Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Free 2 Play

TreabhairTreabhair New Port Richey, FLPosts: 20Member

 

Now that I have your attention, I'm not here to ask whether this game is f2p or to say that it should be, but rather to bring up some thoughts I had that might appease a wider audience.

 

FFXI was technically my first MMO, having only played PSO prior which was completely instanced outside of of lobbies. I can't say it was a shining example of fantastic game mechanics, but something about it seemed to bring together a great community and experience for the players who took the time to become engrossed by it. I currently play GW2 on occasion, though having been a fan of many GW1 mechanics, I can't say I'm entirely impressed by it, but that's a different discussion. Furthermore, GW2 and most MMOs I've played since FFXI have had communities that felt distant. I feel this is probably an issue with many MMOs adopting a solo centric grind more so than anything, but again, that's a different discussion. My point is that I loved FFXI mostly because of the community that it nurtured and I'd love to love FFXIV too. However...

 

My mindset has changed quite a bit since I played FFXI. I was a teenager with nothing better to do really. Now in my mid 20s with many responsibilities and productive things I could be doing, I seem to have adopted a different perspective which I'm sure others have as well. I understand games being a form of entertainment and despite being unproductive, not really being any less productive than the many other forms of entertainment out there. However, I find it hard to justify paying a monthly subscription to essentially burn my time away, especially on something I already purchased. There's probably many flaws in the way I see this, but it is how I see it. Still, I'm not here to say it should be f2p, but rather to look at possibilities to cater to more people.

 

I've noticed there are a number of people on both sides, those liking the p2p model in place and those who wish it were f2p/b2p. I don't want to take from the p2p crowd, especially since you all have the high ground right now and the game is already slated to go in your direction. I also see SE justification in using the p2p model out of honor as they said. They've promised a cheaper subscription to those who supported the game pre ARR and it wouldn't be good to those people, their biggest supporters, if they simply threw that incentive out the window in favor of an entirely different business model for ARR. The three main points I've seen for having this game release and remain p2p so far are:

  • p2p offers a better community
  • p2p allows the developer to focus on new content for subscribers instead of developing new cash shop goodies
  • p2p allows SquareEnix to remain honest to their more dedicated fans.

I personally feel all these points could be satisfied while still offering a f2p model for those of us who can't justify the $15 a month for whatever reason.

 

Firstly, I would suggest that the game either use a megashard system like GW1 or the upcoming ESO where everyone is a part of one world thats split into channels so that areas don't become over populated and so that the hardware can still split up the population and manage it without catching fire, or a world guesting service like GW2 except limited by only being able to guest to worlds where you have friends. The purpose behind this would be to allow subscriber only shards / worlds, without keeping subscription players from their friends who play without a subscription. That way, you have dedicated subscriber communities within the game for those that want it, and the open f2p communities for those who prefer that.

 

Next, keeping developer focus on the content and subscribers desires definitely requires an outside of the box solution. In FFXI, the developers had their own server (atomos I believe) for testing and tweaking new content. To keep the subscribers wants and desires closer to the developers, some of the subscriber only shards/worlds could be for testing some of this new content and getting the subscriber communities feedback. Essentially a constantly evolving beta shard/world which only subscribers have access to. And to keep SE attention on new content and not f2p goodies, leave the development of costumes / mounts / dungeons etc. to the players. Valve does this with Dota 2 and TF2 already with great success. Essentially give the tools to the players to create these new content with incentive to do so, have each submitted piece go through SE for approval, then post it to the cash shop. FFXI had a small modding community and don't think it would be hard to find players willing to put their work forward for a chance it having it added to the game, especially if they could get whatever they made for free and a bit of currency to throw at the cash shop.

 

Lastly, to stay true to their word with their most loyal players, SquareEnix could easily give them a lifetime discount of $5 from an optional subscription model that rewarded a monthly allowance with a few extra perks. With a tiered model, that would mean legacy members could play at a $5 a month subscriber status for free, $10 for $5, $15 for 10, etc. etc.

 

A service like the ever popular mmo auction house, except for advertising linkshells / guilds for players without to browse and request an invite, especially when compounded with features to build a linkshell or guild around a certain draw (hobbies, likes, objectives, etc.) would easily open the doors to tight knit communities. With the right tools in place, I think you can encourage tight communities without limiting them in any way, whether by using static servers to create a finite number of players or financial barriers to do the same.

 

I'm not saying this IS the solution or that this is what they should do, but I would be interested in hearing what others think, especially the people who are happy with the p2p model that's set for release.

«134567

Comments

  • DogblasterDogblaster PraguePosts: 491Member

    Sorry man, too long post :) And what is the first rule ... DONT make long posts because not many players will read it :)

     

    about subscription model...

    Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn is not going to be F2P and I hope it will never ever be. This is not only about how much money can company make from the model or how many players will play it, F2P have just more downsides.

    I dont personally dont need more trolls/haters playing the game for free just to spamm the chat, forums how everyone who plays it is retarded bla bla bla.

     

    If players really wants to play the game, pay for it :) Its going to be awesome game ! Easy acess or even free that F2P mode provides is THE BIGGEST downside of this model. You dont want great mmorpgs to be acessible for free to everyone, they need to have the prestigue in it and givit it for free is kinda opposite of it. When I see F2P game I see game that failed so it has no other choice than stay F2P (not always true ofc.)

     

    All your suggestions are about your preference and personal suggestions, everyone is different so I dont agree with some but thats okey. But really suggestion to different F2P and P2P servers? I mean really? Maaan... dumbest idea ive heard. And about cash shop, players making dungeon, costumes, armors .. and then buy it from cash shop? Please no ...

     

    I think ARR dont need F2P players just to have 1M+ Subs.. As long as it retain the healthy community it doesnt matter, even 100k would be enought.

     

    I personally believe that developers of ARR know what they are doing very well. Esp. Naoki Yoshida! After reading all his posts, QAS, videos, etc. I am 100% about it. And I really dont like when random players that they know better so they should do X and Y...

     

    But I will tell you one thing...

    Final Fantasy XIV: ARR is going to be fucking blast and even more without F2P players.

  • TreabhairTreabhair New Port Richey, FLPosts: 20Member

    "Final Fantasy XIV: ARR is going to be fucking blast!"

     

    I do hope so, but I'm afraid my brother, a few friends of mine, and myself won't get to take part without a f2p level of play.

     

    And just to clarify, the the idea is a f2p model with an optional subscription like many of the games that started p2p and went f2p. The servers wouldn't particularly be different from one another, but a few would just be set aside so that only subscribers could access them, for those that don't want to deal with the f2p community. I believe ESO is doing something like this with their shards. questions are asked at character creation or something, and while you're not limited to which shards you'll be able to be in, you'll be auto placed in shards with people who answered those questions similarly, so that you can play with similarly minded players.

     

    Additionally, to shorten up the long post for others, the concept I put forth is a f2p with optional subscription in such a way that the subscribers take priority and are given certain perks that don't nessicarily give them an advantage in the game but rather in other ways, non subscribers arent given access to places where they may spoil that subscriber community feel (forums, world chat, /shout), and a system to encourage developers to develop real content and not f2p toys.

  • DogblasterDogblaster PraguePosts: 491Member

    You forgot to mention those P2P game that went F2P becaues they kinda failed. Their subscription went from 1-2M to 500k and even lower. They had no choice. I bealive they would stay P2P if they could, sadly they couldnt and ONLY way to gain those numbers back was to make the game F2P. And I know what I am talking about, I bought every mmorpg released for past 10 years, in almost every each of them I have one or more maxxed out characters.

     

    I just DONT see the reason to have P2P and F2P shards or whatever you suggested. For instance ..when I pay gym pass for 600 euro a year, I dont see any option availible to pay 0 euros but with limited acess or limeted uses fitness equipment. For those who want to try it out, there is trial (ingame) and something like free excersise (ingym)

     

    Aaaanyway. I wont ever understant how 13 euro per month or w/e can BE ever a problem to pay? HOW, tell me? 13 euro for me is one cinema visit, not even half lunch in restaurant, etc. Its 13 euro per MONTH, not day... So either those F2P players dont take the game seriously and just wants free fun and play 10 F2P mmorpgs at same time or they are 12 years old kids with no money..

     

    WHY it is so big deal to pay SO small amount of money per month for something you play daily several hours a day? If I wanted to do any outdoor activity every day for several hours a day (gym, tenis, golf, w/e) Just please think about it and STOP seeking and demanding ''free'' fun, thats not going to work.

  • GamingGeekGamingGeek Woodstock, NYPosts: 10Member

    I'm 39 years old have a full-time job and a pretty busy life that doesn't leave a whole lot of time for gaming.

    Still, no matter how often I see it, I just can not get on board with the idea of "it was fine when *I* was younger and had more time. But now that *I* am older and have more responsibility, it's not good anymore for *me*. So now, the games should change to better suit *me*, so that *I* can continue playing as *I* would like to, without having to compromise *my* sense of enjoyment".

    Note, I say "you" in the general sense here, because even though I'm responding to the OP, I see this logic argued by so many people that it really doesn't apply to any one individual. It relates to anyone who shares that way of thinking. And there are a lot of you.

    It just strikes me as a shamelessly entitled and ego-centric mindset.  "My life has changed, so now the games should change to better suit my circumstances".

    No. They shouldn't. You should change your expectations and adjust your priorities to suit your new circumstances.

    Newsflash folks: It ain't "all about you". You are not the center of the universe. A change in your personal life situation is not a mandate for change in the way games are developed or sold, so you can continue to play as you'd like, and achieve what you'd like, on your own terms, without having to compromise.

    So, you used to be able to spend 5 hours straight in-game going after that item you wanted, but don't have that kind of time anymore? Okay fine. So you make that realization, adjust your expectations and accept that, okay, so now it might take you 3 sessions of 2 hours to get that item you wanted. You're still getting it just not in one session. Can't enjoy the game as much that way? Well, then you should reconsider whether it's time to move on and find a new game that better suits your circumstances.

    "But it's not fair", some might say?

    Of course it's fair. That's called life. It's called growing up and realizing that nothing lasts forever, and you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

    Say you play golf every weekend for 8 hours a day because you're single, free and clear. Then you get married and have children which take up more of your time. That doesn't mean the rules of golf need to change because they're no longer convenient to your life situation. It doesn't mean your membership fee for the Country Club should be reduced because "you don't feel it's worth that much anymore". It means you have to adjust your expectations and shift your schedule to work it in, and accept that you're just not gonna be able to play as much as you used to. You might have to cut that game short once in a while and not go the whole 18 holes.  That's life.

    The other part of that attitude that irks me is how it just completely and utterly ignores and disqualifies those who do still have all that time to pour into a game that you used to. Those people still have a lot of free time. They shouldn't have the opportunity to enjoy these games the way you used to, because you've grown up, become more responsible and can't do it anymore? Really?

    Can't justify the subscription fee because you don't feel you have enough time to make it worth while? Then pick another game that better suits your finances. Don't expect a game to change its entire revenue model, just because it no longer suits your sense of value.

     

    Seriously folks. Get over yourselves.

    “Developers do not give players enough credit. And maybe even players don't give players enough credit.” - Ragnar Tørnquist

  • DogblasterDogblaster PraguePosts: 491Member
    Originally posted by GamingGeek

    I'm 39 years old have a full-time job and a pretty busy life that doesn't leave a whole lot of time for gaming.

    Still, no matter how often I see it, I just can not get on board with the idea of "it was fine when *I* was younger and had more time. But now that *I* am older and have more responsibility, it's not good anymore for *me*. So now, the games should change to better suit *me*, so that *I* can continue playing as *I* would like to, without having to compromise *my* sense of enjoyment".

    Note, I say "you" in the general sense here, because even though I respnoding to the OP, I see this logic argued by so many people that it really doesn't apply to anyone individual. It applies to anyone who shares that way of thinking.

    It just strikes me as a shamelessly entitled and ego-centric mindset.  "My life has changed, so now the games should change to better suit my circumstances".

    No. They shouldn't. You should change your expectations and adjust your priorities to suit your new circumstances.

    Newsflash folks: It ain't "all about you". You are not the center of the universe. A change in your personal life situation is not a mandate for change in the way games are developed or sold, so you can continue to play as you'd like, and achieve what you'd like, on your own terms, without having to compromise.

    So, you used to be able to spend 5 hours straight in-game going after that item you wanted, but don't have that kind of time anymore? Okay fine. So you make that realization, adjust your expectations and accept that, okay, so now it might take you 3 sessions of 2 hours to get that item you wanted. You're still getting it just not in one session. Can't enjoy the game as much that way? Well, then you should reconsider whether it's time to move on and find a new game that better suits your circumstances.

    "But it's not fair", some might say?

    Of course it's fair. That's called life. It's called growing up and realizing that you can't have your cake and eat it, too. It's time to get over yourself and realize the world doesn't revolve around you.

    Say you play golf every weekend for 8 hours a day because you're single, free and clear. Then you get married and have children which take up more of your time. That doesn't mean the rules of golf need to change because they're no longer convenient to your life situation. It means you have to adjust your expectations and shift your schedule to work it in, and accept that you're just not gonna be able to play as much as you used to. You might have to cut that game short once in a while and not go the whole 18 holes.  That's life.

     

    The other part of that attitude that irks me is how it just completely and utterly ignores and disqualifies those who do still have all that time to pour into a game that you used to. Those people still have a lot of free time. They shouldn't have the opportunity to enjoy these games the way you used to, because you've grown up, become more responsible and can't do it anymore? Really? Shameless, egocentric thinking.

    Can't justify the subscription fee because you don't feel you have enough time to make it worth while? Then pick another game that better suits your finances. Don't expect a game to change its entire revenue model, just because it no longer suits your sense of value.

     

    Seriously folks. Get over yourselves.

    Come on ... When i read you article I was like: How the hell he could come up with something like this so fast .. cheater or bookwritter xD

     

    Totally agree with you!

    Just because someone became grandpa and dont have what it takes to pick up 18 years girls anymore doesnt mean that those girls have to change and become Oldophiles...

     
  • TreabhairTreabhair New Port Richey, FLPosts: 20Member

    I wouldn't consider them failures. The initial numbers after the release of a new MMO can't really be trusted. In the current state of the MMO ecosystem, all games are destined to be overhyped because of the dissappointment present with current MMOs. This means games are more than likely to bring big numbers at release, and then quickly fall off shortly after. What I've heard is many MMO's that started p2p and eventually go f2p end up making even more money with their f2p model.

     

    That said, a successful subscription model is still the peak of the mountain and if they can acheive it, then there would be little reason for SquareEnix to even give f2p a thought. This would be bitter sweet to me since I certainly would like to see them succeed after that sacrifices they've made to fix this title, but at the same time, I'd like to play myself, which as I already stated isn't possible with a sub model since I can't justify paying a monthly fee to burn my time. I'm not saying that my time is particularly more important than others, but I just can't enjoy playing a game if the thought that I could be doing something more productive with my time and money is lingering in the back of my head.

     

    Still, I understand you're quite happy with a sub model and thats fine too. I can see why people would want it, but as you noted, it does go against my personal preference both because of the aformentioned reason, and because it limits the community and people who can access the game.

  • DogblasterDogblaster PraguePosts: 491Member

    Yes and as I said ... One of the best P2P upsides is that it limits the acess to certain people.

     

    Just for instance so you understand it better... I have about 5-10 gyms near where I am living. You know which one I think is the best? The most expensive one, you know why? Not only because it has the best equipment but because the price limits acess to certain people ... for instance teenagers in this case xD

    In case of mmorpgs it limits acess to trolls, bots, haters, spammers, etc..

     

    P.S.: You dont have a time or money? So make the time or dont visit KFC so often.

  • GamingGeekGamingGeek Woodstock, NYPosts: 10Member
    Originally posted by Dogblaster
     

    Come on ... When i read you article I was like: How the hell he could come up with something like this so fast .. cheater or bookwritter xD

     

    Totally agree with you!

     

     

    lol! Neither... Just a really fast typer :).

     

    And I make a lot of typos.

    “Developers do not give players enough credit. And maybe even players don't give players enough credit.” - Ragnar Tørnquist

  • revy66revy66 NY, NYPosts: 464Member
    "It limits the people who can access the game", what a remarkable observation. A lot of things are limited to people who can afford them.
  • DogblasterDogblaster PraguePosts: 491Member
    Originally posted by GamingGeek

    lol! Neither... Just a really fast typer :).

     

    And I make a lot of typos.

    I am not native english speaker so I dont care that much about grammar .. untill I have exam xD

  • TreabhairTreabhair New Port Richey, FLPosts: 20Member
    Originally posted by GamingGeek

    I'm 39 years old have a full-time job and a pretty busy life that doesn't leave a whole lot of time for gaming.

    Still, no matter how often I see it, I just can not get on board with the idea of "it was fine when *I* was younger and had more time. But now that *I* am older and have more responsibility, it's not good anymore for *me*. So now, the games should change to better suit *me*, so that *I* can continue playing as *I* would like to, without having to compromise *my* sense of enjoyment".

    Note, I say "you" in the general sense here, because even though I respnoding to the OP, I see this logic argued by so many people that it really doesn't apply to any one individual. It relates to anyone who shares that way of thinking. And there are a lot of you.

    It just strikes me as a shamelessly entitled and ego-centric mindset.  "My life has changed, so now the games should change to better suit my circumstances".

    No. They shouldn't. You should change your expectations and adjust your priorities to suit your new circumstances.

    Newsflash folks: It ain't "all about you". You are not the center of the universe. A change in your personal life situation is not a mandate for change in the way games are developed or sold, so you can continue to play as you'd like, and achieve what you'd like, on your own terms, without having to compromise.

    So, you used to be able to spend 5 hours straight in-game going after that item you wanted, but don't have that kind of time anymore? Okay fine. So you make that realization, adjust your expectations and accept that, okay, so now it might take you 3 sessions of 2 hours to get that item you wanted. You're still getting it just not in one session. Can't enjoy the game as much that way? Well, then you should reconsider whether it's time to move on and find a new game that better suits your circumstances.

    "But it's not fair", some might say?

    Of course it's fair. That's called life. It's called growing up and realizing that you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

    Say you play golf every weekend for 8 hours a day because you're single, free and clear. Then you get married and have children which take up more of your time. That doesn't mean the rules of golf need to change because they're no longer convenient to your life situation. It means you have to adjust your expectations and shift your schedule to work it in, and accept that you're just not gonna be able to play as much as you used to. You might have to cut that game short once in a while and not go the whole 18 holes.  That's life.

    The other part of that attitude that irks me is how it just completely and utterly ignores and disqualifies those who do still have all that time to pour into a game that you used to. Those people still have a lot of free time. They shouldn't have the opportunity to enjoy these games the way you used to, because you've grown up, become more responsible and can't do it anymore? Really?

    Can't justify the subscription fee because you don't feel you have enough time to make it worth while? Then pick another game that better suits your finances. Don't expect a game to change its entire revenue model, just because it no longer suits your sense of value.

     

    Seriously folks. Get over yourselves.

     

    Like I said, I wasn't saying this was a solution. I just wanted to gauge what other people thought. The idea wasn't to change the game to suit a different group of people, but rather to attempt to suit everyone, which is why I had mentioned that I was most interested in p2p gamers since they're already getting what they want. I have no desire to take from them, but rather come up with a solution that could please everyone for any future mmo, not just this one. I only picked this one since it's one I wish I could play myself.

    I respect your opinions but I see the message as being one of complacency; that everyone should just accept things the way they are. 

    Again, I'm merely looking at an idea to open up games to everyone, while keeping everyone content. Not at changing a game to cater to a different group of people.

  • AlberelAlberel LondonPosts: 1,121Member
    Not sure if it's been mentioned already as most of these posts are rather wordy... Yoshi P stated that the F2P model is too unreliable in terms of a steady income as the money spent on the cash shop fluctuates from month to month. Subscriptions offer a guaranteed regular income that is much easier to predict and track which most publishers prefer by a long shot.
  • DogblasterDogblaster PraguePosts: 491Member
    Originally posted by Treabhair

    Like I said, I wasn't saying this was a solution. I just wanted to gauge what other people thought. The idea wasn't to change the game to suit a different group of people, but rather to attempt to suit everyone, which is why I had mentioned that I was most interested in p2p gamers since they're already getting what they want. I have no desire to take from them, but rather come up with a solution that could please everyone for any future mmo, not just this one. I only picked this one since it's one I wish I could play myself.

    I respect your opinions but I see the message as being one of complacency; that everyone should just accept things the way they are. 

    Again, I'm merely looking at an idea to open up games to everyone, while keeping everyone content. Not at changing a game to cater to a different group of people.

    This is the WORST THING that game can EVER EVER EVER DO.

     

    Ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • TreabhairTreabhair New Port Richey, FLPosts: 20Member
    Originally posted by Alberel
    Not sure if it's been mentioned already as most of these posts are rather wordy... Yoshi P stated that the F2P model is too unreliable in terms of a steady income as the money spent on the cash shop fluctuates from month to month. Subscriptions offer a guaranteed regular income that is much easier to predict and track which most publishers prefer by a long shot.

     

    That is a good point, and one of the drawbacks I had thought about. F2P is a bit unsteady and something developers are only recently taking seriously as a source of revenue. SE is already gambling having scrapped the original release and remaking the game and I'm sure that makes a traditional p2p model that much more appealing to them.

  • DogblasterDogblaster PraguePosts: 491Member
    Originally posted by Alberel
    Not sure if it's been mentioned already as most of these posts are rather wordy... Yoshi P stated that the F2P model is too unreliable in terms of a steady income as the money spent on the cash shop fluctuates from month to month. Subscriptions offer a guaranteed regular income that is much easier to predict and track which most publishers prefer by a long shot.

    Agreed. But there are certain retarded companies that throw keys into the cash shop in every possible ocassion and they find 100000 retarded players who bought them just to be pissed and all this just for sake of the F2P. I am so glad Final Fantasy wont be this case ever :)

  • TreabhairTreabhair New Port Richey, FLPosts: 20Member
    Originally posted by Dogblaster
    Originally posted by Treabhair

    Like I said, I wasn't saying this was a solution. I just wanted to gauge what other people thought. The idea wasn't to change the game to suit a different group of people, but rather to attempt to suit everyone, which is why I had mentioned that I was most interested in p2p gamers since they're already getting what they want. I have no desire to take from them, but rather come up with a solution that could please everyone for any future mmo, not just this one. I only picked this one since it's one I wish I could play myself.

    I respect your opinions but I see the message as being one of complacency; that everyone should just accept things the way they are. 

    Again, I'm merely looking at an idea to open up games to everyone, while keeping everyone content. Not at changing a game to cater to a different group of people.

    This is the WORST THING that game can EVER EVER EVER DO.

     

    Ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    No, it's inherently a good thing a game could do.  It's just not been done successfuly.

    I think theres a much better chance of success if rather than trying to please everyone with one option, multiple options are made available for everyone.

  • AlberelAlberel LondonPosts: 1,121Member
    Originally posted by Dogblaster
    Originally posted by Treabhair

    Like I said, I wasn't saying this was a solution. I just wanted to gauge what other people thought. The idea wasn't to change the game to suit a different group of people, but rather to attempt to suit everyone, which is why I had mentioned that I was most interested in p2p gamers since they're already getting what they want. I have no desire to take from them, but rather come up with a solution that could please everyone for any future mmo, not just this one. I only picked this one since it's one I wish I could play myself.

    I respect your opinions but I see the message as being one of complacency; that everyone should just accept things the way they are. 

    Again, I'm merely looking at an idea to open up games to everyone, while keeping everyone content. Not at changing a game to cater to a different group of people.

    This is the WORST THING that game can EVER EVER EVER DO.

     

    Ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Agreed, I think most of the major failings of modern MMOs can be attributed to their desire to please everyone and thus failing to please anyone at all. They're better off targetting a specific audience as it makes it both easier to develop the game and it gives them a more stable and loyal playerbase. Most devs/publishers won't do this though as they're too greedy and want WoW numbers of subscriptions that they'll never achieve with development split across so many different playstyles.

  • DogblasterDogblaster PraguePosts: 491Member
    Originally posted by Treabhair

    No, it's inherently a good thing a game could do.  It's just not been done successfuly.

    I think theres a much better chance of success if rather than trying to please everyone with one option, multiple options are made available for everyone.

    Every smart and experienced company owner / manager / marketer know that segmentation is very imporatnt in business and they SHOULDNT EVER try to satisfy every customer.

     

    When you are starting the business, one of the first thing and key things you do is decide what segment of customers you want to please and which one you aim for. Then you can 100x easyly start your propagation, tweak your product, etc.

     

    If you try to cater to every possible segment on the market, you are doomed to fail. Thats how it is and wont ever change.

     

    Just think for a moment and you can clearly see that EVERY product is always aimed for certain people/segment.

  • TreabhairTreabhair New Port Richey, FLPosts: 20Member
    Originally posted by Dogblaster
    Originally posted by Treabhair

    No, it's inherently a good thing a game could do.  It's just not been done successfuly.

    I think theres a much better chance of success if rather than trying to please everyone with one option, multiple options are made available for everyone.

    Every smart and experienced company owner / manager / marketer know that segmentations and they SHOULDNT EVER try to satisfy every customer.

     

    If you try to cater to every possible segment on the market, you are doomed to fail. Thats how it is and wont ever change.

     

    Well I guess there are certain limitations to it. If we were talking about making many features that each required heavy development teams to mantain, then there would definitely be the chance of spreading yourself too thin. However, the changes I outlined I don't believe would require hardly any shift in dev resources from a traditional p2p model.

  • DihoruDihoru ConstantaPosts: 2,731Member
    Originally posted by Dogblaster
    Originally posted by Treabhair

    No, it's inherently a good thing a game could do.  It's just not been done successfuly.

    I think theres a much better chance of success if rather than trying to please everyone with one option, multiple options are made available for everyone.

    Every smart and experienced company owner / manager / marketer know that segmentations and they SHOULDNT EVER try to satisfy every customer.

     

    If you try to cater to every possible segment on the market, you are doomed to fail. Thats how it is and wont ever change.

     

    Just think for a moment and you can clearly see that EVERY product is always aimed for certain people/segment.

    Everyone eats at kfc at one point in their lives, even vegans... your arguments are as shoddy as your grammar and your passion for keeping out "undesirables" is almost... well to be honest bordering on damn nazism and while I can't stand most of the people you likely can't either what I can't stand the most is entitled people telling everyone else how it is... when it isn't even close to the truth. If ARR was worth its salt it would have revamped itself in such a way that it could allow F2P and allow you to "welcome" the people you like so much with all the jackbooty love your heart desires.

    image
  • DogblasterDogblaster PraguePosts: 491Member
    Originally posted by Treabhair

    Well I guess there are certain limitations to it. If we were talking about making many features that each required heavy development teams to mantain, then there would definitely be the chance of spreading yourself too thin. However, the changes I outlined I don't believe would require hardly any shift in dev resources from a traditional p2p model.

    But with F2P it all begins ..

     

    If they took your advice and gave acess to F2P ..

    How many of those F2P players would be non-experienced mmorpg players? How many of those F2P players would be playing FF just because its F2P? How many F2P casuals? MANY, believe me, there would be maybe more F2P playrs playing the game than P2P in some point ...

     

    So now they have more F2P than P2P. But what if those F2P are casual gamers like you? THEY DEMAND easyer content and easyer endgame. They demand THIS AND THAT.

    And now .. developers will do these changes because F2P users and they end up screwing the whole game for those trully dedicated Final Fantasy XIV P2P players. GG game over

     

    P.S.: The free trial is good idea so people can try the game.

  • DogblasterDogblaster PraguePosts: 491Member
    Originally posted by Dihoru

    Everyone eats at kfc at one point in their lives, even vegans... your arguments are as shoddy as your grammar and your passion for keeping out "undesirables" is almost... well to be honest bordering on damn nazism and while I can't stand most of the people you likely can't either what I can't stand the most is entitled people telling everyone else how it is... when it isn't even close to the truth. If ARR was worth its salt it would have revamped itself in such a way that it could allow F2P and allow you to "welcome" the people you like so much with all the jackbooty love your heart desires.

    you again ? Man I dont care about your posts at all :)

    So thanks for your quote but keep it for someone else.

     

    You should /block me as I did block you now. Problem solved.

  • nbtscannbtscan Phoenix, AZPosts: 781Member Uncommon
    I don't like F2P, but if they want to put in a free trial like WoW does where you can level up to 15 and then be capped, then sure why not.  What they see in those first 15 levels might lure them in.
  • DihoruDihoru ConstantaPosts: 2,731Member
    Originally posted by Dogblaster
    Originally posted by Treabhair

    Well I guess there are certain limitations to it. If we were talking about making many features that each required heavy development teams to mantain, then there would definitely be the chance of spreading yourself too thin. However, the changes I outlined I don't believe would require hardly any shift in dev resources from a traditional p2p model.

    But with F2P it begins .. you cant see but look.

     

    If they took your advice and gave acess to F2P ..

    How many of those F2P players would be non-experienced mmorpg players? How many of those F2P players would be playing FF just because its F2P? MANY, believe me, there would be maybe more F2P playrs playing it than P2P after some time...

     

    So now they have more F2P than P2P. But what if those F2P are casual gamers like you? THEY DEMAND easyer content and easyer endgame. They demand THIS AND THAT.

    And now .. developers will do these changes and fucked up the game for those trully dedicated P2P players. GG game over

    Lol... so when did World of Warcraft become Free 2 Play? Was Everquest 1 free to play when it went casual? Was Star Wars Galaxies ever free 2 play? Short answer no, your twisting a reality to suit your bias, entitled players in P2P games turn them casual, a majority of casuals turn F2Ps into casuals, neglecting one side to make your point stick better smells awfully of demagoguery.

    Originally posted by Dogblaster
    Originally posted by Dihoru

    Everyone eats at kfc at one point in their lives, even vegans... your arguments are as shoddy as your grammar and your passion for keeping out "undesirables" is almost... well to be honest bordering on damn nazism and while I can't stand most of the people you likely can't either what I can't stand the most is entitled people telling everyone else how it is... when it isn't even close to the truth. If ARR was worth its salt it would have revamped itself in such a way that it could allow F2P and allow you to "welcome" the people you like so much with all the jackbooty love your heart desires.

    you again ? Man I dont care about your posts at all :)

    So thanks for your quote but keep it for someone else.

     

    You should /block me as I did block you. Problem solved.

    And this ladies and gentlemen is proof positive of what kind of player he is. Can't take criticism, can't take someone's contrary opinion to his, blocks him, entitlement 101 (and his arguments are so bad they'd demand a troll but I never did).

    image
  • youngkgyoungkg dallas, TXPosts: 357Member
    Originally posted by GamingGeek

    It just strikes me as a shamelessly entitled and ego-centric mindset.  "My life has changed, so now the games should change to better suit my circumstances".

    No. They shouldn't. You should change your expectations and adjust your priorities to suit your new circumstances.

     

    Amen...If you wouldnt pay 15 dollars for admission to a game then chances are you dont really have alot of interest in it...and if you cant afford a 15 dollar sub fee then maybe gameing isnt something that should take any level of priority in your life?

«134567
Sign In or Register to comment.