Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Has there been any talk about making AoC Free-To-Play?
GiveMePvP
Member Posts: 240
Everyone relax, I'm not trying to troll or anything. I think this is a legimate question.
Right now Age of Conan has about 100k subscriptions which is much less than what anyone expected. Even though trials have improved the population, there hasn't been any kind of "population boom" that AoC so desperately needs. If "win-back-program" also fails, AoC might be in big big trouble.
My easy solution is: make AoC Free-To-Play.
You can already buy AoC Collector's Edition for less than 10 bucks, maybe even cheaper. So why not make it free? Sure you will lose monthly subscription fees but Funcom could get money by some other way.
Now I don't want to see any advertising billboards all around Khessatta, but maybe they could sell some ad space in loading screen? I wouldn't mind that. Also a cash shop could work. I don't personally use them but some people do.
I think this monthly subscription system MMO's have today is really dumb. Funcom is in a good position to do something revolutionary - A free AAA MMO. This would attract tons of new players and could possibly get AoC back to top-10.
What are your thoughts?
Comments
???? What are these other ways? You should probably specify that. Thats the problem, everyone wants to play but not work, you want to eat , but you wont open your mouth. This post is not a troll, definately a /fail though. Free = more spam, rmt , hackers and shit like that which will increase workload on the devs to keep this stuff out.
While I would be surprised if they made it free to play, I think they could gain more subs if they made Tortage free, and maybe level capped at 20 w/o a paying sub. AoC's horrible release and high end requirements probably keep a lot of people from giving the game a shot, but making Tortage free could potentially create a lot more interest. People who are on the fence about trying AoC and people who have tried it when the bugs were numerous might give it another shot if they know they can do so at no risk to themselves.
They did this. It's called a trial, you download the game and play for 7 days which is enough to get to level 20-30. And it's free...
???? What are these other ways? You should probably specify that. Thats the problem, everyone wants to play but not work, you want to eat , but you wont open your mouth. This post is not a troll, definately a /fail though. Free = more spam, rmt , hackers and shit like that which will increase workload on the devs to keep this stuff out.
He did specify. l2r.
Well perhaps that would be good enough for some people, but I'm willing to bet more would consider a 7 day trial utter crap. 7 days is enough to get to 20-30 if you know what to do and where to go to gain xp, and if you do little else but grind out xp. If that's a good way to evaluate a game in your opinion, bully for you. However, if one wanted to explore a bit, go through the starting area at a relaxed pace, and in general try to experience the game, 7 days is pretty short. IMO, when most games that offer trials give at least 14 days, 7 days says to me that they don't have the confidence in their product to give a 14 day trial. Tortage is possibly the most polished area of the game, and if they were to let people wander it freely at whatever pace they choose I think they would not only boost subs but send a message to buyers that says they are confident in the product they are offereing.
The 7 days trial is to see if you think it's worth to pay the 20 bucks, not to give you a 100% impression of the game.
If you enjoy the first week youll probably will think it's worth $20 (or less at some places) to get another month. Then you might quit or continue.
But I don't see AoC go F2P anyday soon. Even though it doesn't have that many players it is at least enough to go round, and the subs seems to be rising slowly.
The game that really should go F2P is Vanguard, it would beat the crap out of all other F2P games. Since it's bad launch it have never gotten a chanse and now only a handful servers exist, with F2P it would grow fast. To bad Smedley never will realise that this is the way to go.
No thanks its worth 15.00 easily a month for me not to deal with cash shops, and spamming kids....hell tyranny pretty bad lol and its supposedly adults playing! and im talking global chat not trial chat. Or the worlds deadliest catch billboards all over...lol i took that from battlefield 2142 I loved the game but I remember once being camped in this spot and I could see 3 advertisement billboards of the worlds most deadliest catch...
uh, what in the world would give you this idea?
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
???? What are these other ways? You should probably specify that. Thats the problem, everyone wants to play but not work, you want to eat , but you wont open your mouth. This post is not a troll, definately a /fail though. Free = more spam, rmt , hackers and shit like that which will increase workload on the devs to keep this stuff out.
Why do people bother posting drivel that amounts to nothing more than "OP, you're stupid!" I think it's a legitimate question, but it's a matter of risk. Subscription models are considered to be low risk, because anyone who wants to play has to pay to get his foot in the door. With alternative models, there are huge risks that the revenue may never materialize. Advertisers may not want to buy space in the game - just look at what's happening with traditional print media. With cash malls, people might not choose to buy anything, unless the game mechanics force them to do so to be successful.
There's also the possibility that going F2P could hurt the perception of the game. Lots of people talk about it being a failure already, so some could see a conversion as sending an implied message that the game isn't worth charging for anymore.
It's going to come down to how the company perceives the risks involved with a change. I don't see them doing it any time soon. For an interesting case study, you may want to read up on the recent news about Shadowbane, a P2P MMO from 2003 that had a lot of issues, eventually went F2P in 2006, changed to ad-driven in 2007, and is now shutting down completely.
AoC was coded with the ability to have in-game advertising. It was (is?) even listed in the EULA on the launcher UI.
Billboards in Tortage and the Capital cities will be a nice for immersion.
After playing ROM I've come to understand that F2P/cash shop games aren't all evil, though they certainly can cost you a decent chunk of change.
But one thing I've learned is, a F2P/cash shop game needs to be designed from the ground up to support this model, just like ROM is, and players have to enter the game knowing that this is the model in place.
Since that isnt the design/agreement AOC has developed around, I can't see how making it F2P would really be a good plan.
"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
Interesting questions, but not tethered in reality for a major gaming company. For a major gaming, publicly owned and stock traded company to consider shifting a current P2P MMO to a "F2P" model is nutty. The stockholder meetings will not go well and they would lose tons of future capital for investment in current projects. They'd wonder why you give something away for free, and I couldn't blame then. It's a sign of failure.
They seem to still be on track to open up two new MMOs within a year from now in addition to "The Secret World", so I don't know why shifting to a F2P model with cash shops would be an option. It would send a signal of desperation to the stockholders and the market, and that would simply not be good for the long term. They would shut down AoC before that happened.
I know you would like to see a F2P personally, but it's not just what Funcom or the majority of people want in their games. Take a look at SOE's backlash for doing that to all the games in their line recently. Look at LOTRO with cash shop talk. Few people who are actually playing these games really want it. It's usually those that don't play them that want them to convert so, SURPRISE!, they can play for free. They really don't care if the company can make more money overall or not even though they present their arguments that way.
They usually are just freeloaders who want to pay little or nothing for the content.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Well Funcoms previous game, Anarchy Online is Free-To-Play, right? I don't know the details but I'm pretty sure AO doesn't have monthly subscription fee and it has some kind of cash shop. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If they did it with AO, why is it so unthinkable that they would do the same thing with AoC? It would be a good thing because it would solve the server population problem once and for all.
Interesting questions, but not tethered in reality for a major gaming company.
What about TV? It's a multi-billion dollar business, yet most of it is free for us customers. There is big money in advertising and I see no reason why a system like that cannot be implemented in MMO's. It just has to be a system that doesn't kill immersion.
The fact that the current business model seems to be monthly fees, doesn't mean it's going to be like that forever. For example Guild Wars 2 is going to be without a monthly fee (though you have to pay for box and expansions), and I predict other games are going to choose the same route in the future.
Age of Conan is in a perfect situation to try something like that because lets face it, what do they have to lose? Half a million subscribers? Oh wait.. that happened already.
Well Funcoms previous game, Anarchy Online is Free-To-Play, right? I don't know the details but I'm pretty sure AO doesn't have monthly subscription fee and it has some kind of cash shop. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If they did it with AO, why is it so unthinkable that they would do the same thing with AoC? It would be a good thing because it would solve the server population problem once and for all.
First, AO is old, like...REALLY OLD.
Second, yes, AO does have a subscription option.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
The last I checked and as near as anyone can tell, television is not a major gaming company. Those two things are totally different and are based on totally different models. I have no idea why you would compare the two other than that they are both businesses. But if that's the case, then prostitution (a business and legal in some states) stand far more to gain by going to the 'F2P model' as well. Giving it away for free, then have the john pay for "extras" and hooking can really take off. You fail on your analogy and badly.
Who suggested F2P models cannot do well? Certainly not me, but it won't do well for a game already released as a P2P such as this. Looking at Asian games shows a VERY strong market for F2P games in the third world. But those companies aren't mainly stockholder companies who's people live in the third world and expect nice returns on investments. They don't have anyone but their capital backers who want to get paid back at a nice interest rate and then they are done with them. Of course F2P works in some instances in certain models with people that have limited incomes like the Third World.
The problem is a game like AoC costs almost 100 million dollars to make. What kind of jackass would spend 100 million dollars making the best game they could with all the stops, then charge.. nothing a month for it? What kind of person would even suggest that? To then say "Yeah, but people would spend lots in the cash shop" is fanciful. If AoC had spent 100 mil, made DX10, and all the design features, you'd have people playing it on looks alone and plenty are doing that now to some extent. They wouldn't spend money for a extra mount when the basic one is just fine.
The point they are losing money, duh lol. Hand over fist money. But changing it to F2P does not nothing. They'd be better off shutting it down and getting a tax write off somehow than to keep bleeding money. What good would having those people all playing if they aren't paying anything a month? You just assume people are going to go nuts in the cash shop.
"TO MICHAEL!"
What about TV? It's a multi-billion dollar business, yet most of it is free for us customers.
The last I checked and as near as anyone can tell, television is not a major gaming company. Those two things are totally different and are based on totally different models. I have no idea why you would compare the two other than that they are both businesses. But if that's the case, then prostitution (a business and legal in some states) stand far more to gain by going to the 'F2P model' as well. Giving it away for free, then have the john pay for "extras" and hooking can really take off. You fail on your analogy and badly.
Are you seriously comparing prostitution and MMO's? You tried to be funny - you failed. You tried to make a point - you failed. If you don't to see the huge differences between these 2 businesses, then we can stop this argument right now.
I'll help you a bit. Prostitution cannot go F2P because it's not mass media like TV, radio or MMO's. Prostitution is usually one-on-one action so advertising has almost zero effect. With MMO's you can potentially reach out to MILLIONS of people, most from a specific demographic, which is awesome if you are in marketing.
The problem with you seems to be that you are not very open minded and don't have an innovative way of thinking. You seem to think that only things that work, are the things that are working today. You have to realize that everytime something totally new and innovative comes up, there are millions of people like yourself saying it cannot be done. You remind of that record company executive who turned down young Beatles because "they sucked".
Ten years from now, I bet you are on this forum preaching how F2P is the only business model that works with MMO's, and everyone who says otherwise, is an idiot.
seriously, if you cant afford 15$ a month to play a mmo, you should get a job.
They could do it like their other game, Anarchy Online. Just have the starter base game as being free to own and free to play. Once you buy the expansion, then you pay a monthly subscription.
When we get back from where we are going, we will return to where we were. I know people there!
What about TV? It's a multi-billion dollar business, yet most of it is free for us customers.
The last I checked and as near as anyone can tell, television is not a major gaming company. Those two things are totally different and are based on totally different models. I have no idea why you would compare the two other than that they are both businesses. But if that's the case, then prostitution (a business and legal in some states) stand far more to gain by going to the 'F2P model' as well. Giving it away for free, then have the john pay for "extras" and hooking can really take off. You fail on your analogy and badly.
Are you seriously comparing prostitution and MMO's? You tried to be funny - you failed. You tried to make a point - you failed. If you don't to see the huge differences between these 2 businesses, then we can stop this argument right now.
I'll help you a bit. Prostitution cannot go F2P because it's not mass media like TV, radio or MMO's. Prostitution is usually one-on-one action so advertising has almost zero effect. With MMO's you can potentially reach out to MILLIONS of people, most from a specific demographic, which is awesome if you are in marketing.
The problem with you seems to be that you are not very open minded and don't have an innovative way of thinking. You seem to think that only things that work, are the things that are working today. You have to realize that everytime something totally new and innovative comes up, there are millions of people like yourself saying it cannot be done. You remind of that record company executive who turned down young Beatles because "they sucked".
Ten years from now, I bet you are on this forum preaching how F2P is the only business model that works with MMO's, and everyone who says otherwise, is an idiot.
There's really no need for personal attacks in these fora (although I know they happen all the time.) While I agree that the prostitution analogy one person made may have been a bit inapropos, it attempted to make a point which was obviously lost on the responder. It may not have been if the person would have taken a deep breath and just thought about it a little more.
There are differences and similarities in many types of businesses. The problem with advertising right now is not just the type of business - it's the economy. There's not as much money for advertising, and an MMO that's not prospering is not going to give an advertiser the most bang for its buck. Therefore, most advertisers will not want to invest significant amounts of money in it, and it will probably not be a good funding paradigm for the game.
Listen. I tried to be nice and show you T.V. is just as STUPID an analogy to gaming as prostititon would be, but you only saw half of it. I'll give you the skinny. AoC is not going to a F2P model. Got it? Good. I know your thinking here, I've seen people post like you pushing F2P craptastic models before.
You like AoC okay, but only just enough. It's got enough features already in it right now that if they didn't add anything else, you'd play it for free or a reduced rate. But you don't think it's worth paying the whole nut for. You think it would be a wonderful idea for them to switch to free, so you could sign up again knowing you'd never reach your credit card limit in the cash shop. You'd throw them a $5 bone here and there for whatever, then you'd brag about how good a game it is because you now pay little or next to nothing. What happened? Did you grow tired of Guild Wars or something? [mod edit]; plain and simple.
If the game isn't worth paying $15/month for you now, then go play some other crappy F2P model because your credit card is maxed. You can't have the best of both worlds.. an okay game that's free to play. This company, nor any other, would do what you crazily suggest simply because you cannot afford or don't like paying fees because you feel the game is only worth paying $5-10 a month. Your argument is "Better for me to give you $5 than the nothing you are getting now". If I had a shop and I was losing money, and some knucklehead came in and said he'd buy my goods at less profit than they cost me to make, I'd kick him squarely in his parasitic [fannypack]!!
"TO MICHAEL!"
worst idea ever
I refuse to play any game with a cash shop in it. It restricts the game for rich people. I am thinking of trying AoC but if they go cash shop I will never play it. Cash shops are wrong.
I refuse to play any game with a cash shop in it. It restricts the game for rich people. I am thinking of trying AoC but if they go cash shop I will never play it. Cash shops are wrong.
Free model won't work for AoC atleast now, maybe in 3-4 years when they find it suitable way to find new players. Not likely even then though. I belive AoC is doing quite well now and they will likely get it to make profit in long run. Also that is very likely profit. Instead of F2P model where it's uncertain and might not even be profitable.
You got to consider also that FC has idea of how much does ingame advertising generate profit.
As for cash shops, FC has suitable model from them working and all infrastructure build. Shouldn't be too hard for them to implement. Still I have understood that FC's view about them is that they won't provide an real edge, just more social stuff.
FC is doing TSW as "traditional" MMORPG. Also, their other projects are likely web based F2P casual MMOS. Atleast I got this feeling from their last investor relations material.
I don't play this game but you're an idiot. Saying your question was interesting was code for "stupid". The only interesting thing about it is that you actually had the temerity to suggest it as serious in the first place.
You are a stooge.
I just love anonymous internet thugs acting tough. This is what happens when digital boobies are involved.
I won't bother to reply to your post because it was mainly "You are stoopid!! bla bla.." but I will say that I have plenty of cash and 15 euros a month is nothing to me. I just quit AoC and I'm not going back even if they paid me to play. I don't want AoC to go F2P so that I don't have to pay for it. I want AoC to go F2P so it would get million+ subscriptions and I didn't have to do the quests alone.