look at rift...it went free to play and now has a very steady and large community...if wildstar went free to play or b2p..i think it would bring alot of players back..but they need to clean it up..make alot of changes and not go for a singular crowd..it need to be more player friendly....then they will do alot better...it has a huge amount of potential..but need's some fine tuning
Originally posted by observerPeople are tired of paying to play, even in WoW, because they aren't getting quality with a subscription anyway.
Can you back this up? Because I only see conjecture.
The WoW remark is just... daft. Sorry, there's no polite way to say it.
The people who are tired of playing WoW will leave the game... because they're tired of playing WoW and the sub fee is no longer worth it for them... because they're not enjoying the game enough anymore. They may come back for the next expansion, or they may not.
Regardless, the people who are paying a sub to play WoW... are clearly quite okay with doing so... considering they're, you know, paying a sub to play it.
Originally posted by observer A critical look at both models reveals that all MMOs are basically the same, and no amount of content that each model churns out, is worth the $15 a month anymore.
"A critical look"? Don't you mean "a biased and unsupported look"? There's nothing indicating any degree of "critical analysis" in anything you're saying here.
Again, the games may not be any different to you. To others, they are. The revenue models - and their impact on how the game is played and experienced - may not be any different to you. To others, they are.
And again, how can you say that no MMO is worth the $15 anymore... when there are still literally millions of people paying upwards of $15 a month to play a MMO? I can not understand how you could possibly make that assertion, and expect to be taken seriously.
FFXI is still doing great as a sub-based game, over 11 years after its release.
FFXIV, from about 1.18 up to its conclusion of 1.23, brought back more players - a substantial amount - after they reinstated subs, than it had at any point prior - even with no sub required, and new boxed copies going as low as $9.
FFXIV ARR (2.0 and on) has proven to be highly successful as a P2P MMO, has very busy servers and a very active playerbase.
What you're doing is the equivalent of walking out of a lake, soaking wet, and insisting there's no water there.
Originally posted by observerIronically, people are actually paying for kickstarter and crowdfunded development, because they have become that desperate for a quality MMO.
How is that ironic? Please explain.
Originally posted by observerSubscriptions and F2P models aren't the only revenue streams they get either. This is also a common misconception.
Who's "they". And what other revenue streams are there? What's the "common misconception" you speak of?
For someone with such a strong opinion, you sure make a lot of unqualified, "touch and run" assertions.
Originally posted by observerAs for Wildstar, it could save itself like Swtor, like so many others have. It just needs a cash shop that is balanced for everyone.
It might lower people's standards and expectations, but changing to F2P does not somehow, automagically, make a game better.
Originally posted by sonicwhip2Why does everyone assume that going free to play is the end of the world for an mmo? Currently this games population is decreasing by extremely alarming amounts and will become a lot worse when Warlords of Dreanor releases.This game actually has a lot of potential and if it were to go free to play its popularity would quadruple instantly as well as their profits.Their are many ways to make a f2p model successful without becoming pay to win they just need to do some brainstorming.SWTOR was as dead as doornail and after becoming f2p it has gained a huge player increase.it is not worth to pay 60 dollars plus 15 a month for the same cartoony style of graphics that most people have already been playing for the past 8 years in WoW it doesnt seem like this game has much of a chance at having a large population unless a change occurs with the business model.
How does a population increase help with broken game mechanics? From what I understand their problem is a raiding game that has buggy raids.
I know people want to paint a game switching business models as a success story, but it really isn't. There hasn't been a single game that has switched and continually added servers to keep up with the explosion in population. Switching business models just means a short term boost in revenue, and the players get a chance to play the game for zero cost. Those zero cost players play a short while and in a year or two the population is back in the latrine.
The only solution for crappy games is for publishers to fix their crappy game.
SWTOR switched to F2P and it has more players now then it has ever had before. And I am sure they added more servers to the mega server behind the scene to handle the load from it.
I'm not sure I agree. I played SWTOR launch day and beyond, and all 500 servers were full. Even after all of the server merges, I still don't think Shadowlands is as full as the first server I played on. After launch, you ran into people everywhere when you were questing at high levels. When I'm questing on Alderaan or Hoth now, I rarely run into anyone.
Game industry tells you that you want f2p. Game industry tells you it is better. Game industry tells you that less content for more money of better. Game industry tells you day one DLC is good for you.
After awhile, a lie becomes truth as more people fall victim to the buzzwords and hype. Advertising is a science, they know what to say and how to say it. And since the game makers control the media, they also control what is said and how it is said.
Roses are red Violets are blue The reviewer has a mishapen head Which means his opinion is skewed ...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley
Why does everyone assume that going free to play is the end of the world for an mmo? Currently this games population is decreasing by extremely alarming amounts and will become a lot worse when Warlords of Dreanor releases.
This game actually has a lot of potential and if it were to go free to play its popularity would quadruple instantly as well as their profits.
Their are many ways to make a f2p model successful without becoming pay to win they just need to do some brainstorming.
SWTOR was as dead as doornail and after becoming f2p it has gained a huge player increase.
it is not worth to pay 60 dollars plus 15 a month for a largely mediocre game with the same cartoony style of graphics that most people have already been playing for the past 8 years in WoW it doesn't seem like this game has much of a chance at having a large population unless a change occurs with the business model. Megaservers will just act as an illusion but when even they start to become empty then it is a sign of serious trouble.
Wildstar's current level of quality is not nearly enough to justify paying a monthly subscription fee but converting to F2P or B2P would allow them enough time and comfort to slowly improve the game and have a larger playerbase in the meantime who are spending money on an item shop.
I hate to admit, but you're right. F2P, or at the very least, B2P are the only viable models for MMOs now. I dont' think it'll mean more quality releases, but it may ensure the company stays afloat.
Game industry tells you that you want f2p. Game industry tells you it is better. Game industry tells you that less content for more money of better. Game industry tells you day one DLC is good for you.
After awhile, a lie becomes truth as more people fall victim to the buzzwords and hype. Advertising is a science, they know what to say and how to say it. And since the game makers control the media, they also control what is said and how it is said.
Is game industry also making us see things such as dwindling population and extremely bad retention rate for WS? what else do you suggest if not F2P?
Thestrain, wildstars problems have nmothing to do with payment model. People far to often equate failure by game X pop is < game Y. Is wildstar is truely a failure, it is due to design and management.
Roses are red Violets are blue The reviewer has a mishapen head Which means his opinion is skewed ...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley
Originally posted by lugal Thestrain, wildstars problems have nmothing to do with payment model. People far to often equate failure by game X pop is < game Y. Is wildstar is truely a failure, it is due to design and management.
They can fix every single thing that is wrong with this game and they still won't make it as a P2P MMO in such an over saturated market. Its a dog eats dog world. When big IP like Star Wars didn't help SWTOR what chances a game like WS has?
A game still needs to survive though, that is where F2P comes into play. other option is to shut it down..what is the third option?
Honestly i love ws but F2P would be a good option. I mean look what happend to SWTOR they are making much morei nthe way of cash then they were as a P2P game.
free 7 day sub and unlocks for swtor new accounts and 90+ day inactive subs click here to get it!
F2P or B2P will not save Wildstar unless they also make massive structural changes to the game's design. The F2P and casual crowd, even if they can get by the dopey graphics, will not accept the "hardcore" and grindy mentality of Wildstar's design. Even if they signed up a million F2P players (which is unlikely anyway) 40 player raids are still going to be a massive fail as one example.
Wildstar is a prime example of developer hubris. They ignored the realities of the marketplace and thought that they knew best. My guess is that nothing can save this train wreck and Wildstar will shut down completely within a year or less.
Originally posted by jircris Honestly i love ws but F2P would be a good option. I mean look what happend to SWTOR they are making much morei nthe way of cash then they were as a P2P game.
Its a mistake to assume that WS can go f2p because SWTORs went f2p. We have very little idea of how much money SWTOR is "making" however about a month ago we were told that (in the last early access month) SWTOR had 1M+ players just about half of which paid something.
assume 1M unique players - could be 33k a day; assume 1M is the norm and not inflated due to early access;
assume just about half pay something means 500k;
assume a spend of between $5 and $15 - some will pay more but there is no real reason to pay more than $15.
equates to revenue of between $2.5M and 7.5M in the (early access) month.
Less than the game was making initially. But with EA having reduced the new content it is "doing OK" - especially as they announced 1M in the nearly a year ago - another early access period, we can expect the numbers to be lower outside such periods..
Doing OK but not Smaug's treasure trove. And I don't believe that WS could duplicate what SWTOR has done.
Yes WS may go f2p - but it could also close. I think the plan was launch with a sub in the west, establish a flow of monthly content drops, launch as f2p in "Asian" markets - possibly with a box price depending on how NCSoft felt about their GW2 sales experiment. Now?
Why does everyone assume that going free to play is the end of the world for an mmo?
What it comes down to is a lack of acceptance of change. This goes for both devs AND players. Though devs have largely been ahead on this trend when compared to most player viewpoints (at least going by what's said on forums).
On paper, F2P appears way more risky. In practice, It's actually safer (assuming it's implemented properly). You can get a lot more money off F2P atm, because you aren't setting up as many barriers for people to play & enjoy your game.
The problem is there is still a stimga towards F2P games, primarily when it comes to MMOs. Though that's becoming less of an issue as more devs wisen up to smarter F2P models.
The key word here is can.
F2P games are designed differently. They probably play "faster" - with players consuming a resource that they can buy. A sub based game on the other hand will probably have more grind in it - slower travel speeds, lower drop chances and so forth. As a result the (small number) of subscription based mmos that have gone f2p have arguably ended up as bad f2p games.
Is there a stigma about f2p games? There certainly shouldn't be - although games like Dungeon Keeper Online have worked hard to give f2p a bad name. (Note: Dungeon Keeper cannot officially call itself a f2p game in EU).
Or is it an attachment to a subscription model? Odd really considering that games like EQ1 were not "subscription based" in the way that e.g. WoW is. The sub simply got you the online access; you paid extra for content - as you do in a cash shop or via DLC. Although thinking about it that is what WoW has been doing recently.
Why does everyone assume that going free to play is the end of the world for an mmo?
why does everyone assume its not? there are 4-5 diffrent f2p models out there and you can't predict what kind of model you get. the minority of the f2p games do have a model thats fair to customers, most of the games do have a greedy one and some are just made to get as much money out of a stupid customer as possible. in case of wildstar, and i agree with you on that, to remove the retail box fee for starters and offer a freemium payment model could help to revitalize the server population. but for how long? this game, as like many others out there, doesn't offer much besides gear grinding once you hit max level. from experience over the last decade its very likely that after the first 2-3 months after converting into a freemium (f2p) game the server population will go down again. there is a reason why the term 'f2p nomads' was created. f2p is a short term solution, most of the mmorpgs released in the last decade are short term games.
And if that doesn't work, hype up the game in another country and sell overpriced alpha packs for "exclusives."
Only works if you have a highly desired game in those markets.
Windstar being sold in Korea via exclusive packs - yeah not gonna do real well.
But take any Korean game that is highly desired and bring it here - you'll make a fortune.
For a while...until people get sick of the boring gameplay and the P2W structure of labor poi...errr, I mean, you know, whatever system that unsaid game has in play to suck money out of your wallet.
The way the game is i don't think f2p would help it long term. They need to make the game have mass appeal first. If all you do at end game is raid will turn alot of players off. And the telegraphs just become annoying. The game was made for a certain type of player which was just stupid in the first place.
Originally posted by jircris Honestly i love ws but F2P would be a good option. I mean look what happend to SWTOR they are making much morei nthe way of cash then they were as a P2P game.
Its a mistake to assume that WS can go f2p because SWTORs went f2p. We have very little idea of how much money SWTOR is "making" however about a month ago we were told that (in the last early access month) SWTOR had 1M+ players just about half of which paid something.
assume 1M unique players - could be 33k a day; assume 1M is the norm and not inflated due to early access;
assume just about half pay something means 500k;
assume a spend of between $5 and $15 - some will pay more but there is no real reason to pay more than $15.
equates to revenue of between $2.5M and 7.5M in the (early access) month.
Less than the game was making initially. But with EA having reduced the new content it is "doing OK" - especially as they announced 1M in the nearly a year ago - another early access period, we can expect the numbers to be lower outside such periods..
Doing OK but not Smaug's treasure trove. And I don't believe that WS could duplicate what SWTOR has done.
Yes WS may go f2p - but it could also close. I think the plan was launch with a sub in the west, establish a flow of monthly content drops, launch as f2p in "Asian" markets - possibly with a box price depending on how NCSoft felt about their GW2 sales experiment. Now?
There was a post some time ago about annual revenues. SW TOR was 4th behind WoW, Lineage 1 and TERA: Online with a revenue of 165 million dollars.
Going F2P won't make it any less mediocre. Personally I couldn't stand this game for more than 3 hours. I wouldn't even play it if someone pays me money to do so. At the end of the day, I'm just not having fun in this game, and being free is not a justification to play something that I'm not having fun in.
Originally posted by jircris Honestly i love ws but F2P would be a good option. I mean look what happend to SWTOR they are making much morei nthe way of cash then they were as a P2P game.
Its a mistake to assume that WS can go f2p because SWTORs went f2p. We have very little idea of how much money SWTOR is "making" however about a month ago we were told that (in the last early access month) SWTOR had 1M+ players just about half of which paid something.
assume 1M unique players - could be 33k a day; assume 1M is the norm and not inflated due to early access;
assume just about half pay something means 500k;
assume a spend of between $5 and $15 - some will pay more but there is no real reason to pay more than $15.
equates to revenue of between $2.5M and 7.5M in the (early access) month.
Less than the game was making initially. But with EA having reduced the new content it is "doing OK" - especially as they announced 1M in the nearly a year ago - another early access period, we can expect the numbers to be lower outside such periods..
Doing OK but not Smaug's treasure trove. And I don't believe that WS could duplicate what SWTOR has done.
Yes WS may go f2p - but it could also close. I think the plan was launch with a sub in the west, establish a flow of monthly content drops, launch as f2p in "Asian" markets - possibly with a box price depending on how NCSoft felt about their GW2 sales experiment. Now?
There was a post some time ago about annual revenues. SW TOR was 4th behind WoW, Lineage 1 and TERA: Online with a revenue of 165 million dollars.
An average of $27.50 a month every month for a year. That is what 500k people would have to pay to get $165M
The $165M was an estimate - from the people who missed the fact that WoW lost 800k last quarter. And missed the fact that Zynga games underperformed so badly that a profit warning was necessary. It didn't come from EA or Bioware.
I took what Bioware said - 1M players in a month less than half pay something - assumed the best as far as player numbers go and put a $5 to $15 range on them. Sure there will could be some who spend more than $15 but many people will pay less and player numbers will probably be less in months when there is no new content.
It is inflated estimates like the $165M (imo) that lead to people assuming that games like Wildstar can simply change to a f2p model.
F2P games need lots of players. A big name IP helps - SWTOR is a big IP - but what is absolutely crucial is that the game has minimal running costs - a fraction of the devs has been reported as having for sure.
In the absence of a hugely successful Asian launch if there is anything that SWTORs tells us is that life would be very hard for WS as a f2p game.
Comments
F2P is a bad thing, and games that start P2P and go F2P are even worse.
There's plenty of mediocre p2p----> f2p mmorpgs to choose from, we don't need devs to continue adding to them.
/thread.
Played-Everything
Playing-LoL
Curious post.
Can you back this up? Because I only see conjecture.
The WoW remark is just... daft. Sorry, there's no polite way to say it.
The people who are tired of playing WoW will leave the game... because they're tired of playing WoW and the sub fee is no longer worth it for them... because they're not enjoying the game enough anymore. They may come back for the next expansion, or they may not.
Regardless, the people who are paying a sub to play WoW... are clearly quite okay with doing so... considering they're, you know, paying a sub to play it.
"A critical look"? Don't you mean "a biased and unsupported look"? There's nothing indicating any degree of "critical analysis" in anything you're saying here.
Again, the games may not be any different to you. To others, they are. The revenue models - and their impact on how the game is played and experienced - may not be any different to you. To others, they are.
And again, how can you say that no MMO is worth the $15 anymore... when there are still literally millions of people paying upwards of $15 a month to play a MMO? I can not understand how you could possibly make that assertion, and expect to be taken seriously.
FFXI is still doing great as a sub-based game, over 11 years after its release.
FFXIV, from about 1.18 up to its conclusion of 1.23, brought back more players - a substantial amount - after they reinstated subs, than it had at any point prior - even with no sub required, and new boxed copies going as low as $9.
FFXIV ARR (2.0 and on) has proven to be highly successful as a P2P MMO, has very busy servers and a very active playerbase.
What you're doing is the equivalent of walking out of a lake, soaking wet, and insisting there's no water there.
How is that ironic? Please explain.
Who's "they". And what other revenue streams are there? What's the "common misconception" you speak of?
For someone with such a strong opinion, you sure make a lot of unqualified, "touch and run" assertions.
It might lower people's standards and expectations, but changing to F2P does not somehow, automagically, make a game better.
And if that doesn't work, hype up the game in another country and sell overpriced alpha packs for "exclusives."
I'm not sure I agree. I played SWTOR launch day and beyond, and all 500 servers were full. Even after all of the server merges, I still don't think Shadowlands is as full as the first server I played on. After launch, you ran into people everywhere when you were questing at high levels. When I'm questing on Alderaan or Hoth now, I rarely run into anyone.
Game industry tells you that you want f2p. Game industry tells you it is better. Game industry tells you that less content for more money of better. Game industry tells you day one DLC is good for you.
After awhile, a lie becomes truth as more people fall victim to the buzzwords and hype. Advertising is a science, they know what to say and how to say it. And since the game makers control the media, they also control what is said and how it is said.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
The reviewer has a mishapen head
Which means his opinion is skewed
...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley
I hate to admit, but you're right. F2P, or at the very least, B2P are the only viable models for MMOs now. I dont' think it'll mean more quality releases, but it may ensure the company stays afloat.
Is game industry also making us see things such as dwindling population and extremely bad retention rate for WS? what else do you suggest if not F2P?
Roses are red
Violets are blue
The reviewer has a mishapen head
Which means his opinion is skewed
...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley
They can fix every single thing that is wrong with this game and they still won't make it as a P2P MMO in such an over saturated market. Its a dog eats dog world. When big IP like Star Wars didn't help SWTOR what chances a game like WS has?
A game still needs to survive though, that is where F2P comes into play. other option is to shut it down..what is the third option?
free 7 day sub and unlocks for swtor new accounts and 90+ day inactive subs click here to get it!
Click here for trove referral, bonuses to both!
F2P or B2P will not save Wildstar unless they also make massive structural changes to the game's design. The F2P and casual crowd, even if they can get by the dopey graphics, will not accept the "hardcore" and grindy mentality of Wildstar's design. Even if they signed up a million F2P players (which is unlikely anyway) 40 player raids are still going to be a massive fail as one example.
Wildstar is a prime example of developer hubris. They ignored the realities of the marketplace and thought that they knew best. My guess is that nothing can save this train wreck and Wildstar will shut down completely within a year or less.
Its a mistake to assume that WS can go f2p because SWTORs went f2p. We have very little idea of how much money SWTOR is "making" however about a month ago we were told that (in the last early access month) SWTOR had 1M+ players just about half of which paid something.
The key word here is can.
F2P games are designed differently. They probably play "faster" - with players consuming a resource that they can buy. A sub based game on the other hand will probably have more grind in it - slower travel speeds, lower drop chances and so forth. As a result the (small number) of subscription based mmos that have gone f2p have arguably ended up as bad f2p games.
Is there a stigma about f2p games? There certainly shouldn't be - although games like Dungeon Keeper Online have worked hard to give f2p a bad name. (Note: Dungeon Keeper cannot officially call itself a f2p game in EU).
Or is it an attachment to a subscription model? Odd really considering that games like EQ1 were not "subscription based" in the way that e.g. WoW is. The sub simply got you the online access; you paid extra for content - as you do in a cash shop or via DLC. Although thinking about it that is what WoW has been doing recently.
why does everyone assume its not? there are 4-5 diffrent f2p models out there and you can't predict what kind of model you get. the minority of the f2p games do have a model thats fair to customers, most of the games do have a greedy one and some are just made to get as much money out of a stupid customer as possible. in case of wildstar, and i agree with you on that, to remove the retail box fee for starters and offer a freemium payment model could help to revitalize the server population. but for how long? this game, as like many others out there, doesn't offer much besides gear grinding once you hit max level. from experience over the last decade its very likely that after the first 2-3 months after converting into a freemium (f2p) game the server population will go down again. there is a reason why the term 'f2p nomads' was created. f2p is a short term solution, most of the mmorpgs released in the last decade are short term games.
For a while...until people get sick of the boring gameplay and the P2W structure of labor poi...errr, I mean, you know, whatever system that unsaid game has in play to suck money out of your wallet.
There was a post some time ago about annual revenues. SW TOR was 4th behind WoW, Lineage 1 and TERA: Online with a revenue of 165 million dollars.
So, your assumptions are wrong,
Found the link: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-07-18-the-old-republic-earned-usd165-million-last-year-report
An average of $27.50 a month every month for a year. That is what 500k people would have to pay to get $165M
The $165M was an estimate - from the people who missed the fact that WoW lost 800k last quarter. And missed the fact that Zynga games underperformed so badly that a profit warning was necessary. It didn't come from EA or Bioware.
I took what Bioware said - 1M players in a month less than half pay something - assumed the best as far as player numbers go and put a $5 to $15 range on them. Sure there will could be some who spend more than $15 but many people will pay less and player numbers will probably be less in months when there is no new content.
It is inflated estimates like the $165M (imo) that lead to people assuming that games like Wildstar can simply change to a f2p model.
F2P games need lots of players. A big name IP helps - SWTOR is a big IP - but what is absolutely crucial is that the game has minimal running costs - a fraction of the devs has been reported as having for sure.
In the absence of a hugely successful Asian launch if there is anything that SWTORs tells us is that life would be very hard for WS as a f2p game.