Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Yoshida Takes F2P Into Consideration
AmbrosiaAmor
Member Posts: 915
Original article can be found here:
http://dengekionline.com/elem/000/000/824/824505/
Translation can be found here:
A Realm Reborn has familiar aspects to WoW?
Yoshida: Absolutely. People who are familiar with WoW will recognize a lot of the systems in A Realm Reborn, but there are many players in Japan who are not familiar with them and may question their implementation. That's one of the differences that we see between North American and Japanese players. However, we have about a half and half split for people who are happy with the current degree of difficulty and people who think it's too difficult. The difficulty of WoW has dropped considerably, but the people who loved the time when WoW was difficult are the people who like the difficulty in A Realm Reborn.
As far as the monthly billing goes, people are becoming more pragmatic and they're only willing to pay for the things that they want to use. What that means to monthly billing is that there are players who would rather pay based on the amount of time they play in a particular month, after they've played. There used to be no debate about this, since monthly billing was the only standard for MMORPGs, but now F2P is a consideration. We see this desire for players who would rather buy items especially in North America.
By the way, based on the number of planned users, what's your goal for the total global number of concurrent connections?
Yoshida: Since Shanda Games is operating the Chinese version, it's hard to say, but they have different goals that we have compared to Japan. However, we shouldn't just be talking about the number of simultaneous connections. In South Korea and China, F2P online games have been gaining a lot of momentum, and many users are only playing for the free period. We are taking this seriously, but it's one reason why the number of simultaneous connections may not be a measure of the success of the game.
Do you think it's good to have two different billing systems for a MMORPG (F2P and subscription)?
Yoshida: I don't think F2P is necessarily a bad thing, it's just one option. Talking about MMORPGs in general, there were a number of MMORPGs that launched around 2005, and almost all of them were subscription based. The thought was that this would guarantee profit from the start, and the development team wanted to depend on a stable number of users and a stable income. With the F2P model, employment is unstable, since what you sell in one month doesn't necessarily predict the next month's profits. This makes developers uneasy and makes it hard to create a roadmap for the game. It's important that content is provided reliably over time, and you need a development team and a steady income to do that.
To have stable sales for a MMORPG, you have to keep development going. After all, you need to keep providing content with updates and people need to be entertained by that content to want to keep playing. With a F2P game, though, you're not getting money from the content, but just from selling items. So then to make a lot of content you have to make a lot of items, which isn't necessarily linked to the players' enjoyment of the game. Rather than having 100% content update, then, you'd have to dedicate, say, 30% of that to items created to make money. Then it goes back to the ultimate question of what are our goals for the game in the first place.
The development of a MMORPG requires an incredible investment. It takes a lot of money raised from investors, and if you don't get the number of users you planned for at the start of your subscription service, the investors might immediately go into panic mode trying to figure out how to increase profit. These games might be forced to go F2P so that they can use the revenue to return the money to their investors.
There are many users now who don't like the idea of being bound to a game for a long time. I feel that way myself, so that I can stop at any point. I think this model works well for these kinds of games where you play for a long time overall but only play a little at a time. These aren't MMOs, but F2P works well for games like "World of Tanks" and "League of Legends."
If there are particular elements which are strongly customizable, F2P works well for those cases so that players can pay to instantly expand their experience. I think that's why the choice was made for those types of games. It's important that the business model for the game is selected based on the kind of experience that you want to provide. It could be a positive change for a game to move from subscription based to F2P as long as the change is based on the users' needs rather than trying to turn an unprofitable game around.
If there's an impression that I'm determined to stick to a subscription service, that's a mistake.
Do you have a response to the example users you gave in the US who are interested in buying items?
Yoshida: We hope to offer some items for sale, but nothing that will affect game balance.
It seems that a lot of users are interested in sales of Fantasia (the item to change your character model), so how about that?
Yoshida: We're going to be talking about that in the LIVE producer letter on the 21st. Also, we're planning to introduce the ability to purchase an additional service which increases the number of available retainers. It'll be even more valuable with the additional retainer systems available with the patch which will make retainers more useful than ever.
Comments
I would probably play again for a bit if it was f2p. However I don't see it happening in the near future.
The Japanese are pretty traditional and although he says he doesn't see f2p as something bad .... well you know.
Additionally FFXI is still going kind of strong I believe? If 14 went f2p it would have an influence on 11.
Eesh that's going to be a tough decision for me.
Heh, yeah I read that too, and cringed at just about all those points.
Especially:
"If there's an impression that I'm determined to stick to a subscription service, that's a mistake."
and...
"We hope to offer some items for sale"
The first line is particularly poignant as it completely obliterates the popular claim that Yoshi-P had ever stated they would take the game down before going F2P. Not that that surprises me. I never saw a direct quote from the man on it. At best, I saw people spinning unrelated statements out of context to mean that.
The second statement, well..
All I'll say is, for myself, the moment they start selling anything in-game, item-wise.. I don't care if it affects game balance or not... and they do this on top of a sub, I'm gone. Not that me stopping would be some kind of "viva la revolution!", earth-shattering event. That's just me speaking out on my own principles.
The point is, those items, even if they're "just cosmetic" and not game-affecting, are still going to be desired content to a group of people. I don't care if it's a dopey looking hat. There are people who are going to want it, and for whom the game experience would be improved. The moment you tell them "well, you're paying a sub, but you'll have to pay another $5 (or $10, or whatever) to get it on top of the subscription you're already paying..." then the game will have become more expensive for some to fully enjoy than it is for others.
People will often say "as long as it's just cosmetic and not game-affecting, I'm fine with it". They may as well be saying "as long as it's nothing that would compel me to spend more money... I'm fine with it. It's fine if others do, though". Screw that; it's just self-serving, short-sighted nonsense. No one paying a sub fee should have to pay a dime more for individual items, cosmetic or no.
In a F2P game, that's fine. In a B2P game.. "eh...". In a Sub-based game, though? No. Just no.
Now, yes.. I realize people will pay it and buy those things anyway. I understand that. People do a lot of things that, from an outside perspective, don't make a whole lot of sense. And anyway, that's not the point I'm making. You bought the game. You're paying the sub. That should be where it ends. Any new items added should be obtainable by playing the game. I'm talking cosmetic items or mounts or whatever.
I'm not talking huge expansions that bring entire new swaths of content, areas, monsters, etc. etc. to the game. That's quite a bit more than what a subscription fee should reasonably be expected to cover by itself.
Anyway.. my two gil.
Future is for hybrid models and not for pure P2P or F2P models. Yoshida is quite an intelligent guy and he sees that.
By making FFXIV hybrid they will only make more profit and not less.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
-Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."
-Luke McKinney
Well said...You pretty much summed up my feelings far better than I would have been able to.
Not that I was playing (or planning on playing) FF reborn- But in a general sense.
I thought they would rather close the game than consider an F2P option?
It sounds like a developer more interested in what's best for their game than what is popular to rant about on forums.
The most tiresome aspect of the payment model debate has always been the hard line it has to be this way for every game and everyone on the other side of the fence is a ( random insult )
They should go with the model that they feel is the best one for their game. If that means switching from what they have now...it doesn't mean they failed.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
You're completely misunderstanding the whole interview. YoshiP says F2P makes sense for games like World of Tanks and League of LEgends. It makes no sense for MMOs UNLESS you're doing it to save the game from closing down.
He said he would consider F2P options if the player base really really wanted it. So the big difference is, he's not going f2p to save a dying game... he's going F2P if there's a huge demand by teh current base in an otherwise SUCCESSFUL P2P game.
You're missing the part where anyone who said anything about F2P on these forums was told that Yoshi would rather close the game than go F2P.
Is giving some of the playerbase a F2P option rather going F2P for EVERYONE. That's a huge difference. It could be like WoW where it's F2P for only the first 20 levels.... or F2P that limits how much time you can play a week...
He did not say it would go Free to play for all purposes, but rather limited f2p options that are not game breaking... don't isolate sentences... read the entire interview.
The same reason Turbine went F2P with LOTRO even though it had around 400K subscribers at its peak....'money'. Its business after all.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
-Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."
-Luke McKinney
Sorry, it was just too hilarious for me to not point out. People have been parroting the anti-F2P thing with this game for months now. All of a sudden, our Lord and Savior Yoshi P. has spoken and all of that is forgotten. Just too damn funny. I'm not saying you specifically said that the game would never have F2P options, but there were plenty of people who did claim that XIV would never have an F2P option because SE would rather shut the game down. It was like a mantra or something.
+1
If the dude said F2P = unlimited trial then he should be sacked before he kills the game but I rather doubt that is what he actually meant because if he did so he would've specified so he didn't look like a guy that bends however the winds of player demands blow.
I am enjoying the rather fun corner the dude painted himself into... the game itself is a dud, XI has a claim to its P2P status, ARR is just rehashed garbage without any real spark so the F2P option is coming and it will likely be grind like a bitch or pay for 1/2 the grind, no other limits in gameplay terms (anything else would be suicidal, limited trials or unlimited ones do not aid the growth of the community in any way).
That's why F2P games are popular its that casual word you mentioned. People play them casually along with 5 other F2P games simultaneously.
Yup...key word is CASUAL.
Why we will probably not see any innovative gameplay until this genre is most likely in it's deathbed.
Remember what happened to the console way back when??? Thank god for Nintendo....
Or how about those arcades that were the rage a while back...
As long as you're not using the word 'casual' like it's some derogatory term like the poster below you. It's honestly pretty amazing to be able to come home from work and choose between GW2, Hearthstone, LoL, and a bunch of co-op games in my Steam library to play with my gaming friends. Not to mention Wildstar and ESO betas whenever they're available to me. It's like the internet is my MMO nowadays, and each game is a dungeon. I put together a group, and we're off.
I mean I've played subscription MMOs in tihe pastwhen then consume 100% of your gaming time. I played FFXI from vanilla through COP, and WoW from vanilla through WotlK - and I had a blast. But I'm also having a blast now. The freedom and variety is especially liberating. When I was playing a single sub based game, I basically neglected all other games entirely. Sure, it sort of feels good being that into the game while you're playing it, but I can also distinctly recall the relief that accompanied every single cancellation of a subscription and then the fun of playing all the other games I had been neglecting.
No, being able to play many games casually these days is a decidedly good thing to me.
The video game crash was due to the overpopulation with not a whole lot of quality games and the near complete lack of reviews or gaming press lead to a logical drop in sales.
Arcades dropped in popularity because paying to play a game is vastly less desirable than a upfront fee for hardware and the game and playing it in the comfort of your own home (thank you for making the case for F2P games btw as they are to MMOs what consoles were to games back in the arcade hayday).
Try harder.
Also there have been casual games since the dawn of damn time so please stop blaming developer laziness coupled with publisher risk aversion on your fellow gamers.
Wait a gosh darn second there! You thank him for making the case for F2P games when both the points you are touching on resonate with sub based games. And I quote:
the overpopulation with not a whole lot of quality games and the near complete lack of reviews or gaming press lead to a logical drop in sales
This is exactly the situation F2P games are in now. Bloated with many low quality mmorpgs and a sales report that counts all F2P games as a whole instead of individual reports. I guess this is why SOE is shutting down: FreeRealms, Star Wars: Clone War Adventures, Vanguard and Wizardry Online? Read the reasons here
Arcades dropped in popularity because paying to play a game is vastly less desirable than a upfront fee
Another point that touches on the reason P2P mmos (upfront fee) beats out F2P mmos (nickel & dime). F2P mmos are like those old arcades. A slew of them buzzing, flashing and playing music in order to entice you to spend some coin. They're not looking for a long term commitment, just a few minutes hoping to get you to spend more. As for home consoles (like P2P mmos) you pay initially to get in and play. Then had the option to pay for an expansion (a new game) when it came out. Playing Pac-Man at home for $30 was sure a helluva lot cheaper than the amount I spent at the arcades playing it over the years.
So nope, arcades are F2P and consoles are like P2P. But slowly the nickel & dime mentality of the arcades is making it's way back into console gaming in the form of cash shops and DLC.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
This is the only way I would come back to the game. I will not pay a sub for this game. I do like it, but for me a sub isn't worth it.
http://www.siliconera.com/2014/03/19/focus-graphics-killed-final-fantasy-xiv-heres-square-enix-revived/
YoshiP was presenting at the GAme Developer's Conference giving a presentation.
Here's his take on why FFXIV 1.0 failed and how he got it back up to a big success.
Looks to me far more like the WoW style sub + cash shop model and the cash shop is already well under construction... seems odd since he was just saying they had well over 500k subscribers... guess just making money off subscriptions wasn't enough.
Overall this was prolly more about China. I bet they'll launch f2p in China as virtually every game is f2p there.