this is the giant leap of logic in your analysis on the F2P model, assuming that all MMO companies(which by your definition includes yours) are targetting the same players. You're attempting to make a niche PvP-only game that targets group PvP players, but you're not dealing with the same customers who play Darkfall which is also a PvP-only game, except designed more for world domination and is a first person shooter.
The more I read your posts the more I feel like you are just ignoring some of the customer base, just like you did in DAoC. You're targetting the masses of interest in the game, rather than the niche core who you think you're enticing.
I'm not sure what you are talking about or how you could have possibly gotten anything like that from his post.
He said that a lot of those F2P games are all chasing the same customers. Which is just a fact. Many of the worst ones are even literally clones of each other.
Thats not saying anything about CU which is going after a totally different audience, hence why its using a different business model.
Originally posted by VorthanionI sure hope this buisiness model collapses. I'm tired of the crappy quality games that have resulted from this movement.
are you also tired of all the crappy quality P2P MMO's that continue to release?
I'll take subscription based SWTOR over any of the current F2P pieces of garbage anyday.
How did f2p change the content of the game ?
It was designed for subscription, which means it had a higher quality development than those I have played that were F2P from the start
Really ? what games would that be ?
I find it a lot higher in quality than Neverwinter or Planetside 2 or any of the plethora of asian F2P monstrosities. I don't know about Archeage, it may start off as F2P or not, but the jury is still out on whether it's of high quality or not. As far as I know, Wildstar is starting as subscription as will EverQuest Next and Elder Scrolls Online. All three of which look good on paper, but we'll see. The potential already looks better than most games built for F2P from the start.
Everquest Next is f2p. The payment models of Wildstar and TESO are currently unknown.
I highly doubt that. At the least, it will be a freemium game. They've invested way too much money, far beyond what they put into Planetside 2, to go strictly F2P.
I think MMORPGers, the old school core ones are smart enough to ignore these silly things. Give us cash or you can't have a bank slot! It's getting sickening. So I buy the product, then I pay you again to "unlock" all the stuff inside. WTF.
[mod edit]
Both models cater to different type of gamers. You don't get to be the "smarter" one because you preferred one or the other.
Old timers tend to have the mindset of "I want everything accessible in my game!". F2P doesn't work for these people because they'll end up spending more.
However, there are gamers who are fine not unlocking everything, and see more merit in just buying features when they really need them. For these types of players, F2P is the better choice because it is possible for them to not spend a single dime for months, and in some MMOs, they tend to not spend anything at all.
Originally posted by boxsnd We will see if his prediction is right. I predict exactly the opposite. F2P/B2P will flourish and P2P will die out with WoW.
I predict you are half right. I think the whole genre is going to be in trouble by then.
Business models are not the issue. pisspoor quality MMORPGs are the issue. Create a quality product and people will pay for it. Once you have a quality product, you can then figure out the best business model. But we can all see how dollar signs have driven this industry since the (anomalous) success of WoW. Developers have lost sight of why gamers play and have zeroed in on their wallets. It shows.
MMORPGs weren't originally mainstream games. I believe they will eventually either die out or return to their roots. I also think there will be forks. Gw2 could potentially be the pioneer to such a fork....A hybrization from action games. But in the end, I don't think they will be what we call(ed) MMORPGs
There has not been too many good MMOs for sure. You are right, but I think we are reaching the tail end of that cycle. GW2 has been a huge success -- the biggest since WoW-- and is seeing more initial success then WoW did initially as well. A big reason for this is the B2P model. I think that is the direction "AAA" quality MMOs will go. Games like TESO and Wildstar look to be promising. I think that the future of this genre is fine, but I also think that there will be more quality games coming. From my current perspective the only thing that could screw up TESO and Wildstar at this point is...a sub model.
I think your wrong and the millions of players still playing WoW agree. People don't care what the pay model is as long as the game is good and keeps them playing. Your trying to factor in this current crop of failed mmo's that had to go to F2P to try and recoup some of the money they lost from bad decisions, yes there will always be a few die hard fans that stick around buying stuff from the cash shops, but doesnt that make the game a niche game?
B2P is a funny model, your basically paying a box price for a F2P model game. Now you say that was a huge success, how are you judgeing this huge success? It might have been from launch, but this genre isnt about quick money making titles, it used to be a marathon and about longevity.
The millions of people playing WoW are playing WoW because they have been playing it forever. They are commited to the game, invested to it, and that won't go away anytime soon. As far as the rest of us who play other --newer games, this is not the case. The rest of the industry (which at this point is far bigger then WoW) is constantly jumping from game to game. There are a few who stick around with their sub based MMOs, but for the most part they are sticking with F2P / B2P games. GW2 is a huge success and you are just blinding yourself with World of Warcraft if you can't see this. Just look up some NC Soft earnings reports. They are making the company more money then ever because of it.
Your ignorance of the B2P model is apparent here. A f2p game restricts you, alot of times on content, whereas a B2P game does not. You buy GW2 and you get the whole game. You don't have to pay a cent. You can see and play all the content there is completely for free. That is not a F2P model. F2P models restrict your ability to play the game the way you want to or restrict the amount of content available to you.
The fact that they lost subs, once again, after an expansion launched shows just how well that game is doing. Honestly, the game is going to continue to lose subs every quarter just as it did after Cata. Every expansion they will get back some, but I expect it won't be for long.
Best post so far.
I think we should stop lumping all FTP into the same category since there are some truely terrible models within this system. It all comes down to execution and not nickel and diming players to death with every little thing.
The fact that MJ's game is set to release right around the time of his prediction is also laughable.
The real reason FTP is here to stay is because the era of people playing 1 MMO for years and years is over.
Most games make decent money the first year. It's after that point that proves if a model works well or not. I never heard much of anything about GW1's profitability a year after release or expansion. I've yet to hear any company boasting of huge profits in a F2P game older than a year. I hear lots of noise about account numbers and nothing about actual income. I've noticed more and more F2P games closing after they've been going for more than a year.
And yet, B2P games are pretty new when it comes to continued revenue. GW2 has not been out very long, but it is making ArenaNet/NCSoft alot of money every quarter. GW1 did not really have a cash shop, it had some micro-transactions after a few years of being out, but no cash-shop. So obviously it wasn't going to be a huge revenue type game. I mean, they didn't need it to be...it was made by 10 guys. I mean B2P clearly worked here since they had some rather large expansions at a pretty crazy frequency until development was ceased to work on GW2.
Things have obviously changed since then and the company is now massive (and continues to hire). So they need the income, which they are making plenty of. So we have not really seen how well B2P will do over a long period of time. But just based on what we have seen so far there is no indication that it won't keep making them money. But you can't lump B2P in with F2P because they have completely different payment models and gameplay models.
No one is going to make noise about account numbers for a F2P game. Thats one of the reasons games go F2P is to hide these numbers. Obviously they will talk about income, but not on a specific basis. It will be part of an earnings report that only the number crunching investors can understand. It does not mean they are not making money. This is like when people say "X game is dying" because they or their few friends don't play it. I am also wondering what F2P games are closing? Can you give me some examples? Are you talking about some obscure facebook game or something that was hardly advertised?
Comments
The skills aren't as good, the graphics aren't as good, the combat isn't as smooth & weighty, the story isn't as good (well, more like completely absent)... so yeah, you're just wrong on almost every level. PoE is fun but it's just leagues below D3 in nearly every conceivable category.
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/grimoire-forever/
Support old-school gaming!
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
I would love to see some numbers on that. I've definatly noticed a drop off over time after the initial surge in population for most games going f2p... but almost all the games that have gone f2p had declining subscription rates so moving from one declining model to another is not shocking. It would be interesting to compare where they are now vs. where they were projected to be had they stayed subscription. For aging games like L2 there is really only so much you can hope for regarless of model.
Also you're ignoring how insanely fast the f2p market has ramped up. L2 when it went f2p a little over a year ago was one of the better f2p games on the market. Now it's fairly far down the list since Aion/swtor/tera/rift/ect have all gone f2p. Some of the drop off has to be the surge in competition in the f2p market.
Apologies I wasn't clear as to what I was addressing with what you said. You asked how one might come to the conclusion a P2P model makes the qualtiy of a product better. My response was that you list games which had to go F2P because of the lack of quantity of content but I'd go further and say in most cases it was also the quality. Build a game around a mechanic that is interesting and always presents new encounters and you have a much higher chance of surviving as P2P in my opinion frankly because the content is there to add variety to the mechanics. Maybe this isn't the case but hopefully we will see with CU.
@Dren_Utogi I'm not sure how much of each post you've looked at here because I always find reading your broken english a good challenge, not the point, but I don't think anyone here is saying what you posted. I do think they are saying a P2P model has a place in the market and it can do the things you listed which makes for a much more enjoyable time for those who are looking for that F2P fails to do completely. F2P games give people who don't invest in the game a much larger voice than those who support the game. This influences design choices and often leads to ruining the game for the players who support it with money.
"Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth."
Just another developer standing on a platform preaching to his choir. A lot of developers who are trying to work with other models are calling F2P a problem in one way or another.
What he's missing is that in business every single way of doing business has changed over X number of years. His prediction is simply that (as all things do) some free to play publishers and developers will collapse in the next 5-10 years.
That has nothing at all to do with F2P, that's just how business works.
I'm going to make a bold prediction.
Are you ready?
In 5-10 years because of the explosion of cell phone and Internet providers some of them won't exist anymore.
Don't ask me which ones of course because if I actually told you which ones I felt would no longer exist there is a higher chance I'd be wrong.
Website: http://www.thegameguru.me / YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/users/thetroublmaker
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Aion is p2p in korea.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
The game is developed in korea and intended for the korean market. If you are going to argue about f2p producing quality updates, at least pick one that is f2p in its main market.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
I do not think using a mmo that was designed to be made p2p, regardless of market, is a good example of f2p producing quality. A much better example would be one that is designed to be f2p, and not b2p, from concept.
I am sure their are some good ones, but regardless of the pay model, I think their has been a lot of trash flooding the market, people play them 1-2 weeks/months (if that), and then jump to the next game.
Also, some f2p cash shops are not bad, but some give me the creeps, it is like someone is always trying to grab my wallet, and you are reminded constantly, while you play...It is annoying, I would rather pay a sub, than deal with the over zealous money grab that some games have. P2P has not been doing themselves a lot of favors either, a lot of them are trying to double dip, they tend to stay more cosmetic on average, but it is still kind of slimey.
The profits in korea is what pays the for updates, the money from f2p only pays for the translation costs and keeping up the servers in the west. The game is a giant in korea and had 2-3 million payers during its peak and the western market is irrelevant for the games future.
/facepalm
But its not Aion's primary market. If you are proving that F2P games provide great content, you need to pick an example where that content isnt primarily being produced for a P2P playerbase.
I highly doubt that. At the least, it will be a freemium game. They've invested way too much money, far beyond what they put into Planetside 2, to go strictly F2P.
Actually most people reckon EQN will be F2P in a similar vein to Vanguard (no real restrictions besides 1-2 points which will get people interested in subbing and EQN can pull this off because it has similar clout in the market as WoW had at launch) while Wildstar and TESO are most likely gonna be B2P with cash shop like GW2.
I will state this much about the P2P fanatics running around in here trying to make it sound like a way better model than F2P because of x,y,z without any credible (and preferably ample) proof: The only game which is P2P which is growing at this moment is EVE-Online, a FFA PVP, full-loss/partial loot space game that's a full on MMO sandbox where outside of High Security space you can run into some pretty weird and wonderful (or horrific) things. The fact that game even 10 years down the line is gaining sub numbers should tell people just what kind of game is viable with the P2P system post-"I don't have to pay to play shitty games because there are exactly the same type of shitty games free to play!" revelation. By what I've read CU will sink as a P2P game because its PVP aspect is restricted to Hell (RvRvR, whereas in EVE you could have schisms in corporations, guilds, which lead to basically civil war within that guild) and back and the sandbox elements aren't there much.
I get what MJ and his fans would want, a rebirth of DAoC basically with more odds and ends strapped on, but to think CU would work in the MMO landscape in 3-5 years as a P2P is... delluded, we've got so many options already and more are on the way this year alone (Hell I am looking towards Archeage personally and thinking: if the devs play their cards right that'll be the next EVE-level game). In 3-5 years Embers of Caerus will likely be out, EVE-Online would've cemented it's grip on its niche further with iterations and expansions on current systems (more 0.0 space is innevitable, the summer expansion is set to mix up things from an explorations stand point again and if it is like Apocrypha then a portion of space will again become like the Wild West), World of Darkness might be well into closed beta stages by then, EQN will at the very least be on the near horizon,etc. Now you may say: But most of those don't have a declared payment model or are P2P! and I say: exactly, if all those games are P2P and are good enough to retain their subscribers then CU will face a crippling lack of initial subbers.
Let's change this to checkout f2p/b2p MMOs and the behaviour those games have beyond the three months after launch/conversion. GW2 and PS2 had the exact same player behaviour as a P2P game during launch, TSW, tera, swtor had a big increase in amount of players when it converted to f2p/b2p and is shrinking now, DDO and lotro, the two games that has been most hyped due to f2p no longer have that magical push with more players now.
There is no miracle system that creates an evergrowing playerbase.
To start with, nobody has said that P2P is inherently a better model than F2P. This entire thread has been the other way around with F2P fanatics saying that no P2P games are ever allowed to made again forever.
We have said that P2P is a better model for us for a specific game that we want to play.
The F2P zealots are the ones intentionally coming onto subforums set up for a game that has been specifically stated to not be F2P and saying "this sucks because its not what I want".
The sandbox enviornment of EVE is very interesting, but its a completely different game. Its basically a different genre from fantasy RPG's and I personally just dont have an attraction to the EVE setting.
CU is the most interesting concept we've been presented as a fantasy based PvP MMORPG. If it is really successful, I could see that eventually leading to a full PvP alternate ruleset server as well just like it did for DAOC.
ugh, this is one of those things that really turn people off MJ! You should know this already going into making a niche game, you're not chasing all "MMO Customers" you're chasing a select group of MMO players. I hope you realize this rather than just stating it. The people who play DAoC are different from those who play EQ1. The ones who play PlanetSide2 are different from WoW.
I think this is the giant leap of logic in your analysis on the F2P model, assuming that all MMO companies(which by your definition includes yours) are targetting the same players. You're attempting to make a niche PvP-only game that targets group PvP players, but you're not dealing with the same customers who play Darkfall which is also a PvP-only game, except designed more for world domination and is a first person shooter.
The more I read your posts the more I feel like you are just ignoring some of the customer base, just like you did in DAoC. You're targetting the masses of interest in the game, rather than the niche core who you think you're enticing.
Sennheiser
Assist
Thage
I'm not sure what you are talking about or how you could have possibly gotten anything like that from his post.
He said that a lot of those F2P games are all chasing the same customers. Which is just a fact. Many of the worst ones are even literally clones of each other.
Thats not saying anything about CU which is going after a totally different audience, hence why its using a different business model.
Uh, it is going to be f2p.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wVIIIZ6ETtY#t=284s
[mod edit]
Both models cater to different type of gamers. You don't get to be the "smarter" one because you preferred one or the other.
Old timers tend to have the mindset of "I want everything accessible in my game!". F2P doesn't work for these people because they'll end up spending more.
However, there are gamers who are fine not unlocking everything, and see more merit in just buying features when they really need them. For these types of players, F2P is the better choice because it is possible for them to not spend a single dime for months, and in some MMOs, they tend to not spend anything at all.
[mod edit]
And yet, B2P games are pretty new when it comes to continued revenue. GW2 has not been out very long, but it is making ArenaNet/NCSoft alot of money every quarter. GW1 did not really have a cash shop, it had some micro-transactions after a few years of being out, but no cash-shop. So obviously it wasn't going to be a huge revenue type game. I mean, they didn't need it to be...it was made by 10 guys. I mean B2P clearly worked here since they had some rather large expansions at a pretty crazy frequency until development was ceased to work on GW2.
Things have obviously changed since then and the company is now massive (and continues to hire). So they need the income, which they are making plenty of. So we have not really seen how well B2P will do over a long period of time. But just based on what we have seen so far there is no indication that it won't keep making them money. But you can't lump B2P in with F2P because they have completely different payment models and gameplay models.
No one is going to make noise about account numbers for a F2P game. Thats one of the reasons games go F2P is to hide these numbers. Obviously they will talk about income, but not on a specific basis. It will be part of an earnings report that only the number crunching investors can understand. It does not mean they are not making money. This is like when people say "X game is dying" because they or their few friends don't play it. I am also wondering what F2P games are closing? Can you give me some examples? Are you talking about some obscure facebook game or something that was hardly advertised?