I have to agree with Vorch, subscription games are obsolete..
I would completely disagree. I think there are enough players willing to pay a sub and focus mostly on one MMORPG - IF...and only if...the game is worthy of a sub. An MMORPG doesn't need millions of players to be successful.
The trick for the devs/designers is to create a game worth a sub.
The post WoW clone formula doesn't yield such games. Too much focus on solo ez-mode makes these types be more like single player games - that's not worth a sub. Lack of endgame content and progression to keep people going compounds the problem. Lack of overall challenge is also an issue.
The post WoW clones attempt to go for wider appeal and they get it, but they can't retain it, because the people they're designing for aren't the types to stick around - when you design for soloists, you have people finishing your single player content than bailing. Shocker. Maybe design for the core MMORPG audience of people who want grouping, challenge, and a game they can play for a long time, and see how that goes instead? You know, like how the genre started (and many of the early biggies are still going).
There was never anything wrong with early MMORPGs. For whatever reason being successful wasn't enough and companies decided to shift design towards solo and broader appeal, and it hasn't really worked. F2P isn't the answer either, since it lowers the quality of the games and the players to the bottom of a dirty toilet.
Anyways.
The fact that this game isn't goint to be yet another F2P crapfest makes it even more interesting.
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
I'm confused. It was stated earlier that F2P games generate more revenue than sub games (in fact, just a few posts up).
Because it was also stated earlier that it doesn't, that F2P = lower quality...
Not to mention what the article is about...
Which leads into the second part of that same post...
"Now, if you don't believe that F2P generates as much or more revenue than subscriptions models, why is it that you believe game developers should not be fairly compensated for a high quality product (one that could sustain a subscription base large enough to remain profitable)? Do you believe that people should spend years of their lives developing video games so that you can play them for free?"
Which leads to a logical fallacy.
Do you think the developers worked for free for years? Do you think the makers of games like Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 were not fairly compensated for their high quality products? They were, afterall...B2P games with no Subscriptions that made big profits...do you think the makers of Atlantica Online didn't get paid fairly for their actual FREE 2 PLAY game that has been making more profits per year than most western subscription MMOS?!? There is NOT A SINGLE thing that comes with Subscriptions that also cannot come from B2P or F2P games. Nothing...other than being fleeced...
Its an argument created to argue or by those that know zip about the F2P market.
Which illustrates the core of what the Wildstar Developers said in the article. Payment model really isn't all that important compared to the quality of the product you produce. If you produce a product that alot of people think is worth $15 per month then you'll have a proffitable product, if not you wont.....and sticking a F2P label on it won't suddenly make it worth $15 per month for people to play.
If you produce a B2P or F2P game that is fun and worthwhile to play, then enough people will buy the game or items from the game to make it proffitable if those items are reasonably priced....if not then you won't.
Payment model is pretty irrelevant compared to how enjoyable the game is to play....and if you are getting your money's worth out of the product. B2P and F2P games can fleece a consumer just as badly as any P2P game does.....it's all about enjoyment per dollar spent.......and for some people, the money is even less important then the quality of experience they got with thier play TIME.
Hmm, now that I've read about the CREDD thing my interest is rapidly diminishing. As soon as you start mixing cash with in-game currency and basically facilitating cheating, you might as well flush your game down the F2P toilet too.
Any mechanic that allows players to ultimately buy game currency for cash is cheating and lame.
Why would there be any need of this kind of cheese in a game with a $60 box and 15/mo sub?
/vomit
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
I'm confused. It was stated earlier that F2P games generate more revenue than sub games (in fact, just a few posts up).
Because it was also stated earlier that it doesn't, that F2P = lower quality...
Not to mention what the article is about...
Which leads into the second part of that same post...
"Now, if you don't believe that F2P generates as much or more revenue than subscriptions models, why is it that you believe game developers should not be fairly compensated for a high quality product (one that could sustain a subscription base large enough to remain profitable)? Do you believe that people should spend years of their lives developing video games so that you can play them for free?"
Which leads to a logical fallacy.
Do you think the developers worked for free for years? Do you think the makers of games like Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 were not fairly compensated for their high quality products? They were, afterall...B2P games with no Subscriptions that made big profits...do you think the makers of Atlantica Online didn't get paid fairly for their actual FREE 2 PLAY game that has been making more profits per year than most western subscription MMOS?!? There is NOT A SINGLE thing that comes with Subscriptions that also cannot come from B2P or F2P games. Nothing...other than being fleeced...
Its an argument created to argue or by those that know zip about the F2P market.
Which illustrates the core of what the Wildstar Developers said in the article. Payment model really isn't all that important compared to the quality of the product you produce. If you produce a product that alot of people think is worth $15 per month then you'll have a proffitable product, if not you wont.....and sticking a F2P label on it won't suddenly make it worth $15 per month for people to play.
If you produce a B2P or F2P game that is fun and worthwhile to play, then enough people will buy the game or items from the game to make it proffitable if those items are reasonably priced....if not then you won't.
Payment model is pretty irrelevant compared to how enjoyable the game is to play....and if you are getting your money's worth out of the product. B2P and F2P games can fleece a consumer just as badly as any P2P game does.....it's all about enjoyment per dollar spent.......and for some people, the money is even less important then the quality of experience they got with thier play TIME.
But herein lies the problem. If you put a game behind what is effectively a $60 wall just to try the game to see if they like it, you are not going to get people playing. It doesnt matter how good your game is or you think it is if they cannot try it before they buy it, because if they cant try it before they buy it, they just wont buy it. At that point, the quality of the game is irrelevant to them because they wont get to see if its a quality game or not. This is a complete logical failure on the part of Carbine and anyone who thinks that way.
This is not to say one game is better than the other, but take a game like WoW for instance, at least PVE wise, there is an insane amount more to do at max level than in GW2(GW2 is still very high quality, dont get me wrong)....now, you may not like what WoW offers, but there is no denying that it does offer more endgame content than any other themepark game by a large margin.
False argument.
Using an example of a game that has been out for many years against one that hasn't been.
Take the amount of content from WoW 1 year after release and compare it to GW2...GW2 has had almost as much updated content as a full expansion...for free...and already offers far more PvP content than WoW did at the one year mark along with a never ending dungeon via the fractals.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
The #1 reason I will be playing this game is because it seems like the devs just "get it". All my complaints with other MMOs through the years, they're like, "We know about those, and we're going to address them in our game, we got this". Every time they talk about a feature in their game, you're like "Oh, but that not work because of this", and you scroll down some more or watch their video some more, and they have already thought of that and cover it. They are basically making a MMO without any hype-y gimmicks, with a lot of content to keep people playing, while adding some fun twists. I just feel like they really seem to know the ins and outs of making a MMO, and I feel too many games nowadays just have so much potential but miss that mark all too often. I really like this model, as I loved the option in other games to "play to pay", and I hope this game turns out as well as I hope it does.
I'm confused. It was stated earlier that F2P games generate more revenue than sub games (in fact, just a few posts up).
Because it was also stated earlier that it doesn't, that F2P = lower quality...
Not to mention what the article is about...
Which leads into the second part of that same post...
"Now, if you don't believe that F2P generates as much or more revenue than subscriptions models, why is it that you believe game developers should not be fairly compensated for a high quality product (one that could sustain a subscription base large enough to remain profitable)? Do you believe that people should spend years of their lives developing video games so that you can play them for free?"
Which leads to a logical fallacy.
Do you think the developers worked for free for years? Do you think the makers of games like Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 were not fairly compensated for their high quality products? They were, afterall...B2P games with no Subscriptions that made big profits...do you think the makers of Atlantica Online didn't get paid fairly for their actual FREE 2 PLAY game that has been making more profits per year than most western subscription MMOS?!? There is NOT A SINGLE thing that comes with Subscriptions that also cannot come from B2P or F2P games. Nothing...other than being fleeced...
Its an argument created to argue or by those that know zip about the F2P market.
Which illustrates the core of what the Wildstar Developers said in the article. Payment model really isn't all that important compared to the quality of the product you produce. If you produce a product that alot of people think is worth $15 per month then you'll have a proffitable product, if not you wont.....and sticking a F2P label on it won't suddenly make it worth $15 per month for people to play.
If you produce a B2P or F2P game that is fun and worthwhile to play, then enough people will buy the game or items from the game to make it proffitable if those items are reasonably priced....if not then you won't.
Payment model is pretty irrelevant compared to how enjoyable the game is to play....and if you are getting your money's worth out of the product. B2P and F2P games can fleece a consumer just as badly as any P2P game does.....it's all about enjoyment per dollar spent.......and for some people, the money is even less important then the quality of experience they got with thier play TIME.
But herein lies the problem. If you put a game behind what is effectively a $60 wall just to try the game to see if they like it, you are not going to get people playing. It doesnt matter how good your game is or you think it is if they cannot try it before they buy it, because if they cant try it before they buy it, they just wont buy it. At that point, the quality of the game is irrelevant to them because they wont get to see if its a quality game or not. This is a complete logical failure on the part of Carbine and anyone who thinks that way.
Sub based games have had a mechanism for dealing with that since before "F2P" was even a model in the West. It's called a "Free Trial"...... it's essentialy the same mechanism that a number of "F2P" games do when they gate content or gate level advancement without purchase of item or unlock (e.g. Lotro).
I don't know if Wildstar is going to do a "Free Trial" or not.....typicaly most games who are doing box sales don't anounce that before launch, because they feed of the initial revenue of selling the box/client for 3, 4, 6 months of players who "can't wait" to get the game......then they'll often turn around and start offering a "free trial" along with a free download of the client for people thier initial adverstising hasn't drawn in. It's essentialy an "impatience surcharge" for those who absolutely "HAVE" to be playing on release day.
I'm confused. It was stated earlier that F2P games generate more revenue than sub games (in fact, just a few posts up).
Because it was also stated earlier that it doesn't, that F2P = lower quality...
Not to mention what the article is about...
Which leads into the second part of that same post...
"Now, if you don't believe that F2P generates as much or more revenue than subscriptions models, why is it that you believe game developers should not be fairly compensated for a high quality product (one that could sustain a subscription base large enough to remain profitable)? Do you believe that people should spend years of their lives developing video games so that you can play them for free?"
Which leads to a logical fallacy.
Do you think the developers worked for free for years? Do you think the makers of games like Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 were not fairly compensated for their high quality products? They were, afterall...B2P games with no Subscriptions that made big profits...do you think the makers of Atlantica Online didn't get paid fairly for their actual FREE 2 PLAY game that has been making more profits per year than most western subscription MMOS?!? There is NOT A SINGLE thing that comes with Subscriptions that also cannot come from B2P or F2P games. Nothing...other than being fleeced...
Its an argument created to argue or by those that know zip about the F2P market.
Which illustrates the core of what the Wildstar Developers said in the article. Payment model really isn't all that important compared to the quality of the product you produce. If you produce a product that alot of people think is worth $15 per month then you'll have a proffitable product, if not you wont.....and sticking a F2P label on it won't suddenly make it worth $15 per month for people to play.
If you produce a B2P or F2P game that is fun and worthwhile to play, then enough people will buy the game or items from the game to make it proffitable if those items are reasonably priced....if not then you won't.
Payment model is pretty irrelevant compared to how enjoyable the game is to play....and if you are getting your money's worth out of the product. B2P and F2P games can fleece a consumer just as badly as any P2P game does.....it's all about enjoyment per dollar spent.......and for some people, the money is even less important then the quality of experience they got with thier play TIME.
But herein lies the problem. If you put a game behind what is effectively a $60 wall just to try the game to see if they like it, you are not going to get people playing. It doesnt matter how good your game is or you think it is if they cannot try it before they buy it, because if they cant try it before they buy it, they just wont buy it. At that point, the quality of the game is irrelevant to them because they wont get to see if its a quality game or not. This is a complete logical failure on the part of Carbine and anyone who thinks that way.
Sub based games have had a mechanism for dealing with that since before "F2P" was even a model in the West. It's called a "Free Trial"...... it's essentialy the same mechanism that a number of "F2P" games do when they gate content or gate level advancement without purchase of item or unlock (e.g. Lotro).
I don't know if Wildstar is going to do a "Free Trial" or not.....typicaly most games who are doing box sales don't anounce that before launch, because they feed of the initial revenue of selling the box/client for 3, 4, 6 months of players who "can't wait" to get the game......then they'll often turn around and start offering a "free trial" along with a free download of the client for people thier initial adverstising hasn't drawn in. It's essentialy an "impatience surcharge" for those who absolutely "HAVE" to be playing on release day.
As I said, failure in logic. If that were the case, all MMOs would offer a trail at launch, they dont though do they? Even when subscription games were the thing, they still didnt offer free trials at launch. And even then, 2 week free trial isnt enough, and then, even then if the trial is enough, there is still a $60 price tag and paying out 15 a month to play. Its an idiotic economic model that is only supported by...well, basically elitists that look down the nose at people who play F2P MMOs.
Ok, according to the Devs, this game is NOT going to be Pay 2 Win. And yet, they're basically selling gold for real money. betraying their integrity before they even launch? wtf. I was excited for this too.
I already explained why sub-based MMO's don't offer a "trial at launch". It would lose them money. Nobody would pay them $60 if they can get the client for free. They almost all offer a "trial" a few months down the road, along with a free digital download of the client.
They don't NEED to get thier product in front of folks that are unsure about it at launch.....because they've already got folks lined up willing to pay extra money to buy that product sight unseen.....they would lose all that money by giving the client away for free at that point. Once that surge of buying is over, there is plenty of time to offer free clients and free trials to folks who are more cautious about making a purchase.
Now, why folks choose to buy on day one sight unseen.....you might as well ask why folks are willing to spend $500 on a peice of plastic, "Yoda" doll.....I don't really get that one, but if they do, they do....it's thier money after-all.
Edit: It's really no more "idiotic" then why someone would shell out $40 for a Purple Pony in a F2P game.....paying for a few bits of digital data that you don't even own on a server somewhere who's sole use it for people to look at and go "Ooooh!", which might happen one time and give you all of 10 minutes of enjoyment. I don't really understand that....but people do it and the F2P model kinda depends on that behavior.
I already explained why sub-based MMO's don't offer a "trial at launch". It would lose them money. Nobody would pay them $60 if they can get the client for free. They almost all offer a "trial" a few months down the road, along with a free digital download of the client.
They don't NEED to get thier product in front of folks that are unsure about it at launch.....because they've already got folks lined up willing to pay extra money to buy that product sight unseen.....they would lose all that money by giving the client away for free at that point. Once that surge of buying is over, there is plenty of time to offer free clients and free trials to folks who are more cautious about making a purchase.
Now, why folks choose to buy on day one sight unseen.....you might as well ask why folks are willing to spend $500 on a peice of plastic, "Yoda" doll.....I don't really get that one, but if they do, they do....it's thier money after-all.
Edit: It's really no more "idiotic" then why someone would shell out $40 for a Purple Pony in a F2P game.....paying for a few bits of digital data that you don't even own on a server somewhere who's sole use it for people to look at and go "Ooooh!", which might happen one time and give you all of 10 minutes of enjoyment. I don't really understand that....but people do it and the F2P model kinda depends on that behavior.
Its incredibly idiotic when you think that in a F2P game there is more than one item in a shop, ranging from say 10-40 dollars, with 10 million players who have unrestricted access to the game. It adds up to a lot more than a subscription if even half of them buy something. As I have said repeatedly, there is a reason that the free to play model is no standard, economics. The only reason to support a subscription model is elitism.
I already explained why sub-based MMO's don't offer a "trial at launch". It would lose them money. Nobody would pay them $60 if they can get the client for free. They almost all offer a "trial" a few months down the road, along with a free digital download of the client.
They don't NEED to get thier product in front of folks that are unsure about it at that point.....because they've already got folks lined up willing to pay extra money to buy that product sight unseen.....they would lose all that money by giving the client away for free at that point. Once that surge of buying is over, there is plenty of time to offer free clients and free trials to folks who are more cautious about making a purchase.
Now, why folks choose to buy on day one sight unseen.....you might as well ask why folks are willing to spend $500 on a peice of plastic, "Yoda" doll.....I don't really get that one, but if they do, they do....it's thier money after-all.
Offering a free trial doesn't mean you have to give the client away for free. The reason box-fee games never offer trials at the start is because people are given the chance to make a decision before spending money. This is why they would lose money. The industry knows gamers are impulsive and spendhappy and that they will spend the money first and bitch later. Grabbing the money first is more important.
In short, if a game is really good, enough to justify a subscription, then they would offer that free trial. It shows they have confidence in their product. Notice the Squeenix offered the open beta for FFXIVARR for free. They obviously have a confidence in their product and are willing to showcase it at the risk of alienating those who don't like it or would spread bad publicity.
Whether Carbine offers a free trial of Wildstar at launch will show you how much confidence they really have that their game is worth a sub, or if they're just going for a money grab while biding their time until a cash shop and/or F2P is implemented. I'm guessing it's more likely the latter.
Open (unpaid) Beta's are a seperate issue from Free Trials. I agree that most companies who have confidence in thier Products will offer unpaid Open Beta's.....unless they are facing serious infrastructure constraints but that's irregardless of the payment model chosen. It doesn't neccesarrly mean they'll offer a Free Trial at launch though. Doing so will almost certainly result in some portion of those who are waiting to play the game holding off on making a purchase until after they get done with the trial....which if a meaningfull can result in a 1 or 2 week delay in getting that revenue even if the player ultimately ends up making the purchase.
You'll note that there have been plenty of MMO's that have done Free Open Beta's but NOT Free Open Trials at launch.
I already explained why sub-based MMO's don't offer a "trial at launch". It would lose them money. Nobody would pay them $60 if they can get the client for free. They almost all offer a "trial" a few months down the road, along with a free digital download of the client.
They don't NEED to get thier product in front of folks that are unsure about it at that point.....because they've already got folks lined up willing to pay extra money to buy that product sight unseen.....they would lose all that money by giving the client away for free at that point. Once that surge of buying is over, there is plenty of time to offer free clients and free trials to folks who are more cautious about making a purchase.
Now, why folks choose to buy on day one sight unseen.....you might as well ask why folks are willing to spend $500 on a peice of plastic, "Yoda" doll.....I don't really get that one, but if they do, they do....it's thier money after-all.
Offering a free trial doesn't mean you have to give the client away for free. The reason box-fee games never offer trials at the start is because people are given the chance to make a decision before spending money. This is why they would lose money. The industry knows gamers are impulsive and spendhappy and that they will spend the money first and bitch later. Grabbing the money first is more important.
In short, if a game is really good, enough to justify a subscription, then they would offer that free trial. It shows they have confidence in their product. Notice the Squeenix offered the open beta for FFXIVARR for free. They obviously have a confidence in their product and are willing to showcase it at the risk of alienating those who don't like it or would spread bad publicity.
Whether Carbine offers a free trial of Wildstar at launch will show you how much confidence they really have that their game is worth a sub, or if they're just going for a money grab while biding their time until a cash shop and/or F2P is implemented. I'm guessing it's more likely the latter.
The only reason not to offer a free trail at launch of a box game is when you have no confidence in your product and want to rip off as many people as possible before word gets out that your game is garbage. Lets see Carbine put its money where its mouth is and offer a 14 day trial from the start.
So.... Rift didn't push out quality content even though that was something their fans said was a strong point in Rift? I call BS on monthly quality content, gamers just chew threw it like shotgunning beers way too quickly for any company to keep up.
And they cite TERA with the purchaseable game time yet that game went F2P still in the end? EVE has a mechanic where one is always needs to generate more ISK to sustain their ship arsenal. What does Wild Star have to create an ongoing demand for in-game currency? WoW I had tens of thousands of gold that I really had no use for which is typical of all themepark games. What does WS have that REQUIRES the use of an ingame currency?
I already explained why sub-based MMO's don't offer a "trial at launch". It would lose them money. Nobody would pay them $60 if they can get the client for free. They almost all offer a "trial" a few months down the road, along with a free digital download of the client.
They don't NEED to get thier product in front of folks that are unsure about it at launch.....because they've already got folks lined up willing to pay extra money to buy that product sight unseen.....they would lose all that money by giving the client away for free at that point. Once that surge of buying is over, there is plenty of time to offer free clients and free trials to folks who are more cautious about making a purchase.
Now, why folks choose to buy on day one sight unseen.....you might as well ask why folks are willing to spend $500 on a peice of plastic, "Yoda" doll.....I don't really get that one, but if they do, they do....it's thier money after-all.
Edit: It's really no more "idiotic" then why someone would shell out $40 for a Purple Pony in a F2P game.....paying for a few bits of digital data that you don't even own on a server somewhere who's sole use it for people to look at and go "Ooooh!", which might happen one time and give you all of 10 minutes of enjoyment. I don't really understand that....but people do it and the F2P model kinda depends on that behavior.
Its incredibly idiotic when you think that in a F2P game there is more than one item in a shop, ranging from say 10-40 dollars, with 10 million players who have unrestricted access to the game. It adds up to a lot more than a subscription if even half of them buy something. As I have said repeatedly, there is a reason that the free to play model is no standard, economics. The only reason to support a subscription model is elitism.
Bunk. The payment model decision is based upon the type of product you have produced and the type of audience you are going after....and what you think will garner the most revenue. There are plenty of F2P games that are doing well and plenty that are doing poorly....same holds true for P2P, B2P, Hybrids, etc. Ultimately what's really determinative is the quality of the product/service you've produced and how effeciently you produced/delivered it.
For a F2P model to be proffitable you have to push "purchasing behavior" which either means the continual prod for users to purchase "consumables", newly produced items (this months purple pony) or purchase gated content. None of that is neccesarly bad if done well...but it dictates a certain type of game/product design. By contrast, with the P2P model you dispense with the need for building that "purchasing behavior" into your game design and simply focus on making sure you have enough fresh and interesting for the player to want to return next month. You don't half to worry about pushing the player to purchase "widgets" next month...just that there is something entertaining waiting for him.
Both models can be proffitable or dismal failures depending upon how well you execute. There have been plenty of "free" services that have filled bankruptcy even while they had huge user bases.....precisely because they couldn't figure out how to convert enough of those users into regularly paying customers.
If a game has 750K users who are spending, on average $5 per month. It ends up being less proffitable then the 250K sub based service where everyone is paying $15 per month...because every user costs something to support. That's economics of it.
I already explained why sub-based MMO's don't offer a "trial at launch". It would lose them money. Nobody would pay them $60 if they can get the client for free. They almost all offer a "trial" a few months down the road, along with a free digital download of the client.
They don't NEED to get thier product in front of folks that are unsure about it at launch.....because they've already got folks lined up willing to pay extra money to buy that product sight unseen.....they would lose all that money by giving the client away for free at that point. Once that surge of buying is over, there is plenty of time to offer free clients and free trials to folks who are more cautious about making a purchase.
Now, why folks choose to buy on day one sight unseen.....you might as well ask why folks are willing to spend $500 on a peice of plastic, "Yoda" doll.....I don't really get that one, but if they do, they do....it's thier money after-all.
Edit: It's really no more "idiotic" then why someone would shell out $40 for a Purple Pony in a F2P game.....paying for a few bits of digital data that you don't even own on a server somewhere who's sole use it for people to look at and go "Ooooh!", which might happen one time and give you all of 10 minutes of enjoyment. I don't really understand that....but people do it and the F2P model kinda depends on that behavior.
Its incredibly idiotic when you think that in a F2P game there is more than one item in a shop, ranging from say 10-40 dollars, with 10 million players who have unrestricted access to the game. It adds up to a lot more than a subscription if even half of them buy something. As I have said repeatedly, there is a reason that the free to play model is no standard, economics. The only reason to support a subscription model is elitism.
Bunk. The payment model decision is based upon the type of product you have produced and the type of audience you are going after....and what you think will garner the most revenue. There are plenty of F2P games that are doing well and plenty that are doing poorly....same holds true for P2P, B2P, Hybrids, etc. Ultimately what's really determinative is the quality of the product/service you've produced and how effeciently you produced/delivered it.
For a F2P model to be proffitable you have to push "purchasing behavior" which either means the continual prod for users to purchase "consumables", newly produced items (this months purple pony) or purchase gated content. None of that is neccesarly bad if done well...but it dictates a certain type of game/product design. By contrast, with the P2P model you dispense with the need for building that "purchasing behavior" into your game design and simply focus on making sure you have enough fresh and interesting for the player to want to return next month. You don't half to worry about pushing the player to purchase "widgets" next month...just that there is something entertaining waiting for him.
Both models can be proffitable or dismal failures depending upon how well you execute. There have been plenty of "free" services that have filled bankruptcy even while they had huge user bases.....precisely because they couldn't figure out how to convert enough of those users into regularly paying customers.
If a game has 750K users who are spending, on average $5 per month. It ends up being less proffitable then the 250K sub based service where everyone is paying $15 per month...because every user costs something to support. That's economics of it.
Simply stating that it is bunk does not make it so. You dont have to push a purchasing behavior at all, look at games like DDO, LOTRO and more. Have you even played a F2P game? The ones that have to push a purchasing behavior are the ones selling a box, because if they dont push those sales, they get NO MONEY GUARANTEED! In a F2P game, you dont have to push anywhere near as hard to get people to pay. Now, if you are so smart, why is the subscription model all but dead? Only elitists like you are clinging to a dying model of payment.
Oh, and the payment model is not decided by what type of audience you are going after...its decided by how much money the company wants to make, dont try and fool yourself or anyone else into thinking that there is any other motivation. So far, you subscription nazis have done nothing but make flat assertions with no proof while us 'freeloaders' as you nasty pieces of work like to call us have provided example after example after example of how free to play makes more money, saves games from failing and is a better payment model...you just come back at us with rhetoric and hyperbole. Now say something new or dont say anything at all.
Great news, and I'll for sure be buying the game what ever happens simply to support the business model. Too many "free" to play titles out there today, and free-to-play is a model I don't want to touch with a stick.
I'm done paying a subscription for content I never use. When will developers get this through their head. It's like Cable. I don't want to spend $70 a month paying for stupid A&E channel, or ESPN, or CNN. I hate that my money subsidizes these programs on Cable when all I really want is SyFy, Discovery, HBO, and a few others.
The same goes for sub games. I don't want my $15 a month subsidizing Raid play, or PvP play...content I never use. F2P is superior in most cases because I can buy content A la carte. I can purchase the content I will use, and if the Company doesn't provide me with content I want, then I spend no money.
Originally posted by lafaiel I love seeing all the MMO freeloaders cry like this though, its fun.
It isn't fun, really. It's sad. Sometimes I have feelling that they want just 1 little crack in-game, just 1 defect, which gonna make game failure as P2P. Screw quality, let it sucks just to be F2P. But, let's hope devs finally learnt something in last 10 years about fail P2P titles, so we can't see "going F2P in 1 year".
Comments
I would completely disagree. I think there are enough players willing to pay a sub and focus mostly on one MMORPG - IF...and only if...the game is worthy of a sub. An MMORPG doesn't need millions of players to be successful.
The trick for the devs/designers is to create a game worth a sub.
The post WoW clone formula doesn't yield such games. Too much focus on solo ez-mode makes these types be more like single player games - that's not worth a sub. Lack of endgame content and progression to keep people going compounds the problem. Lack of overall challenge is also an issue.
The post WoW clones attempt to go for wider appeal and they get it, but they can't retain it, because the people they're designing for aren't the types to stick around - when you design for soloists, you have people finishing your single player content than bailing. Shocker. Maybe design for the core MMORPG audience of people who want grouping, challenge, and a game they can play for a long time, and see how that goes instead? You know, like how the genre started (and many of the early biggies are still going).
There was never anything wrong with early MMORPGs. For whatever reason being successful wasn't enough and companies decided to shift design towards solo and broader appeal, and it hasn't really worked. F2P isn't the answer either, since it lowers the quality of the games and the players to the bottom of a dirty toilet.
Anyways.
The fact that this game isn't goint to be yet another F2P crapfest makes it even more interesting.
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
Which illustrates the core of what the Wildstar Developers said in the article. Payment model really isn't all that important compared to the quality of the product you produce. If you produce a product that alot of people think is worth $15 per month then you'll have a proffitable product, if not you wont.....and sticking a F2P label on it won't suddenly make it worth $15 per month for people to play.
If you produce a B2P or F2P game that is fun and worthwhile to play, then enough people will buy the game or items from the game to make it proffitable if those items are reasonably priced....if not then you won't.
Payment model is pretty irrelevant compared to how enjoyable the game is to play....and if you are getting your money's worth out of the product. B2P and F2P games can fleece a consumer just as badly as any P2P game does.....it's all about enjoyment per dollar spent.......and for some people, the money is even less important then the quality of experience they got with thier play TIME.
Hmm, now that I've read about the CREDD thing my interest is rapidly diminishing. As soon as you start mixing cash with in-game currency and basically facilitating cheating, you might as well flush your game down the F2P toilet too.
Any mechanic that allows players to ultimately buy game currency for cash is cheating and lame.
Why would there be any need of this kind of cheese in a game with a $60 box and 15/mo sub?
/vomit
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
.....
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
But herein lies the problem. If you put a game behind what is effectively a $60 wall just to try the game to see if they like it, you are not going to get people playing. It doesnt matter how good your game is or you think it is if they cannot try it before they buy it, because if they cant try it before they buy it, they just wont buy it. At that point, the quality of the game is irrelevant to them because they wont get to see if its a quality game or not. This is a complete logical failure on the part of Carbine and anyone who thinks that way.
False argument.
Using an example of a game that has been out for many years against one that hasn't been.
Take the amount of content from WoW 1 year after release and compare it to GW2...GW2 has had almost as much updated content as a full expansion...for free...and already offers far more PvP content than WoW did at the one year mark along with a never ending dungeon via the fractals.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Sub based games have had a mechanism for dealing with that since before "F2P" was even a model in the West. It's called a "Free Trial"...... it's essentialy the same mechanism that a number of "F2P" games do when they gate content or gate level advancement without purchase of item or unlock (e.g. Lotro).
I don't know if Wildstar is going to do a "Free Trial" or not.....typicaly most games who are doing box sales don't anounce that before launch, because they feed of the initial revenue of selling the box/client for 3, 4, 6 months of players who "can't wait" to get the game......then they'll often turn around and start offering a "free trial" along with a free download of the client for people thier initial adverstising hasn't drawn in. It's essentialy an "impatience surcharge" for those who absolutely "HAVE" to be playing on release day.
As I said, failure in logic. If that were the case, all MMOs would offer a trail at launch, they dont though do they? Even when subscription games were the thing, they still didnt offer free trials at launch. And even then, 2 week free trial isnt enough, and then, even then if the trial is enough, there is still a $60 price tag and paying out 15 a month to play. Its an idiotic economic model that is only supported by...well, basically elitists that look down the nose at people who play F2P MMOs.
@DeathJester,
I already explained why sub-based MMO's don't offer a "trial at launch". It would lose them money. Nobody would pay them $60 if they can get the client for free. They almost all offer a "trial" a few months down the road, along with a free digital download of the client.
They don't NEED to get thier product in front of folks that are unsure about it at launch.....because they've already got folks lined up willing to pay extra money to buy that product sight unseen.....they would lose all that money by giving the client away for free at that point. Once that surge of buying is over, there is plenty of time to offer free clients and free trials to folks who are more cautious about making a purchase.
Now, why folks choose to buy on day one sight unseen.....you might as well ask why folks are willing to spend $500 on a peice of plastic, "Yoda" doll.....I don't really get that one, but if they do, they do....it's thier money after-all.
Edit: It's really no more "idiotic" then why someone would shell out $40 for a Purple Pony in a F2P game.....paying for a few bits of digital data that you don't even own on a server somewhere who's sole use it for people to look at and go "Ooooh!", which might happen one time and give you all of 10 minutes of enjoyment. I don't really understand that....but people do it and the F2P model kinda depends on that behavior.
Its incredibly idiotic when you think that in a F2P game there is more than one item in a shop, ranging from say 10-40 dollars, with 10 million players who have unrestricted access to the game. It adds up to a lot more than a subscription if even half of them buy something. As I have said repeatedly, there is a reason that the free to play model is no standard, economics. The only reason to support a subscription model is elitism.
Open (unpaid) Beta's are a seperate issue from Free Trials. I agree that most companies who have confidence in thier Products will offer unpaid Open Beta's.....unless they are facing serious infrastructure constraints but that's irregardless of the payment model chosen. It doesn't neccesarrly mean they'll offer a Free Trial at launch though. Doing so will almost certainly result in some portion of those who are waiting to play the game holding off on making a purchase until after they get done with the trial....which if a meaningfull can result in a 1 or 2 week delay in getting that revenue even if the player ultimately ends up making the purchase.
You'll note that there have been plenty of MMO's that have done Free Open Beta's but NOT Free Open Trials at launch.
The only reason not to offer a free trail at launch of a box game is when you have no confidence in your product and want to rip off as many people as possible before word gets out that your game is garbage. Lets see Carbine put its money where its mouth is and offer a 14 day trial from the start.
So.... Rift didn't push out quality content even though that was something their fans said was a strong point in Rift? I call BS on monthly quality content, gamers just chew threw it like shotgunning beers way too quickly for any company to keep up.
And they cite TERA with the purchaseable game time yet that game went F2P still in the end? EVE has a mechanic where one is always needs to generate more ISK to sustain their ship arsenal. What does Wild Star have to create an ongoing demand for in-game currency? WoW I had tens of thousands of gold that I really had no use for which is typical of all themepark games. What does WS have that REQUIRES the use of an ingame currency?
Bunk. The payment model decision is based upon the type of product you have produced and the type of audience you are going after....and what you think will garner the most revenue. There are plenty of F2P games that are doing well and plenty that are doing poorly....same holds true for P2P, B2P, Hybrids, etc. Ultimately what's really determinative is the quality of the product/service you've produced and how effeciently you produced/delivered it.
For a F2P model to be proffitable you have to push "purchasing behavior" which either means the continual prod for users to purchase "consumables", newly produced items (this months purple pony) or purchase gated content. None of that is neccesarly bad if done well...but it dictates a certain type of game/product design. By contrast, with the P2P model you dispense with the need for building that "purchasing behavior" into your game design and simply focus on making sure you have enough fresh and interesting for the player to want to return next month. You don't half to worry about pushing the player to purchase "widgets" next month...just that there is something entertaining waiting for him.
Both models can be proffitable or dismal failures depending upon how well you execute. There have been plenty of "free" services that have filled bankruptcy even while they had huge user bases.....precisely because they couldn't figure out how to convert enough of those users into regularly paying customers.
If a game has 750K users who are spending, on average $5 per month. It ends up being less proffitable then the 250K sub based service where everyone is paying $15 per month...because every user costs something to support. That's economics of it.
Simply stating that it is bunk does not make it so. You dont have to push a purchasing behavior at all, look at games like DDO, LOTRO and more. Have you even played a F2P game? The ones that have to push a purchasing behavior are the ones selling a box, because if they dont push those sales, they get NO MONEY GUARANTEED! In a F2P game, you dont have to push anywhere near as hard to get people to pay. Now, if you are so smart, why is the subscription model all but dead? Only elitists like you are clinging to a dying model of payment.
Oh, and the payment model is not decided by what type of audience you are going after...its decided by how much money the company wants to make, dont try and fool yourself or anyone else into thinking that there is any other motivation. So far, you subscription nazis have done nothing but make flat assertions with no proof while us 'freeloaders' as you nasty pieces of work like to call us have provided example after example after example of how free to play makes more money, saves games from failing and is a better payment model...you just come back at us with rhetoric and hyperbole. Now say something new or dont say anything at all.
The Weekly Wizardry blog
I'm done paying a subscription for content I never use. When will developers get this through their head. It's like Cable. I don't want to spend $70 a month paying for stupid A&E channel, or ESPN, or CNN. I hate that my money subsidizes these programs on Cable when all I really want is SyFy, Discovery, HBO, and a few others.
The same goes for sub games. I don't want my $15 a month subsidizing Raid play, or PvP play...content I never use. F2P is superior in most cases because I can buy content A la carte. I can purchase the content I will use, and if the Company doesn't provide me with content I want, then I spend no money.
It's that simple.
It isn't fun, really. It's sad. Sometimes I have feelling that they want just 1 little crack in-game, just 1 defect, which gonna make game failure as P2P. Screw quality, let it sucks just to be F2P. But, let's hope devs finally learnt something in last 10 years about fail P2P titles, so we can't see "going F2P in 1 year".