I've never met anyone in any MMO that has decided to quit because of the payment method or amount.
It's always based on them not enjoying the game anymore, for various reasons. As far as I'm concerned, the original sub amount is moot.
Yes your right about that, but there is a big crowd out there that will not play a game with a sub. So the F2P version more so targets them atleast IMO.
Its becoming a disturbing trend, release as P2P then go F2P in 6-8 months. But then again these type of games are not MMO's.
EDIT: TSW will be another example of this, they will milk subs until they hit the low target mark then go f2p in 6-8 month
Let me guess, you are one of those who thinks "Not a sandbox" = "Not a MMO?" It has become a trend, and I agree that TSW will be another example of it. But why is it disturbing? Why do so many people have an emotional attachment to not having the option to play a game without a subscription? When did having choices become a negative thing? When they are done well, Freemium conversions lead to a situation where subscribers are getting more content while paying the same amount as before, while new players get the ability to save money by only paying for the parts of the game they want. Everybody wins, except for people with an apparently totally baseless and irrational hatred for the hybrid model.
Nope sorry....I want an all inclusive vacation....not a trip to the casino. Unfortunately your casino intrudes itself into my resort vacation and makes me put money into the slot machines just to access the beach that I wanted to goto to get away from thinking about money.
To put it breifly the existance of an RMT/FTP option effects core decisions about a games design, presentation, development , community and user experience that DIRECTLY and indirectly impact it's subscription based customers in ways many of them find negative and unwanted.
When a game launches with 2.4 million, and 6 months later is "above" 500k, that isn't a success!
Nothing else to say. That's a huge amount of kool-aid drinking.
So, when you make more money in a month than you spend, you consider that an unsuccessful month? It's easy to classify anything as a failure if you use a different definition of success for every product/service.
It may be a "successfull" month but under that arguement, if you invest $200 million in building a product and make $1 per month over operating budget...that would be "success" by the same standard too.
In that case....where is my $200 million? I promise I'll have it back to you in 70-80 million years, tops!
I consider something a "success" if you recoup your investment and make a strong profit. That they've lost 75% of their subscriber base in 6 months and are going to F2P, as well as EA's stock tanking, I think that's pretty concusive evidence we aren't looking at a success.
Now there's a more subjective one, and that's did you get a good return on your investment. I can't answer that question, but the market seems to have responded with not just no, but hell no.
In my opinion, if we are going to measure based on total cost vs. total revenue, rather than cost vs revenue on a month to month basis, then one can't logically describe TOR as a success or as a failure, from a financial standpoint, until one of two things happens; they recoup all of their development costs and turn a profit, or the game shuts down. It is highly unlikely tht anyone outside EA is going to be provided the necessary data to make that judgment. We don't know for sure what they spent, we don't know for sure what they've made. But technically speaking, the game won't be a failure unless it fails to make a substantial profit over the lifetime of the product. The Freemium conversion is likely to substantially extend the lifetime of the product, giving it more time to become successful, if it isn't already.
As for the market, TOR doesn't have it's own stock price, and it isn't EA's only product. Trying to pin an entire company's stock woes on a single game is a little silly, compared to a lot of their other products, TOR is an absolute gem.
EDIT: It would be nice if people stopped treating "not as successful as people hoped it would be" as if it were equivalent to "not successful." They are two different standards, and the word seems to get misused more often than not on these forums, not just in regard to TOR.
Originally posted by Tanvaras
Never played SWTOR, as I never was interested even though a big SW fan, but.....
Just another failed MMO going Pay2Win. Isn't there enough P2W mmo's out there now, let alone adding another one.
Good luck to those who stay with it, I know the few friends that played left very quickly with a sour taste in there mouth, maybe it might get lucky and actually get more players. Time will tell.
Ah, one of the people who has clearly not played many Freemium games. I have yet to see one that gives users of the cash shop any substantial gameplay advantage over anyone else. Maybe try actually playing them before trash talking them? Can you buy gear in some of them that is better than trash loot off of mobs? Sure, you can grab +2 Swords from the Turbine shop in DDO. Can you buy gear that is better than gear you earn at the same level from quests? Not in any game that springs to mind for me.
Incorrect. In investment you have to consider Opportunity Cost. Something is NOT a success simply because you EVENTUALY may get your money (or more) back. Something is a success only if you can get a higher return at less risk then most of the OTHER things you could have done with that money.
If I have a million dollars sunk in something for 10 years...that's 10 years I can't use that money for anything else...it better give me a good return compared with the things I could turn around and get my money back on within a year.....and it sure as heck better beat inflation.
Alot of investors are ALREADY looking at TOR as a financial failure...which is PART (obviously not all) of the reason EA's stocks (and executives) have taken a drubbing. It's still got some time yet to see if it can turn things around, as less then a year honestly isn't that long for this type of product to be out....but trends are looking for a REALLY disappointing ROI for this product...which is why EA is scrambling like it is.
If a few years from now investors look at TOR and see they would have been better off buying tax free, government insured municipal bonds....then yeah, TOR will have been an abject failure from a financial standpoint even if it eventualy reaps a proffit.
The game failed to live up to the expectations and hype of either EA/BW OR of the playerbase as a whole. I'm not saying the game is bad (I think it has issues, but it's a good game), nor do I think the game is a "failure", as they are still profitable, but based off all their previous statements and the expectations of fans, it's been an abject failure.
A game can't launch as a subscription based game in this market? I have one word for you. Rift. Still going strong and pushing out rapid, top quality content updates well over a year after launch, with an expansion slated for this winter.
There is absolutely still room for subscription based games in the market, they just need to be DAMN good. With all the high quality F2P games, subscription based games need to offer something that F2P games don't, and have a level of quality that surpasses that of F2P games. Rift has managed to do this. EVE has done this. WoW has done this, but also survives off of its own inertia at this point. EA/BW didn't provide that with SWTOR, hence why the biggest reason people left was because of the "subscription". Despite the hundreds of millions in development costs and marketing, the game hasn't provided that level of quality or that "hook" to keep players playing at levels that EA/BW want.
Please, stop making excuses for the game. I'm not some mindless hater (I'm super stoked for the transition and plan on playing it more when it goes F2P, I'm mainly interested in the story so the fact that that's 100% free pleases me even more), but I'm also not going to look at a chicken and call it a computer. SWTOR has failed to live up to expectations, plain and simple. Maybe not your individual expectations, since there are still plenty who love the game and that's great, but the expectations of the market. Given how hard EA/BW pushed the subscription model and how much trash talking they did of F2P and WoW, they totally deserve a black eye for this.
I've rarely read any article that I've disagreed with more than this one.
SW:ToR's failure is not because of the subscribtion model - I have no proof, but I'm quite sure of this. I've read hundreds of posts about why players didn't like the game, and VERY FEW even mentioned the sub. It's all about the lack of contents, in addition to that many calls it a co-op game, and not an MMO.
And why does the writer seem to believe that F2P = the ultimate success? I do not know of a single F2P that I would call good. Well, LotRO and EQ2 are not bad games, but they're only worth playing as a subscriber, not as a F2P player. All imo, of course.
Is ST:ToR going to survive the transition? I believe that depends entirely on their cash shop model. If you have to pay for contents, the game is dead already. Just like LotRO: there are currently so few players on my server (imladris) that grouping is simply not an option most of the times. I know many quit LotRO the moment they realised it's really only "free" to lvl 20, since further contents must be bought.
I've been around here for awhile and I'd have to say I haven't seen an article that has made me question MMORPG's reputation until now. This article screams we're getting a ton of revenue from EA/BW/LA to push this game...true or not, it's the impression it gives, at least to me.
Mikey B., I'm afraid I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one.
I remember when I contributed a few things here as a writer. One can even go into the debates area back in 06 (or was it 2005?). During one of the debates (a very fun exchange over gold-selling and my concern that game companies would get smart to it and start getting a cut of the action with cash shops, gee that came outta nowhere!), one of MMORPG.com's bigger advertisers of gold-farming demanded my work be yanked.
The editor at the time publicly denied his request citing the need to be independent and willing to air all viewpoints.
I think the current editorial board of MMORPG.com needs to consider that and wonder if they would do the same, and if they really do air all viewpoints in their work on particular games.
It's a ridiculous statement...The Game does not stand up as is...And it won't either...The vote in my Guild was 15 against, and 2 for, and there is not a single person who had a problem paying $15 a month...The Game is lacking severely in many areas...And it's not like I wanted that...I was looking forward to this Game and talking about it since before the actual announcement on the old BioWare Forums...So...Sorry...Disagree...
Different games are designed to serve different niches. TOR was clearly, and this was obvious from before it launched, designed for people who wanted more RPG in their MMO. And judged as an RPG, it is at *least* as good a game as most of BioWare's other offerings, and BioWare is one of the best RPG creators in the business (even if the ending of ME3 does suck.) The areas in which the game could be perceived as "lacking" are exactly the areas which a game needs to focus on in order to justify a subscription, which is why the game never should have launched without a free option.
The core of the game is an excellent single-player experience, eight of them in fact, but charging a subscription for single player content is just bad business, and most of the type of people who want to spend the majority of their time in a MMORPG doing single player content aren't going to get enough value out of the multiplayer portion of the game to justify 15/month, even if that content was up to the same quality standard as the single player story content.
"Different games are designed to serve different niches"
When you spend 100's of millions on a game, its niche better be a massive portion of the genre's fan base. TOR did not. TOR doesn't appeal to far to many demographics of gamers to be a success(success being profit > than cost to operate/while paying off cost to develope) TOR does not, and when you see a minimum of 25% of your sub base disappear every quarter, you can pretty much tell you've "done it wrong"
Free to play, will not get me to go back to my 3 level 50's in TOR, it does not make me want to get the last two pieces of warhero gear I hadn't aquired when I quit. The only thing that will do that is something fun too do.
Incorrect. In investment you have to consider Opportunity Cost. Something is NOT a success simply because you EVENTUALY may get your money (or more) back. Something is a success only if you can get a higher return at less risk then most of the OTHER things you could have done with that money.
If I have a million dollars sunk in something for 10 years...that's 10 years I can't use that money for anything else...it better give me a good return compared with the things I could turn around and get my money back on within a year.....and it sure as heck better beat inflation.
Alot of investors are ALREADY looking at TOR as a financial failure...which is PART (obviously not all) of the reason EA's stocks (and executives) have taken a drubbing. It's still got some time yet to see if it can turn things around, as less then a year honestly isn't that long for this type of product to be out....but trends are looking for a REALLY disappointing ROI for this product...which is why EA is scrambling like it is.
If a few years from now investors look at TOR and see they would have been better off buying tax free, government insured municipal bonds....then yeah, TOR will have been an abject failure from a financial standpoint even if it eventualy reaps a proffit.
If people took a simple economics class most of the spin companies put out would fail, and the amount of absurd statements would drop.
Dunno which is more ridiculous. The schadenfreude about the game, or decrying legitimate feelings toward a disappointing game with mock indignation as an attempt to justify a really high rating score for a mediocre MMO.
Eh? Sometimes I wonder if I live on the same planet as some people. So THE most expensive game EVER BY FAR, goes F2P after only 8 months and that is NOT a failure? What must happen that we see SWTOR as the big fraud it is? When GOD himself opens the earth under the Bioware studio?
And didn't some Bioware or EA dude set the margin himself? I know there was that interview where one of them said, if a MMO would go F2P so early, it would be a failure? Or Forbes writing that F2P means fail?
I am sure they made their money, but in EVERY artistic and gaming aspect when THE most expensive MMO and game ever made goes F2P after 8 months it has written MENETEKEL at the wall. It can still be fun, if you didn't play it yet, since the class stories and fun and interesting. But this game simply has no future, since beyond the single player aspect of play your stories, this game has NOTHING that creates any lasting value.
Over 2 million people bought SWTOR, due to Bioware they now have "over 500k". So if we assume ~2.5 million sold copies, including digital, and now ~600k players thats a loss of TWO million players in half a year. If a MMO is worth playing, it is worth paying. I am not more inclined to play just because it is free.
Originally posted by GrumpyMel2 Incorrect. In investment you have to consider Opportunity Cost. Something is NOT a success simply because you EVENTUALY may get your money (or more) back. Something is a success only if you can get a higher return at less risk then most of the OTHER things you could have done with that money.If I have a million dollars sunk in something for 10 years...that's 10 years I can't use that money for anything else...it better give me a good return compared with the things I could turn around and get my money back on within a year.....and it sure as heck better beat inflation.Alot of investors are ALREADY looking at TOR as a financial failure...which is PART (obviously not all) of the reason EA's stocks (and executives) have taken a drubbing. It's still got some time yet to see if it can turn things around, as less then a year honestly isn't that long for this type of product to be out....but trends are looking for a REALLY disappointing ROI for this product...which is why EA is scrambling like it is.If a few years from now investors look at TOR and see they would have been better off buying tax free, government insured municipal bonds....then yeah, TOR will have been an abject failure from a financial standpoint even if it eventualy reaps a proffit.
If people took a simple economics class most of the spin companies put out would fail, and the amount of absurd statements would drop.
That would require people to be educated. That would take time away from them gaming. Lol. True story though.
Eh? Sometimes I wonder if I live on the same planet as some people. So THE most expensive game EVER BY FAR, goes F2P after only 8 months and that is NOT a failure? What must happen that we see SWTOR as the big fraud it is? When GOD himself opens the earth under the Bioware studio?
And didn't some Bioware or EA dude set the margin himself? I know there was that interview where one of them said, if a MMO would go F2P so early, it would be a failure? Or Forbes writing that F2P means fail?
I am sure they made their money, but in EVERY artistic and gaming aspect when THE most expensive MMO and game ever made goes F2P after 8 months it has written MENETEKEL at the wall. It can still be fun, if you didn't play it yet, since the class stories and fun and interesting. But this game simply has no future, since beyond the single player aspect of play your stories, this game has NOTHING that creates any lasting value.
Over 2 million people bought SWTOR, due to Bioware they now have "over 500k". So if we assume ~2.5 million sold copies, including digital, and now ~600k players thats a loss of TWO million players in half a year. If a MMO is worth playing, it is worth paying. I am not more inclined to play just because it is free.
I remember when SWTOR came out, a bunch of folks on the board predicted that it would go F2P within a year. They were generally shunned as trolls, and told that there is no way that would ever happen. In fact, it seemed that even the most dedicated SWTOR fan at that time accepted that going F2P within a year would be a failure...but they just believed it to be impossible.
But now that the game has gone F2P within a year, a bunch of people are acting like it's a good thing, and nothing is really all that wrong. And you know what? Maybe F2P is the best thing for the game at this point.
But what you have to realize is that F2P is the best thing for the game because it utterly failed in its intended business model. It's kind of like patting yourself on the back for going to the soup kitchen after failing in every professional endeavor you try. Maybe going to the soup kitchen is the best option for you at this point...but it doesn't change the fact that the reason it's the best option is because you are a failure.
SWTOR is a MASSIVELY Single-player game. I mean why else would you have to move through 2 instanced zones just to go to another planet. Why can I land my ships straight on a planet???? Seriously. Skip all the dumb flying cutscenes and land me straight to the planet.
With all the instancing done in this game, its not fair to call it an MMO. People still have a hard time labeling GuildWars(Trilogy) as an MMO. Theyre both more like CO-RPGs with multiplayer chat.
It's about companies abusing terms in order to generate more profit. Simply because you call a car a boat doesn't mean it won't sink any faster because it's a CAR.
Similarly, simply because Bioware said SWTOR was an MMO didn't mean it'd generate the retentionrate & subscriber base than an MMO is capable of doing. They abused the StarWars IP for an "easy sell", and failed miserably to do so. I'm not saying it HAD to be a sandbox to be an MMO (as i played DAOC for YEARS), but an MMO is hardly what I could try to glue to SWTOR.
The announcement that SWTOR is going F2P is a sure sign that it has failed miserably. Everyone and their brother knows that a HEALTHY MMO can easily be far more profitable with a subscription plan than F2P. F2P is where MMOs go to die due to old age or being failures.
I wholeheartedly, DISAGREE with everything you said.
I am sorry but this is an entirely baseless opinion. What part of Massively Multyplayer Online Role Playing Game does SW:ToR not fit? Secondly name a succesfull Subscription based MMO that has come out in the last 3 years? Thirdly almost every major game that has switched to a f2p option has seen an increase in their revenue.
"Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game."-Guybrush Threepwood "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me."-Hunter S. Thompson
Comments
Nope sorry....I want an all inclusive vacation....not a trip to the casino. Unfortunately your casino intrudes itself into my resort vacation and makes me put money into the slot machines just to access the beach that I wanted to goto to get away from thinking about money.
To put it breifly the existance of an RMT/FTP option effects core decisions about a games design, presentation, development , community and user experience that DIRECTLY and indirectly impact it's subscription based customers in ways many of them find negative and unwanted.
It may be a "successfull" month but under that arguement, if you invest $200 million in building a product and make $1 per month over operating budget...that would be "success" by the same standard too.
In that case....where is my $200 million? I promise I'll have it back to you in 70-80 million years, tops!
Incorrect. In investment you have to consider Opportunity Cost. Something is NOT a success simply because you EVENTUALY may get your money (or more) back. Something is a success only if you can get a higher return at less risk then most of the OTHER things you could have done with that money.
If I have a million dollars sunk in something for 10 years...that's 10 years I can't use that money for anything else...it better give me a good return compared with the things I could turn around and get my money back on within a year.....and it sure as heck better beat inflation.
Alot of investors are ALREADY looking at TOR as a financial failure...which is PART (obviously not all) of the reason EA's stocks (and executives) have taken a drubbing. It's still got some time yet to see if it can turn things around, as less then a year honestly isn't that long for this type of product to be out....but trends are looking for a REALLY disappointing ROI for this product...which is why EA is scrambling like it is.
If a few years from now investors look at TOR and see they would have been better off buying tax free, government insured municipal bonds....then yeah, TOR will have been an abject failure from a financial standpoint even if it eventualy reaps a proffit.
A whole lot of excuses in this article.
The game failed to live up to the expectations and hype of either EA/BW OR of the playerbase as a whole. I'm not saying the game is bad (I think it has issues, but it's a good game), nor do I think the game is a "failure", as they are still profitable, but based off all their previous statements and the expectations of fans, it's been an abject failure.
A game can't launch as a subscription based game in this market? I have one word for you. Rift. Still going strong and pushing out rapid, top quality content updates well over a year after launch, with an expansion slated for this winter.
There is absolutely still room for subscription based games in the market, they just need to be DAMN good. With all the high quality F2P games, subscription based games need to offer something that F2P games don't, and have a level of quality that surpasses that of F2P games. Rift has managed to do this. EVE has done this. WoW has done this, but also survives off of its own inertia at this point. EA/BW didn't provide that with SWTOR, hence why the biggest reason people left was because of the "subscription". Despite the hundreds of millions in development costs and marketing, the game hasn't provided that level of quality or that "hook" to keep players playing at levels that EA/BW want.
Please, stop making excuses for the game. I'm not some mindless hater (I'm super stoked for the transition and plan on playing it more when it goes F2P, I'm mainly interested in the story so the fact that that's 100% free pleases me even more), but I'm also not going to look at a chicken and call it a computer. SWTOR has failed to live up to expectations, plain and simple. Maybe not your individual expectations, since there are still plenty who love the game and that's great, but the expectations of the market. Given how hard EA/BW pushed the subscription model and how much trash talking they did of F2P and WoW, they totally deserve a black eye for this.
Going from 1.7m and 200 servers to less than 20 servers and free to play. Guess what it's not the business model.
It's sad when people outright deny that this game failed, let alone have no idea why.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/I've rarely read any article that I've disagreed with more than this one.
SW:ToR's failure is not because of the subscribtion model - I have no proof, but I'm quite sure of this. I've read hundreds of posts about why players didn't like the game, and VERY FEW even mentioned the sub. It's all about the lack of contents, in addition to that many calls it a co-op game, and not an MMO.
And why does the writer seem to believe that F2P = the ultimate success? I do not know of a single F2P that I would call good. Well, LotRO and EQ2 are not bad games, but they're only worth playing as a subscriber, not as a F2P player. All imo, of course.
Is ST:ToR going to survive the transition? I believe that depends entirely on their cash shop model. If you have to pay for contents, the game is dead already. Just like LotRO: there are currently so few players on my server (imladris) that grouping is simply not an option most of the times. I know many quit LotRO the moment they realised it's really only "free" to lvl 20, since further contents must be bought.
I remember when I contributed a few things here as a writer. One can even go into the debates area back in 06 (or was it 2005?). During one of the debates (a very fun exchange over gold-selling and my concern that game companies would get smart to it and start getting a cut of the action with cash shops, gee that came outta nowhere!), one of MMORPG.com's bigger advertisers of gold-farming demanded my work be yanked.
The editor at the time publicly denied his request citing the need to be independent and willing to air all viewpoints.
I think the current editorial board of MMORPG.com needs to consider that and wonder if they would do the same, and if they really do air all viewpoints in their work on particular games.
"Different games are designed to serve different niches"
When you spend 100's of millions on a game, its niche better be a massive portion of the genre's fan base. TOR did not. TOR doesn't appeal to far to many demographics of gamers to be a success(success being profit > than cost to operate/while paying off cost to develope) TOR does not, and when you see a minimum of 25% of your sub base disappear every quarter, you can pretty much tell you've "done it wrong"
Free to play, will not get me to go back to my 3 level 50's in TOR, it does not make me want to get the last two pieces of warhero gear I hadn't aquired when I quit. The only thing that will do that is something fun too do.
If people took a simple economics class most of the spin companies put out would fail, and the amount of absurd statements would drop.
Dunno which is more ridiculous. The schadenfreude about the game, or decrying legitimate feelings toward a disappointing game with mock indignation as an attempt to justify a really high rating score for a mediocre MMO.
Eh? Sometimes I wonder if I live on the same planet as some people. So THE most expensive game EVER BY FAR, goes F2P after only 8 months and that is NOT a failure? What must happen that we see SWTOR as the big fraud it is? When GOD himself opens the earth under the Bioware studio?
And didn't some Bioware or EA dude set the margin himself? I know there was that interview where one of them said, if a MMO would go F2P so early, it would be a failure? Or Forbes writing that F2P means fail?
I am sure they made their money, but in EVERY artistic and gaming aspect when THE most expensive MMO and game ever made goes F2P after 8 months it has written MENETEKEL at the wall. It can still be fun, if you didn't play it yet, since the class stories and fun and interesting. But this game simply has no future, since beyond the single player aspect of play your stories, this game has NOTHING that creates any lasting value.
Over 2 million people bought SWTOR, due to Bioware they now have "over 500k". So if we assume ~2.5 million sold copies, including digital, and now ~600k players thats a loss of TWO million players in half a year. If a MMO is worth playing, it is worth paying. I am not more inclined to play just because it is free.
The Schadenfreude-Song from Avenue Q, watch it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XmZIcmRKkc
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
If people took a simple economics class most of the spin companies put out would fail, and the amount of absurd statements would drop.
That would require people to be educated. That would take time away from them gaming. Lol. True story though.LOL yeah I'm with you.
I remember when SWTOR came out, a bunch of folks on the board predicted that it would go F2P within a year. They were generally shunned as trolls, and told that there is no way that would ever happen. In fact, it seemed that even the most dedicated SWTOR fan at that time accepted that going F2P within a year would be a failure...but they just believed it to be impossible.
But now that the game has gone F2P within a year, a bunch of people are acting like it's a good thing, and nothing is really all that wrong. And you know what? Maybe F2P is the best thing for the game at this point.
But what you have to realize is that F2P is the best thing for the game because it utterly failed in its intended business model. It's kind of like patting yourself on the back for going to the soup kitchen after failing in every professional endeavor you try. Maybe going to the soup kitchen is the best option for you at this point...but it doesn't change the fact that the reason it's the best option is because you are a failure.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
SWTOR is a MASSIVELY Single-player game. I mean why else would you have to move through 2 instanced zones just to go to another planet. Why can I land my ships straight on a planet???? Seriously. Skip all the dumb flying cutscenes and land me straight to the planet.
With all the instancing done in this game, its not fair to call it an MMO. People still have a hard time labeling GuildWars(Trilogy) as an MMO. Theyre both more like CO-RPGs with multiplayer chat.
I am sorry but this is an entirely baseless opinion. What part of Massively Multyplayer Online Role Playing Game does SW:ToR not fit? Secondly name a succesfull Subscription based MMO that has come out in the last 3 years? Thirdly almost every major game that has switched to a f2p option has seen an increase in their revenue.
"Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game."-Guybrush Threepwood
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me."-Hunter S. Thompson