I think "F2P" now has the worst possible fragrance about it in the MMO world. After the last couple of "AAA" MMOs to launch F2P and receive tons of bashing mostly for their cash shop and low quality (Neverwinter, Dragon's Prophet) people now tend to be veeeeeeeerry circumspect about believing in the Holy Grail of "F2P quality game".
I'm not sure that ESO can survive as a sub-game for long looking at online reactions, but who knows. I have no doubt that both Wildstar and FF:XIV can maintain a sub for at least the first year.
I'd be surprised if EQN is going to be F2P, that would make 0 sense in my eyes. Tons of classes, huge space, tons of game-changing events rolling out post launch...that would be AT LEAST B2P in my opinion. But my money is on subs there as well.
Not sure why you used SWTOR as an example of other companies having to worry. SWTOR was a poorly made game and the Star Wars IP was completely wasted on it. Other game companies don't have to worry like SWTOR because they are making quality AAA MMORPGS.
Not sure why you used SWTOR as an example of other companies having to worry. SWTOR was a poorly made game and the Star Wars IP was completely wasted on it. Other game companies don't have to worry like SWTOR because they are making quality AAA MMORPGS.
EDIT: Sorry for the double post. Not quite sure how that even happened.
Yhosida said that FFXIV will never be f2p , im sure that FFXIV wont be f2p , hell if FFXI is still sub based and has low population (bust still tons of servers and players playing Oo)
FFXIV has ps3 players too , and ps4 after that , i think SE wont let FFXIV die again , and will want to repeat the FFXI success (money wise )....
lol, out of all Sub games you pick the crappiest of them all which is SW: Tor? Age of Conan was a way better P2P. What didn't help SWTOR was the fact that they closed down SW : Galaxies and by doing that they killed off the solid player base that wanted to head over to SWTOR and possibly play 2 games at once. It was a stupid move and SW:Tor wasn't in production for that long, so yeah, we end up with a bad P2P that is still doing pretty bad being F2P.
What I hate about this Column, it's that you people at MMORPG think you run the show in the MMORPG world? You think Blizzard and CCP give a rats ass if you think P2P is a bad idea? Go ask the millions that are subbed in both EVE and WoW. Oh let's not forget FF11 ! I guarantee they'll make you miserable and reconsider your thoughts about P2P once and for all.
So you're telling me having 40 MMO F2P titles releases a year which 80% are crap is better then 2-3 P2P titles? Please, if that's the case then I truly understand why this genre is not going anywhere anytime soon. And for argument sake, I hope XLgames will make ArcheAge P2P, enough of this F2P garbage, I want some quality P2P titles where I can pick one I like and stick with it for the next 5-6 years like I did with EVE online for 8 years. I paid yearly so that's 130 roughly, 1040$ total, and I don't have any consoles except for my SNES , NES and sega gamemaster. A PS3 / 360 with 20-30 games exceeds well over what I paid for my pleasure with EVE online in 8 years. A PS4 will be 400, add some games 50$ a pop , after 10 games for a PS4 you're already where I'm at with what I paid for EVE online in 8 years, and your 10 games, you'll most likely get them within 2 years, so like it or not P2P costs nothing compared to other means of gaming , ie : Console.
FFXIV could have 1 person playing and they would still charge that summbitch 15 bucks a month and say eff the rest. They already owned up to their mistakes in 1.0, no way are they going to admit defeat with ARR.
Stopped reading after the first paragraph, if you think SW:TOR failed because it was monthly subs or that that had ANYTHING to do with it then I feel I've read enough.
This is great news, we might actually have some new games with communities instead of fly by night crowds. I might as well be playing on psn or xbox live when comparing to f2p games thier communities are even better than f2p games.
Neither one can hold a stick to p2p games though, p2p is where the big contenders go and they see the value in it. They are obviously confident in thier products. I can appreciate that. Cant wait to play both of these games, finally something worth sinking my teeth into.
The big thing with subs for me comes down to this: "Why should I pay for your game instead of sticking with WoW?" Yes I know plenty of people can afford multiple subs and whatnot, but that's just how it goes for me with multiple subscription games.
At this point in time a subscription will have to be a whole step better then any B2P game or it will have a very difficult time staying as a sub. I think that is a pretty tall order. It is way too earlier for those that want sub only games to celebrate. The trend is there, none of these yet to be released games has bucked it yet. That is you start as a P2P you transition to a B2P or F2P. There is no question for the game developer that the sub model has the potential of a better income stream but there is no guarantee that you will get it.
FFXI has existed for over 11 years, and it's still on a subscription model. Not to mention it still has a pretty large playerbase. So I'm not too worried about FFXIV here to be honest. I'll happily pay a subscription fee for a game if it's worth it.. And as an Alpha and Beta Tester of FFXIV:ARR, it's very much worth the monthly fee. At least to -me- it is.
Oh sure they can start as p2p but for how long?.......At least FFXIV and ESO have an IP to build off of......The problem with new games starting as p2p is that no one has much invested in them.....Its not like WoW or Eve where they have 8 years of time put in and dont want to lose what they have worked for....These games will probably do fine for a year or so but after that players move on....Theres too many options now to keep paying for something......While so many here harp on "its only 15 bucks a month" those months add up quickly.....After a years time instead of free or a few dollars its 180 dollars and maybe even more if theres an expansion.....IMO p2p just doesnt work anymore but to each their own.
Originally posted by Jorl I am more than happy to pay for sub but they are playing a dangerous game here, excuse the pun. Many sub games have to be worth the monthly cost these days otherwise it'll just go down like a sack of ^&%*. I'll give Wildstar a year at most before it ends up going free to play, FF 9 months. Elderscrolls who knows, but their graphics seem fine to me but still not getting my hopes up.
Of the three I believe Wildstar has the best chance of pulling off rating a sub. Of course that's based on the developers talking up end game progression like difficult group content you can't just zerg with any old pickup group in white gear and raid progression worthy of it's name.
I'd totally agree with you on this point. From what I've seen and played, Wildstar is using a lot of traditional features like raids, dungeons, and what not to warrant the traditional subscription model. They're focusing on endgame, they're focusing on housing, they're focusing on an open world. Everything that ESO has presented thus far is antithetical to that. It's all focused around their PVP. This game's a mistake - it should have been something like Borderlands 2 or Diablo 3. Just not an MMO.
You have a lot of old school gammers that just plain get headaches from this newer mmo crapola,
IM glad they did such a great job on FF 14 ARR heck with that old school vibe back now , YOU bet im gonna keep my sub for life on that game and im 38 yrs old.
I'm certainly in that camp. I'm so tired of companies telling their doing me a service by having their f2p offering. They're not. I want to play a game, not worry about a cash shop. Furthermore, I want content updates of substance - something even GW2 can't seem to offer. Lord of the Rings Online (Pre-Moria), and World of Warcraft were great. If Wildstar can integrate the dynamic events and action of combat of recent games into a traditional MMO, then I've seen enough. I'm sold on that.
I wish so bad that ESO were worth playing. All of the borders, all of the red tape, it ruins it. While I prefer a sub model, or even a buy to play model, that game won't last with a sub. There's not that much goodwill towards it as it stands, and putting a price barrier around it makes that situation worse.
I'm hoping with the resurgence of subscriptions, we will see less cash grabs and more worlds.
The revenue model has less to do with if these companies can make work with model X or not.
It has much more to do with what the company wants out of the game. Do they want to milk it for everything they can in the short term or are they good with a steady stream that might be smaller in the over all but is more predict able.
A subscription model absolutely cannot survive without a good game but a good game can be supported by either a subscription or a cash shop done right. Just depends on the companies goes. Read the quote from Yoshi's interview again. Square obviously has broader more long term plans for FFXIV and the FF franchise in general. We will see about the other two.
This "return of the subs" will fail hard (I'm guessing). There is no doubt in my mind that both of these games will go FTP sooner than we know it. Moreover, they will make it sound like it was because of us, e.g., "Due to popular demand, ESO / WildStar is now FTP!". Pfft. They will go FTP because their initial surge of income will come to a dead stop within the first few months.
The new tactic is this:
#1. Buy game + Sub MMO. Make as much as possible in first few months.
#2. After first months, re-campaign as FTP and start bragging how more players are delving into the game
SUB is ultimately dead. We should rename "SUBS" to "newborns", as they eventually come to an end when they quickly become toddlers.
I am so happy sub is making a come back. I hate cash shops. To me cash shops ruin the game. I would rather pay $15 a month to have access to everything. I am not even a power gamer. I play maybe 4hrs a week and still would rather pay the $15.
The hopeful part of me wants these games to be going P2P because they've made a deep game and have long term playability at end game.
The cynical part of me says they are going P2P to get immediate returns from box sales and first few months of subs which will be more money than being F2P then go F2P once box sales slow and people stop subbing coz their games are actually shallow and only short term fun,like most of the MMOs released in the last few years,then sit back and collect whale money with much less effort.
Originally posted by Lord.Bachus Subs only works if your game is better then anything else in your cattegory..
this. And we all know which one is still the best in this category. Until someone actually changes the pattern for good. Being prettier than the rest means shit in video games, if the core of the game isnt superior your doomed.
When GW1 launched, the death of the subscription payment model was triumphantly announced on game forums all over the internet. Yet it prevailed.
When SWTOR went F2P, the death of the subscription payment model was triumphantly announced (again) on game forums all over the internet. Yet it prevailed.
When GW2 launched, the death of the subscription payment model was triumphantly announced (this time with conviction) on game forums all over the internet. Yet it prevailed.
When EQ:Next revealed that it would be a F2P game, it was widely accepted that the death of the subscription payment model was finally and irrevocably at hand. There were celebrations and "I told you so's" on game forums all over the internet.
Then FFXIV:ARR, Wildstar and ESO happened...
"The subscription payment model is dead !"
"Long live the subscription payment model !"
F2P became mainstream and sub hip in 2013. The idea of sub is a good one as after all M$ want to sub you to Office online and same with Adobe and their software. Problem with F2P is the gawd awful excessive cash shop.
Originally posted by rojo6934 Originally posted by Lord.BachusSubs only works if your game is better then anything else in your cattegory..
this. And we all know which one is still the best in this category. Until someone actually changes the pattern for good. Being prettier than the rest means shit in video games, if the core of the game isnt superior your doomed. And who decides which game is superior? Individual preference. You can preach all day about some all encompassing list of features that must be beat, but at the end of the day, its just your personal preference that others may or may not agree with.
Comments
I think "F2P" now has the worst possible fragrance about it in the MMO world. After the last couple of "AAA" MMOs to launch F2P and receive tons of bashing mostly for their cash shop and low quality (Neverwinter, Dragon's Prophet) people now tend to be veeeeeeeerry circumspect about believing in the Holy Grail of "F2P quality game".
I'm not sure that ESO can survive as a sub-game for long looking at online reactions, but who knows. I have no doubt that both Wildstar and FF:XIV can maintain a sub for at least the first year.
I'd be surprised if EQN is going to be F2P, that would make 0 sense in my eyes. Tons of classes, huge space, tons of game-changing events rolling out post launch...that would be AT LEAST B2P in my opinion. But my money is on subs there as well.
Smile
Smile
Yhosida said that FFXIV will never be f2p , im sure that FFXIV wont be f2p , hell if FFXI is still sub based and has low population (bust still tons of servers and players playing Oo)
FFXIV has ps3 players too , and ps4 after that , i think SE wont let FFXIV die again , and will want to repeat the FFXI success (money wise )....
lol, out of all Sub games you pick the crappiest of them all which is SW: Tor? Age of Conan was a way better P2P. What didn't help SWTOR was the fact that they closed down SW : Galaxies and by doing that they killed off the solid player base that wanted to head over to SWTOR and possibly play 2 games at once. It was a stupid move and SW:Tor wasn't in production for that long, so yeah, we end up with a bad P2P that is still doing pretty bad being F2P.
What I hate about this Column, it's that you people at MMORPG think you run the show in the MMORPG world? You think Blizzard and CCP give a rats ass if you think P2P is a bad idea? Go ask the millions that are subbed in both EVE and WoW. Oh let's not forget FF11 ! I guarantee they'll make you miserable and reconsider your thoughts about P2P once and for all.
So you're telling me having 40 MMO F2P titles releases a year which 80% are crap is better then 2-3 P2P titles? Please, if that's the case then I truly understand why this genre is not going anywhere anytime soon. And for argument sake, I hope XLgames will make ArcheAge P2P, enough of this F2P garbage, I want some quality P2P titles where I can pick one I like and stick with it for the next 5-6 years like I did with EVE online for 8 years. I paid yearly so that's 130 roughly, 1040$ total, and I don't have any consoles except for my SNES , NES and sega gamemaster. A PS3 / 360 with 20-30 games exceeds well over what I paid for my pleasure with EVE online in 8 years. A PS4 will be 400, add some games 50$ a pop , after 10 games for a PS4 you're already where I'm at with what I paid for EVE online in 8 years, and your 10 games, you'll most likely get them within 2 years, so like it or not P2P costs nothing compared to other means of gaming , ie : Console.
FFXIV could have 1 person playing and they would still charge that summbitch 15 bucks a month and say eff the rest. They already owned up to their mistakes in 1.0, no way are they going to admit defeat with ARR.
Neither one can hold a stick to p2p games though, p2p is where the big contenders go and they see the value in it. They are obviously confident in thier products. I can appreciate that. Cant wait to play both of these games, finally something worth sinking my teeth into.
There have been in the past several years developers and publishers stating that their mmos
will never go F2P. SWTOR, Age of Conan, Rift, The Secret World etc.
The players will decideI'd totally agree with you on this point. From what I've seen and played, Wildstar is using a lot of traditional features like raids, dungeons, and what not to warrant the traditional subscription model. They're focusing on endgame, they're focusing on housing, they're focusing on an open world. Everything that ESO has presented thus far is antithetical to that. It's all focused around their PVP. This game's a mistake - it should have been something like Borderlands 2 or Diablo 3. Just not an MMO.
I'm certainly in that camp. I'm so tired of companies telling their doing me a service by having their f2p offering. They're not. I want to play a game, not worry about a cash shop. Furthermore, I want content updates of substance - something even GW2 can't seem to offer. Lord of the Rings Online (Pre-Moria), and World of Warcraft were great. If Wildstar can integrate the dynamic events and action of combat of recent games into a traditional MMO, then I've seen enough. I'm sold on that.
I wish so bad that ESO were worth playing. All of the borders, all of the red tape, it ruins it. While I prefer a sub model, or even a buy to play model, that game won't last with a sub. There's not that much goodwill towards it as it stands, and putting a price barrier around it makes that situation worse.
I'm hoping with the resurgence of subscriptions, we will see less cash grabs and more worlds.
I sure am glad subs are not dead. The nickle and dime f2p games are bogus.
I will gladly pay a sub for a quality game with real updates.
The revenue model has less to do with if these companies can make work with model X or not.
It has much more to do with what the company wants out of the game. Do they want to milk it for everything they can in the short term or are they good with a steady stream that might be smaller in the over all but is more predict able.
A subscription model absolutely cannot survive without a good game but a good game can be supported by either a subscription or a cash shop done right. Just depends on the companies goes. Read the quote from Yoshi's interview again. Square obviously has broader more long term plans for FFXIV and the FF franchise in general. We will see about the other two.
All die, so die well.
This "return of the subs" will fail hard (I'm guessing). There is no doubt in my mind that both of these games will go FTP sooner than we know it. Moreover, they will make it sound like it was because of us, e.g., "Due to popular demand, ESO / WildStar is now FTP!". Pfft. They will go FTP because their initial surge of income will come to a dead stop within the first few months.
The new tactic is this:
#1. Buy game + Sub MMO. Make as much as possible in first few months.
#2. After first months, re-campaign as FTP and start bragging how more players are delving into the game
SUB is ultimately dead. We should rename "SUBS" to "newborns", as they eventually come to an end when they quickly become toddlers.
The hopeful part of me wants these games to be going P2P because they've made a deep game and have long term playability at end game.
The cynical part of me says they are going P2P to get immediate returns from box sales and first few months of subs which will be more money than being F2P then go F2P once box sales slow and people stop subbing coz their games are actually shallow and only short term fun,like most of the MMOs released in the last few years,then sit back and collect whale money with much less effort.
this. And we all know which one is still the best in this category. Until someone actually changes the pattern for good. Being prettier than the rest means shit in video games, if the core of the game isnt superior your doomed.
F2P became mainstream and sub hip in 2013. The idea of sub is a good one as after all M$ want to sub you to Office online and same with Adobe and their software. Problem with F2P is the gawd awful excessive cash shop.
And who decides which game is superior? Individual preference. You can preach all day about some all encompassing list of features that must be beat, but at the end of the day, its just your personal preference that others may or may not agree with.