F2P Restrictions on WoW are even worse. You can't even level past 20
You read me wrong. I love the restrictions that get people to Sub. SoE F2P system lets you try all of the game for free. When you are ready to join the end game community, you sub. This keeps a flow of new gamers trying your game and keeps the end game clear of leachers that really give nothing to the community. Every MMO should pick up this model.
People sub to EQ2 for more reasons than raiding. There are a lot of benefits to the subscription. When I sub to EQ2 it's nothing to do with end game raiding. I don't raid anymore.
The restrictions also don't have much to do with me subscribing. I can play the game without a sub just fine. I subscribe for the buffs, SC, and benefits now to all access. It's a nice package with decent perks. It's the same for me with Tera, LotRO, and a couple other games. Subs aren't a problem. It's when the subs are mandatory and gate access that I have a problem with the game.
I never said raid once. I said join end game community. Be that raiding, PvP or just good old dungeon runs.
The only mistake they are making is not starting as p2p with the intention of swapping to f2p later.
If you do that it allows you to charge £60 upfront, get store recognition and you can even run as a p2p with a cash shop. Once profits drop you can "relaunch" as f2p. This is the industry standard for AAA titles right now, launch as p2p wait 1-2 years and swap over.
Also even though players will say they will quit if their game swaps to f2p, they very rarely ever follow though with that threat since they have so much time invested.
Amazed they would do it this way honestly.
Founders packs is how they will get cash upfront - I fully expect $50, $100 and $150 packs for EQN
This is a pretty proven method for F2P games.
Also with all access pass - having a one off P2P game would be lame - SoE already said that EQN will be covered under all access pass.
SOE is making a mistake by not going full P2P to start. I do agree that they can make some of this up with founders packs... but the could make a TON more with P2P. Here are the reasons why:
1. With P2P they can cut development time by at least a year. P2P does not require a fully developed game to launch, and they can use the first year to bankroll further development.
2. With P2P they can crank up the hype and marketing, and cash in on the preorders. This will allow them to make a ton upfront, before anyone can even see the game. This is even better than founders packs, as they do not have to provide any lasting value.
3. With P2P they can sell lifetime subs, which will not really cost them anything when they change to F2P after the first year. This is yet another way that they can cash in a year ahead of time, to pay for the extra development before F2P.
The bottom line is that P2P is all about hype, and lock in. They can cash in heavily on launch day, then get 1 year of revenue before the F2P conversion... at which time they can start selling founders packs (no loss here), and then use the more developed game to get more players for less. There really isnt a downside to a P2P launch for the sales/marketing team.
Originally posted by loulaki when people will understand that subscription doesn't offer a better product ???
The argument was never about that. It is about offering a better experience. Simple fact is that myself and rl mmo playing friends ONLY play these games that offer a subscription option even it is along side a f2p model.
No subscription option = we do not play.
The hoops, traps and p2w hassles of most f2p games are simply not worth the trouble. It detracts from a seamless playing experience based on equality and sportsmanship. F2p is based entirely on gamesmanship. That is exactly what it would be called in any real sport or gaming experience. Those of us who grew up playing real games be it board games, video games, rpgs, sports, etc clearly understand the difference.
Boundaries between fair play and abusive monetization is nearly always crossed by f2p. The exceptions are so rare that they are nearly invisible in the current mmo landscape.
Originally posted by loulaki when people will understand that subscription doesn't offer a better product ???
I don't know when. But I know that I won't play a F2P game.
SoE products are not really F2P. They are a F2P hybrid. EQN will be part of the all access pass and there will be good reason to sub to EQN. If you are playing for free, much like SoE's other products, you will have your hands tied enough that most players will sub. There will most likely be an option to pay your sub with in game gold but at such a high level most casuals will not be able to do it. Its a really fair system that lets players know if its worth the 15 bucks a month because you can see the entire game before you decide to drop 15 bucks a month.
I can't help but to feel they are making a mistake, a monumental mistake.
On this site over the past couple months we've seen posters say they've had enough of cash shops and cash to gold conversion systems. Even Bill Murphy while reviewing Arche Age asked why not have a premium server? Within the mmorpg genre, I think free to play has ran it's course.
What do you guys think? I'm really looking forward to EQN, but for me it already has 2 strikes against it with the art style and the free to play monetization model.
I'm with you.
Free trial to a certain progression point, I'd be ok with. But we all know gold sellers and all the other assholes would just fuck that all up.
Not a lot to add, agree with both of you. In years have developed deep hate for "F2P". There are very rare games that I continued to play, where with sub one really do not need to buy anything, like Swtor, Rift,..
Originally posted by loulaki when people will understand that subscription doesn't offer a better product ???
I don't know when. But I know that I won't play a F2P game.
SoE products are not really F2P. They are a F2P hybrid. EQN will be part of the all access pass and there will be good reason to sub to EQN. If you are playing for free, much like SoE's other products, you will have your hands tied enough that most players will sub. There will most likely be an option to pay your sub with in game gold but at such a high level most casuals will not be able to do it. Its a really fair system that lets players know if its worth the 15 bucks a month because you can see the entire game before you decide to drop 15 bucks a month.
Actually the opposite is true. SOE's F2P is the typical F2P (Free+Sub). They have even caught up with modern trends and added a cash shop for some items as well. The only unique thing that they offer is the All Access. If you sub to one SEO game, you are automatically subbed to ALL SEO games. This means that the typical $14.95 gets you subs to multiple games, rarther than just one.
I can't help but to feel they are making a mistake, a monumental mistake.
On this site over the past couple months we've seen posters say they've had enough of cash shops and cash to gold conversion systems. Even Bill Murphy while reviewing Arche Age asked why not have a premium server? Within the mmorpg genre, I think free to play has ran it's course.
What do you guys think? I'm really looking forward to EQN, but for me it already has 2 strikes against it with the art style and the free to play monetization model.
I'm with you.
Free trial to a certain progression point, I'd be ok with. But we all know gold sellers and all the other assholes would just fuck that all up.
Not a lot to add, agree with both of you. In years have developed deep hate for "F2P". There are very rare games that I continued to play, where with sub one really do not need to buy anything, like Swtor, Rift,..
I'm sure if they're going to monetize EQN using a F2P model, I'm sure it'll be along the SWTOR or Rift lines. I seriously don't see SOE monetizing their flagship franchise using heavy cash shop items, a la Archeage. I just don't see it happening. Too aggressive.
When I played SWTOR as F2P, the monetization was always in my face. Everything I did told me to pay for something. Then I subbed. Fortunately, SWTOR has a decent sub model. And all the monetization disappeared. WoW has a cash shop, but the game itself does not push its monetization on me. Assuming this game's business model is anything like SWTOR's, meaning if you sub, the entirety of the game opens up and there isn't any more "encouragement" to purchase from a cash shop, it can be F2P without suffering from the negatives.
As soon as I feel like monetization has become obvious in my in-game experience, I'm out. I'm done.
Originally posted by loulaki when people will understand that subscription doesn't offer a better product ???
I don't know when. But I know that I won't play a F2P game.
SoE products are not really F2P. They are a F2P hybrid. EQN will be part of the all access pass and there will be good reason to sub to EQN. If you are playing for free, much like SoE's other products, you will have your hands tied enough that most players will sub. There will most likely be an option to pay your sub with in game gold but at such a high level most casuals will not be able to do it. Its a really fair system that lets players know if its worth the 15 bucks a month because you can see the entire game before you decide to drop 15 bucks a month.
Actually the opposite is true. SOE's F2P is the typical F2P (Free+Sub). They have even caught up with modern trends and added a cash shop for some items as well. The only unique thing that they offer is the All Access. If you sub to one SEO game, you are automatically subbed to ALL SEO games. This means that the typical $14.95 gets you subs to multiple games, rarther than just one.
Typical F2P does not have a sub or systems in play to push you to a sub. Typical F2P games have hindrances that push you to a cash shop. As for a cash shop, most MMOs have them now be they are B2P, F2P or pure sub.
Originally posted by loulaki when people will understand that subscription doesn't offer a better product ???
I don't know when. But I know that I won't play a F2P game.
SoE products are not really F2P. They are a F2P hybrid. EQN will be part of the all access pass and there will be good reason to sub to EQN. If you are playing for free, much like SoE's other products, you will have your hands tied enough that most players will sub. There will most likely be an option to pay your sub with in game gold but at such a high level most casuals will not be able to do it. Its a really fair system that lets players know if its worth the 15 bucks a month because you can see the entire game before you decide to drop 15 bucks a month.
Actually the opposite is true. SOE's F2P is the typical F2P (Free+Sub). They have even caught up with modern trends and added a cash shop for some items as well. The only unique thing that they offer is the All Access. If you sub to one SEO game, you are automatically subbed to ALL SEO games. This means that the typical $14.95 gets you subs to multiple games, rarther than just one.
Typical F2P does not have a sub or systems in play to push you to a sub. Typical F2P games have hindrances that push you to a cash shop. As for a cash shop, most MMOs have them now be they are B2P, F2P or pure sub.
Incorrect. In the west the typical F2P monetizes with a monthly sub. In fact this is the origins of F2P. Just look at the early leaders of F2P, like Runescape, or even Club Penguin. Then we have all the modern F2P conversions, which are also sub based.
Originally posted by Amjoco No disrespect to those who are looking forward to this title, but I think SOE is making a mistake just designing the game, not so much the payment model. It has somewhat fallen off the radar, and imho, the negativity it has had makes me think they are second guessing the entire project. I would love to see a game with the voxel system, but I would have loved it in EQ3.
I personally am really looking forward to the game because it uses next gen gameplay mechanics which haven't been seen before.
For example:
1. A fully voxel based destructible world so you can break holes int he ground falling into caverns or break through walls pulling other mobs.
2. All npcs have ai motivations so they actually do things like invade each others territory and change their actions based on events rather than the outdated wow model of go here, kill x mobs. Quests, mobs, class teachers etc wont be in the same place everytime with the exception of some basic ones. You should watch the everquest workshop video on this cuz they speed up a simulation of events over the monthes to show 1 possible outcome where the dark elves and dryads are wiped out by the ancient evil which may or may not happen in the real game depending on how successful 1 ai is in invading another.
3. 40 starting classes with every character being a multi class character making a new character building system and play system than the out dated wow tank, dps, healer system.
4. Month long rallying calls where players help shape the world by for example protecting a city or attacking another or helping to create a new one or invading the enemy lands forcing them into other regions. leading to the permanent removal of that city from the game
5. Pretty graphics. Tbf other games have good graphics too by the physics engine on everquest next is unique because of its fully voxel based nature which not only affects graphics but changes gameplay massively.
Basically, I like that this game is innovating in a number of areas rather than staying with outdated 2004 wow gameplay models.
At the end of the day, I see lots of good looking new mmo rpgs but none of them innovate in areas such as fully destructible worlds with multi tiered dungeons and lands where you can destroy the ground to fall into new areas, ai in the npc rather than just npcs following a script showing a set path which means questing amongst other things are always in the same location, month long (like 6 monthes) dynamic events where players shape the world, next gen build complexity where you have to multi class any of the 40 classes which you learn for example by finding hermits who hide, combing them with elements to specialise in, professions, weapons etc and ofcourse next gen game physics with the voxel based world.
That's why Im lokng forward to this game so much, its actually innovating and doing something new to potentially change the genre, if it works as described it will.
Time will tell but 1 things for certain its not following the 10 year old, outdated wow model and trying something innovative which I for one welcome.
Originally posted by loulaki when people will understand that subscription doesn't offer a better product ???
I don't know when. But I know that I won't play a F2P game.
SoE products are not really F2P. They are a F2P hybrid. EQN will be part of the all access pass and there will be good reason to sub to EQN. If you are playing for free, much like SoE's other products, you will have your hands tied enough that most players will sub. There will most likely be an option to pay your sub with in game gold but at such a high level most casuals will not be able to do it. Its a really fair system that lets players know if its worth the 15 bucks a month because you can see the entire game before you decide to drop 15 bucks a month.
Actually the opposite is true. SOE's F2P is the typical F2P (Free+Sub). They have even caught up with modern trends and added a cash shop for some items as well. The only unique thing that they offer is the All Access. If you sub to one SEO game, you are automatically subbed to ALL SEO games. This means that the typical $14.95 gets you subs to multiple games, rarther than just one.
Typical F2P does not have a sub or systems in play to push you to a sub. Typical F2P games have hindrances that push you to a cash shop. As for a cash shop, most MMOs have them now be they are B2P, F2P or pure sub.
Incorrect. In the west the typical F2P monetizes with a monthly sub. In fact this is the origins of F2P. Just look at the early leaders of F2P, like Runescape, or even Club Penguin. Then we have all the modern F2P conversions, which are also sub based.
Go look at the list of MMOs on this web page and the majority of F2P games do not offer a sub.
I can't help but to feel they are making a mistake, a monumental mistake.
On this site over the past couple months we've seen posters say they've had enough of cash shops and cash to gold conversion systems. Even Bill Murphy while reviewing Arche Age asked why not have a premium server? Within the mmorpg genre, I think free to play has ran it's course.
What do you guys think? I'm really looking forward to EQN, but for me it already has 2 strikes against it with the art style and the free to play monetization model.
If you wanna know how the F2P model will be on EQ Next, you should take a look at Planetside 2, is not bad and it have a p2p option.
I can't help but to feel they are making a mistake, a monumental mistake.
On this site over the past couple months we've seen posters say they've had enough of cash shops and cash to gold conversion systems. Even Bill Murphy while reviewing Arche Age asked why not have a premium server? Within the mmorpg genre, I think free to play has ran it's course.
What do you guys think? I'm really looking forward to EQN, but for me it already has 2 strikes against it with the art style and the free to play monetization model.
If EQN is an awesome game the monetization model is completely irrelevant - players will flock to and play it.
But I have to ask you this, name the great MMORPG's that have started off F2P at launch? I'm not sure there has been any, and certainly none that I've enjoyed playing.
There are great F2P models and there are crap F2P models - if SoE does it right - and they have a good game they are not making a mistake.
Again, it seems to me the good F2P models have all come from MMORPGs that launched as B2P/P2P then converted to a hybrid model afterwards, again, F2P at launch usually means poor cash shop model.
The notion that is popular on this site that f2p=bad is fantasy of a small % of the actual playerbase.
No, I don't believe that's true, I think in the MMORPG playerbase P2P is much more popular than you think, sure in the MOBA or mobile phone space it might be different, but even in the titles that are hybrid F2P such as SWTOR, they are pulling in a lot of subs/patrons whatever.
The hard data that SoE and many companies that have switched over to F2P use showed them that F2P was a better model for their games.
Well, as we've seen the hard data at least one F2P company released was that it's best to milk the player base hard at fast at launch, and then toss the game and move on to the next one as quickly as possible, haven't seen much other hard data besides that one instance.
Companies don't make decisions based on a vocal minority forum posters.
But apparently they do listen to market analysts such as Superdata who recently stated there is a "premium" market that can be catered to, especially perhaps in the MMORPG genre more than cell phone games or mobas.
I'm not normally at odds with your view points, but in this case I think you are missing the mark some, and over promoting the market for F2P. (or under promoting the market for P2P)
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The only mistake they are making is not starting as p2p with the intention of swapping to f2p later.
If you do that it allows you to charge £60 upfront, get store recognition and you can even run as a p2p with a cash shop. Once profits drop you can "relaunch" as f2p. This is the industry standard for AAA titles right now, launch as p2p wait 1-2 years and swap over.
Also even though players will say they will quit if their game swaps to f2p, they very rarely ever follow though with that threat since they have so much time invested.
Amazed they would do it this way honestly.
Founders packs is how they will get cash upfront - I fully expect $50, $100 and $150 packs for EQN
This is a pretty proven method for F2P games.
Also with all access pass - having a one off P2P game would be lame - SoE already said that EQN will be covered under all access pass.
SOE is making a mistake by not going full P2P to start. I do agree that they can make some of this up with founders packs... but the could make a TON more with P2P. Here are the reasons why:
1. With P2P they can cut development time by at least a year. P2P does not require a fully developed game to launch, and they can use the first year to bankroll further development.
2. With P2P they can crank up the hype and marketing, and cash in on the preorders. This will allow them to make a ton upfront, before anyone can even see the game. This is even better than founders packs, as they do not have to provide any lasting value.
3. With P2P they can sell lifetime subs, which will not really cost them anything when they change to F2P after the first year. This is yet another way that they can cash in a year ahead of time, to pay for the extra development before F2P.
The bottom line is that P2P is all about hype, and lock in. They can cash in heavily on launch day, then get 1 year of revenue before the F2P conversion... at which time they can start selling founders packs (no loss here), and then use the more developed game to get more players for less. There really isnt a downside to a P2P launch for the sales/marketing team.
1. Founders packs do not require a fully developed game either
2. Same with founders packs - marketing and hype are no different
3. Lifetime subs are a bad financial decision for dev studios - you lose money doing those
There is very little difference in the end - you can get as much upfront cash with founders as with p2p initially
It is true that any type of presale does not require that the product be complete, or even working. This is the basic principle of P2P... get their money BEFORE they can see the product. However, once you have taken their money, you can start promising how the game will get better, etc. If the game were F2P at this point, people could just easily sit and wait. However, by charging a required (rather than optional) sub, you can keep them paying while they wait. This allows you a whole extra year of revenue, vs F2P.
As I stated above, founders packs are a rehash of the P2P launch... which means that you get to do this TWICE. Taking your best sales technique, and being able to repeat it (when it is normally not) helps quite a bit.
Lifetime subs are actually a GREAT financial decision for devs, if planned out. With a P2P launch you know that the first year is all about trying to fix the game before you are out of players. A lifetime sub gets you that money upfront, and you dont care if they leave. When you change to F2P, the small % that are going to return dont cost you any money... and they are likely to buy from the cash shop as well. You also know that even that small % is going to drop off over time, and that the money upfront was more valuable than the monthly subs of these small amount of individuals.
Overall this is a HUGE advantage... and the reason why games still want to launch P2P. They get an extra years revenue, and get to do the launch/founders pack process twice. Any one of these would be worth the money, having all of them basically makes it a financial no brainer.
I tried the Beta and I was very disappointed at this game, I couldn't collect any minerals, I had a quest about collecting some ores copper I think and I never was able to find even 1, the game look very poorly designed, I hope they have improved because the game as a whole looks promising.
Originally posted by mayito7777 I tried the Beta and I was very disappointed at this game, I couldn't collect any minerals, I had a quest about collecting some ores copper I think and I never was able to find even 1, the game look very poorly designed, I hope they have improved because the game as a whole looks promising.
Originally posted by loulaki when people will understand that subscription doesn't offer a better product ???
As soon as F2P at launch titles prove to be better than those that launch as P2P.
I had hopes for AA, but those were quickly dashed and it's pretty much a smoking ruin right now, granted not because of the payment model, but due to the fact they can't get the game under control. I assume this is largely because they lack the funds to do so, which a proper monetization model could have helped with.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Originally posted by mayito7777 I tried the Beta and I was very disappointed at this game, I couldn't collect any minerals, I had a quest about collecting some ores copper I think and I never was able to find even 1, the game look very poorly designed, I hope they have improved because the game as a whole looks promising.
LOL
The beta of this game isn't even out yet.
Well I played something from them where I went to some island and started some quest there and it came from this game.
Originally posted by loulaki when people will understand that subscription doesn't offer a better product ???
As soon as F2P at launch titles prove to be better than those that launch as P2P.
I had hopes for AA, but those were quickly dashed and it's pretty much a smoking ruin right now, granted not because of the payment model, but due to the fact they can't get the game under control. I assume this is largely because they lack the funds to do so, which a proper monetization model could have helped with.
This is a bit funny. It is like saying: "The launch of the latest WoW expansion did not go well... I assume this is largely because they lack the funds to do so.' Trion has plenty of money, and experience with multiple games. XL has plenty of money, and has been publishing ArcheAge for years. The issues were caused by Trions lack of experience with third party publishing, and XL's lack of experience in the western market. Both companies are getting burned because of their arrogance.... and they each think that they are not to blame... it is the other party.
Originally posted by mayito7777 I tried the Beta and I was very disappointed at this game, I couldn't collect any minerals, I had a quest about collecting some ores copper I think and I never was able to find even 1, the game look very poorly designed, I hope they have improved because the game as a whole looks promising.
LOL
The beta of this game isn't even out yet.
Well I played something from them where I went to some island and started some quest there and it came from this game.
Well whatever you think it was. It wasn't everquest next as the beta of it isn't out yet.
Originally posted by loulaki when people will understand that subscription doesn't offer a better product ???
The argument was never about that. It is about offering a better experience. Simple fact is that myself and rl mmo playing friends ONLY play these games that offer a subscription option even it is along side a f2p model.
No subscription option = we do not play.
The hoops, traps and p2w hassles of most f2p games are simply not worth the trouble. It detracts from a seamless playing experience based on equality and sportsmanship. F2p is based entirely on gamesmanship. That is exactly what it would be called in any real sport or gaming experience. Those of us who grew up playing real games be it board games, video games, rpgs, sports, etc clearly understand the difference.
Boundaries between fair play and abusive monetization is nearly always crossed by f2p. The exceptions are so rare that they are nearly invisible in the current mmo landscape.
Comments
I never said raid once. I said join end game community. Be that raiding, PvP or just good old dungeon runs.
SOE is making a mistake by not going full P2P to start. I do agree that they can make some of this up with founders packs... but the could make a TON more with P2P. Here are the reasons why:
1. With P2P they can cut development time by at least a year. P2P does not require a fully developed game to launch, and they can use the first year to bankroll further development.
2. With P2P they can crank up the hype and marketing, and cash in on the preorders. This will allow them to make a ton upfront, before anyone can even see the game. This is even better than founders packs, as they do not have to provide any lasting value.
3. With P2P they can sell lifetime subs, which will not really cost them anything when they change to F2P after the first year. This is yet another way that they can cash in a year ahead of time, to pay for the extra development before F2P.
The bottom line is that P2P is all about hype, and lock in. They can cash in heavily on launch day, then get 1 year of revenue before the F2P conversion... at which time they can start selling founders packs (no loss here), and then use the more developed game to get more players for less. There really isnt a downside to a P2P launch for the sales/marketing team.
The argument was never about that. It is about offering a better experience. Simple fact is that myself and rl mmo playing friends ONLY play these games that offer a subscription option even it is along side a f2p model.
No subscription option = we do not play.
The hoops, traps and p2w hassles of most f2p games are simply not worth the trouble. It detracts from a seamless playing experience based on equality and sportsmanship. F2p is based entirely on gamesmanship. That is exactly what it would be called in any real sport or gaming experience. Those of us who grew up playing real games be it board games, video games, rpgs, sports, etc clearly understand the difference.
Boundaries between fair play and abusive monetization is nearly always crossed by f2p. The exceptions are so rare that they are nearly invisible in the current mmo landscape.
You stay sassy!
I don't know when. But I know that I won't play a F2P game.
SoE products are not really F2P. They are a F2P hybrid. EQN will be part of the all access pass and there will be good reason to sub to EQN. If you are playing for free, much like SoE's other products, you will have your hands tied enough that most players will sub. There will most likely be an option to pay your sub with in game gold but at such a high level most casuals will not be able to do it. Its a really fair system that lets players know if its worth the 15 bucks a month because you can see the entire game before you decide to drop 15 bucks a month.
Not a lot to add, agree with both of you. In years have developed deep hate for "F2P". There are very rare games that I continued to play, where with sub one really do not need to buy anything, like Swtor, Rift,..
Actually the opposite is true. SOE's F2P is the typical F2P (Free+Sub). They have even caught up with modern trends and added a cash shop for some items as well. The only unique thing that they offer is the All Access. If you sub to one SEO game, you are automatically subbed to ALL SEO games. This means that the typical $14.95 gets you subs to multiple games, rarther than just one.
I'm sure if they're going to monetize EQN using a F2P model, I'm sure it'll be along the SWTOR or Rift lines. I seriously don't see SOE monetizing their flagship franchise using heavy cash shop items, a la Archeage. I just don't see it happening. Too aggressive.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
When I played SWTOR as F2P, the monetization was always in my face. Everything I did told me to pay for something. Then I subbed. Fortunately, SWTOR has a decent sub model. And all the monetization disappeared. WoW has a cash shop, but the game itself does not push its monetization on me. Assuming this game's business model is anything like SWTOR's, meaning if you sub, the entirety of the game opens up and there isn't any more "encouragement" to purchase from a cash shop, it can be F2P without suffering from the negatives.
As soon as I feel like monetization has become obvious in my in-game experience, I'm out. I'm done.
Typical F2P does not have a sub or systems in play to push you to a sub. Typical F2P games have hindrances that push you to a cash shop. As for a cash shop, most MMOs have them now be they are B2P, F2P or pure sub.
Incorrect. In the west the typical F2P monetizes with a monthly sub. In fact this is the origins of F2P. Just look at the early leaders of F2P, like Runescape, or even Club Penguin. Then we have all the modern F2P conversions, which are also sub based.
This is pretty much my view as well.
I personally am really looking forward to the game because it uses next gen gameplay mechanics which haven't been seen before.
For example:
1. A fully voxel based destructible world so you can break holes int he ground falling into caverns or break through walls pulling other mobs.
2. All npcs have ai motivations so they actually do things like invade each others territory and change their actions based on events rather than the outdated wow model of go here, kill x mobs. Quests, mobs, class teachers etc wont be in the same place everytime with the exception of some basic ones. You should watch the everquest workshop video on this cuz they speed up a simulation of events over the monthes to show 1 possible outcome where the dark elves and dryads are wiped out by the ancient evil which may or may not happen in the real game depending on how successful 1 ai is in invading another.
3. 40 starting classes with every character being a multi class character making a new character building system and play system than the out dated wow tank, dps, healer system.
4. Month long rallying calls where players help shape the world by for example protecting a city or attacking another or helping to create a new one or invading the enemy lands forcing them into other regions. leading to the permanent removal of that city from the game
5. Pretty graphics. Tbf other games have good graphics too by the physics engine on everquest next is unique because of its fully voxel based nature which not only affects graphics but changes gameplay massively.
Basically, I like that this game is innovating in a number of areas rather than staying with outdated 2004 wow gameplay models.
At the end of the day, I see lots of good looking new mmo rpgs but none of them innovate in areas such as fully destructible worlds with multi tiered dungeons and lands where you can destroy the ground to fall into new areas, ai in the npc rather than just npcs following a script showing a set path which means questing amongst other things are always in the same location, month long (like 6 monthes) dynamic events where players shape the world, next gen build complexity where you have to multi class any of the 40 classes which you learn for example by finding hermits who hide, combing them with elements to specialise in, professions, weapons etc and ofcourse next gen game physics with the voxel based world.
That's why Im lokng forward to this game so much, its actually innovating and doing something new to potentially change the genre, if it works as described it will.
Time will tell but 1 things for certain its not following the 10 year old, outdated wow model and trying something innovative which I for one welcome.
Go look at the list of MMOs on this web page and the majority of F2P games do not offer a sub.
If you wanna know how the F2P model will be on EQ Next, you should take a look at Planetside 2, is not bad and it have a p2p option.
I'm not normally at odds with your view points, but in this case I think you are missing the mark some, and over promoting the market for F2P. (or under promoting the market for P2P)
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
It is true that any type of presale does not require that the product be complete, or even working. This is the basic principle of P2P... get their money BEFORE they can see the product. However, once you have taken their money, you can start promising how the game will get better, etc. If the game were F2P at this point, people could just easily sit and wait. However, by charging a required (rather than optional) sub, you can keep them paying while they wait. This allows you a whole extra year of revenue, vs F2P.
As I stated above, founders packs are a rehash of the P2P launch... which means that you get to do this TWICE. Taking your best sales technique, and being able to repeat it (when it is normally not) helps quite a bit.
Lifetime subs are actually a GREAT financial decision for devs, if planned out. With a P2P launch you know that the first year is all about trying to fix the game before you are out of players. A lifetime sub gets you that money upfront, and you dont care if they leave. When you change to F2P, the small % that are going to return dont cost you any money... and they are likely to buy from the cash shop as well. You also know that even that small % is going to drop off over time, and that the money upfront was more valuable than the monthly subs of these small amount of individuals.
Overall this is a HUGE advantage... and the reason why games still want to launch P2P. They get an extra years revenue, and get to do the launch/founders pack process twice. Any one of these would be worth the money, having all of them basically makes it a financial no brainer.
want 7 free days of playing? Try this
http://www.swtor.com/r/ZptVnY
LOL
The beta of this game isn't even out yet.
As soon as F2P at launch titles prove to be better than those that launch as P2P.
I had hopes for AA, but those were quickly dashed and it's pretty much a smoking ruin right now, granted not because of the payment model, but due to the fact they can't get the game under control. I assume this is largely because they lack the funds to do so, which a proper monetization model could have helped with.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Well I played something from them where I went to some island and started some quest there and it came from this game.
want 7 free days of playing? Try this
http://www.swtor.com/r/ZptVnY
This is a bit funny. It is like saying: "The launch of the latest WoW expansion did not go well... I assume this is largely because they lack the funds to do so.' Trion has plenty of money, and experience with multiple games. XL has plenty of money, and has been publishing ArcheAge for years. The issues were caused by Trions lack of experience with third party publishing, and XL's lack of experience in the western market. Both companies are getting burned because of their arrogance.... and they each think that they are not to blame... it is the other party.
Well whatever you think it was. It wasn't everquest next as the beta of it isn't out yet.
You must be mistaken.
Well said.