One simple word will kill this model: performance.
Vanguard is a beautiful game world, with arguably some f the best art and rendering available in an MMO.
But even with years of hardware improvements, running the game on high settings is difficult.
And the never solved problem of "hitching" will drive off anyone that was not desensitized to the problem years ago. Any kid that can run Skyrim smoothly then logs onto Vanguard will be thinking "WTF?", followed by uninstall.
The structure of this so-called "F2P" offering is so typical of SOE. Time has shown that they will never change from the greedy, disconnected corporate trash that theyshow themselves to be.
the Vanguard community is NOT going to be welcoming to f2p users. they should open a New server(no xfers) when the game goes F2P
WTF are you talking about,everyone i talk to are happy to have the FTP,many of us have been playing since release,their is nothing a FTP can get that we haven't already got.
if you can't afford $15 a month or $20 for ALL their games, or even less than $15 if you pick and choose, you should probably think about getting a job instead of playing video games.
I'm not talking about anyone speficially so this can't fall under the heading of personal attack.
if you can't afford $15 a month or $20 for ALL their games, or even less than $15 if you pick and choose, you should probably think about getting a job instead of playing video games.
I'm not talking about anyone speficially so this can't fall under the heading of personal attack.
I am considering subbing when FTP begins (to have more people to play with), but I think the structure for this FTP is PATHETIC. If I wasn't intending to sub I would not consider wasting my time on the FTP portion with all of the restrictions in place.
I think they have monkeys running the show over at SOE. Anyone with a little brain matter would know this FTP bullshit is a glorified trial. Not a new and exciting way to play the game. Shit pisses me off.
Was looking forward to the conversion, but looking at the list...it's a no-go for me. The restrictions are horrible for a F2P. They should have used a better model.
I'm a subscriber and even I have to admit that the limitations to F2P players is ridiculous. I was hoping this would increase the popolation in-game, but alas, I now have doubts. Poor F2P model. Sad.
This is not f2p. There should be another name for games that give you access to 50% of the game unless you pay 15 bucks a month. With the quality I see in GW2 I cant see paying 15 bucks a month for any MMO.
Here is what I digest, same model VG wants to put out but let us upgrade for a 1 time fee of 60 bucks. Add new content in your item shop and make money for giving quality product, not for the right to log into the game. Really? Only gold membership can equip a weapon above common? I will pass, no thanks.
Originally posted by Nanfoodle This is not f2p. There should be another name for games that give you access to 50% of the game unless you pay 15 bucks a month. With the quality I see in GW2 I cant see paying 15 bucks a month for any MMO.
...
I agree - there needs to be different names for games that are "Free 2 Play" that run on different models.
How about something like this;
Pay to win = P2W = old microtransaction model
Play to Earn = P2E = Games where you can earn points to buy content / items by playing
Freemium = Games with areas restricted to subscribers only.
Buy to Own = B2O =where you can buy zones / content / items and continue to own them even without a subscription.
Unlimited trial = you can play up to a certain level.
So really, thinking about it there is a bit of overlap in some models...
For example
Wizard 101 is an Unlimited trial with Freemium / B2O option.
LotRO and DDO are P2E + Freemium / B2O games.
Unlimited trial would be AoC
etc
As for SOE - yes they never really understood customers or "Free 2 Play".
They have experimented with it a lot and I believe they are trying to find the 'sweet spot' where they can maximise their revenue while not allowing players to have too much for free... while at the same time not driving them away... sucking them in to buy more.
This is what I believe they were doing with Pirates of the Burning Sea. They constantly changed and meddled with the system and rules. My belief is that they were seeing just how much they could squeeze players.
Pirates of the Burning Sea™ is an MMORPG featuring high-seas action and adventure in a bold world of pirates and plunder. Set against the backdrop of the ...
And following those links is interesting because if you follow those links it's hard to get the correct information:
The "Free to Play" link doesn't tell you what you get (and more importantly DON'T get) for your money?
The "Australia and New Zealand!" link - links to BigPond which is more than 2 years out of date. BigPond no longer have any involvement with PotBS.
The "Store" lists "Pirates of the Burning Sea is a subscription based MMO."!
It also directs people to the Steam Store - which is yet another dead end.
All this is typical of SOE marketing
...and before anyone says "But that is an FLS page!" yes, but SOE (are supposed to) do marketing and billing) so you would think someone from either company (FLS or SOE) would be on the ball about this?
It seems to me that PotBS was a F2P experiment for SOE (in partnership with FLS). They really had little to no idea how it would work - or what players were prepared to pay for - or what players were prepared to put up with!
It also didn't help that PotBS was an Instanced Lobby Game.
But SOE didn't really care about that. IMHO they were more concerned with making the "F2P" model work and more importantly - turn a profit!
Years later - they are still trying to emulate companies like Turbine - but they won't.
Why not?
Because SOE doesn't understand what is important with regard to selling games.
It has to be fun.
And if it's an MMO it has to be long term fun. Fun in a way that makes people want to log in regularly for days / weeks / months on end. Fun that makes people want to keep returning to the game and think about it perhaps months after they played it last.
Because "F2P" will not save your game. Not if it's a bad game to begin with and / or not if you make your F2P so limiting that people cannot enjoy it without the constant spectre of having to pay hanging over their head.
People will play F2P games (and even spend money on them!) if they can do so on their own terms without feeling any pressure to do so.
But SOE didn't really care about that. IMHO they were more concerned with making the "F2P" model work and more importantly - turn a profit!
Years later - they are still trying to emulate companies like Turbine - but they won't.
Why not?
Because SOE doesn't understand what is important with regard to selling games.
It has to be fun.
And if it's an MMO it has to be long term fun. Fun in a way that makes people want to log in regularly for days / weeks / months on end. Fun that makes people want to keep returning to the game and think about it perhaps months after they played it last.
Because "F2P" will not save your game. Not if it's a bad game to begin with and / or not if you make your F2P so limiting that people cannot enjoy it without the constant spectre of having to pay hanging over their head.
People will play F2P games (and even spend money on them!) if they can do so on their own terms without feeling any pressure to do so.
SOE simply doesn't get that.
This is kind of all over the place, but there is certainly some truth in it.
F2p will not save your game, this is true. Bad games are bad games. You get an initial spark of interest around L2 or STO, but are these games popular past the initial month or two? Not really. Because they are not good games (or they are games with extremely limited appeal. L2 will never, ever be interesting to someone who hates 'korean grinders.').
But this whole notion that 'SoE doesnt get it' is wrong. Oh, there are things they 'dont get it' about, but ths isnt one of them. They arent interested in getting people that occasionally play and drop a few bucks here and there, they ultimately want subscribers. If the model hasnt been successful for them in EQ2, they would have rolled out something different for EQ and VG. I played on the EQ server that opened with the f2p launch. By the time people got to the point where the f2p restrcitions mattered, many of them had subbed already. In the locked-content f2p model, you reach the point where you are required to spend money fairly quickly. Of course in the SoE model, the only time you ever reach that point is high end, max level content.
You say they are trying to emulate Turbine. Its obvious they got the idea from Turbine, because DDO is what sparked the whole trend, and then when Turbine followed with LOTRO, it was the first time a still successful game went f2p. But at this stage EQ2 has probably surpassed LOTRO in market share, and DCUO's conversion has been a comparable success to DDO. Maybe its the model, maybe its the games are better, you can theorize all you want, but SoE certainly isnt looking up at Turbine.
The question is, is Vanguard good enough for people to sub. There is certainly a segment of the population that raves about VG as this great, forgotten MMORPG. If VG really does have appeal for more than just a small niche, then this model will work. The gear restriction is a psychological one and not a mechanical one, so the people that are intrigued by the game will play past it until they make their decision to sub or not based on the quality of the game.
I don't get where SoE is going with this one. They're taking a game very few people played or cared about, and trying to make it successful with a f2p model that's so restrictive, you'd need to sub anyway to actually play.
If that sounds bass ackwards, it's because it is. They seem to be pretty intent on killing this game. I feel bad for the people that have loved this game and hoped f2p would bring in the community it needs to thrive. I don't see it happening, now. I'd be feeling pretty crushed.
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
But this whole notion that 'SoE doesnt get it' is wrong. Oh, there are things they 'dont get it' about, but ths isnt one of them. They arent interested in getting people that occasionally play and drop a few bucks here and there, they ultimately want subscribers. If the model hasnt been successful for them in EQ2, they would have rolled out something different for EQ and VG. I played on the EQ server that opened with the f2p launch. By the time people got to the point where the f2p restrcitions mattered, many of them had subbed already. In the locked-content f2p model, you reach the point where you are required to spend money fairly quickly. Of course in the SoE model, the only time you ever reach that point is high end, max level content.
EQ might be attracting some subscribers but it is no-where near a roaring success. And maybe SOE would prefer subscribers rather than 'zone buyers'. If anything - that just shows how far behind the times and out of touch they are?
Also, as people have pointed out - simply saying "It's a subscription game therefor it must be $15/month!" is out of touch too. $15/month is what people expect to pay for a new MMORPG with a ton of content and regular updates - not a dated one.
You say they are trying to emulate Turbine. Its obvious they got the idea from Turbine, because DDO is what sparked the whole trend,
No. It was KingsIsle with Wizard 101 - Turbine improved on that model slightly
and then when Turbine followed with LOTRO, it was the first time a still successful game went f2p. But at this stage EQ2 has probably surpassed LOTRO in market share, and DCUO's conversion has been a comparable success to DDO. Maybe its the model, maybe its the games are better, you can theorize all you want, but SoE certainly isnt looking up at Turbine.
I think they are. Well that is to say other companies want to do what Turbine has done and breath new life into old games. But the difference is that Turbines games (DDO in particular) were unique in that they were ideally suited to this sort of model. Largely because the whole Pen and Paper DDO franchise was like this too.
The question is, is Vanguard good enough for people to sub. There is certainly a segment of the population that raves about VG as this great, forgotten MMORPG. If VG really does have appeal for more than just a small niche, then this model will work. The gear restriction is a psychological one and not a mechanical one, so the people that are intrigued by the game will play past it until they make their decision to sub or not based on the quality of the game.
That is the question. Well, part of the question. The other part of the question is is Vanguard good enough for people to sub at the suggested price? If the monthly sub was cheaper - would that make a difference?
SOE has always had the absolutely worst Freemium model in the industry. Glad to see that they are upholding that tradition with Vanguard. Their model is so restricted it's barely playable. This will not bring in the hoards of new players they hope it will no more than it did for EQ or EQ II. They will get some but nothing like what they would have seen with a less restrictive model.
But this whole notion that 'SoE doesnt get it' is wrong. Oh, there are things they 'dont get it' about, but ths isnt one of them. They arent interested in getting people that occasionally play and drop a few bucks here and there, they ultimately want subscribers. If the model hasnt been successful for them in EQ2, they would have rolled out something different for EQ and VG. I played on the EQ server that opened with the f2p launch. By the time people got to the point where the f2p restrcitions mattered, many of them had subbed already. In the locked-content f2p model, you reach the point where you are required to spend money fairly quickly. Of course in the SoE model, the only time you ever reach that point is high end, max level content.
EQ might be attracting some subscribers but it is no-where near a roaring success. And maybe SOE would prefer subscribers rather than 'zone buyers'. If anything - that just shows how far behind the times and out of touch they are
No game that has done the p2p > f2p conversion is a roaring success. LOTRO has less people now than it did before the conversion. Granted this could have a lot to do with how turbine has handled the game, but LOTRO is not a roaring success by any stretch of the imagination right now. You really can not make the argument at all that the LOTRO conversion has been more successful than the EQ2 conversion (remember, LOTRO started with a higher sub count than EQ2 when they did their conversions)
Also, as people have pointed out - simply saying "It's a subscription game therefor it must be $15/month!" is out of touch too. $15/month is what people expect to pay for a new MMORPG with a ton of content and regular updates - not a dated one
Now this is a point competely unrelated to f2p, and its a valid one, and its not just SoE. SoE is actually better than most companies because it at least has the station pass. But EQ2 and EQ both support and an expansion a year and quite a lot of content. Vanguard does not. The only thing I could really say in favor of the 14.99 model, is SoE lost a ton of money on Vanguard when they were working on it and probaby still havent recouped their investment, but thats sunk cost at this point. I think if they dropped the sub to 7.99 a month they would get twice as many subscribers and there fore an increase in revenue.
You say they are trying to emulate Turbine. Its obvious they got the idea from Turbine, because DDO is what sparked the whole trend,
No. It was KingsIsle with Wizard 101 - Turbine improved on that model slightly
and then when Turbine followed with LOTRO, it was the first time a still successful game went f2p. But at this stage EQ2 has probably surpassed LOTRO in market share, and DCUO's conversion has been a comparable success to DDO. Maybe its the model, maybe its the games are better, you can theorize all you want, but SoE certainly isnt looking up at Turbine.
I think they are. Well that is to say other companies want to do what Turbine has done and breath new life into old games. But the difference is that Turbines games (DDO in particular) were unique in that they were ideally suited to this sort of model. Largely because the whole Pen and Paper DDO franchise was like this too.
Yes, the turbine model works well for DDO. I absolutely hated it for LOTRO. To me, LOTRO is the absolute definition of nickel and diming, every 2 feet you are reminded of the need to by something. Putting things like fast travel behind a purchase? Thats just ridiculous. And you do get to a point, rather quickly, where you must pay to continue doing content. Technically you can grind low level deeds over and over and again, but thats not fun. If you want to level past 25 or so and enjoy the game, you have to buy quest packs. With SoE model you don;t have to do that. You are free to experience everything from level 1 to max level.
The question is, is Vanguard good enough for people to sub. There is certainly a segment of the population that raves about VG as this great, forgotten MMORPG. If VG really does have appeal for more than just a small niche, then this model will work. The gear restriction is a psychological one and not a mechanical one, so the people that are intrigued by the game will play past it until they make their decision to sub or not based on the quality of the game.
That is the question. Well, part of the question. The other part of the question is is Vanguard good enough for people to sub at the suggested price? If the monthly sub was cheaper - would that make a difference?
As I said earlier, I think you are right with this. They should see what happens with a price reduction, they dont have much to lose at this point. I would bet at least half of the people that play VG are station pass members anyway, at most 5k people are paying strictly for Vanguard. I think you could double that at 10 per month or less.
They plan to support the game (in theory making it worth a full sub), but they planned to support the game the first time too. ANd the reason they stopped was because no one played, who is to say people are going to play this time?
Comments
I'm disapointed. That's all I have to say.
One simple word will kill this model: performance.
Vanguard is a beautiful game world, with arguably some f the best art and rendering available in an MMO.
But even with years of hardware improvements, running the game on high settings is difficult.
And the never solved problem of "hitching" will drive off anyone that was not desensitized to the problem years ago. Any kid that can run Skyrim smoothly then logs onto Vanguard will be thinking "WTF?", followed by uninstall.
Totally agree! I can handle all the other restrictions, but common gear, please!
Was ok with the matrix untill I saw the restricted to common items.. That blows MAJOR ass.
The structure of this so-called "F2P" offering is so typical of SOE. Time has shown that they will never change from the greedy, disconnected corporate trash that theyshow themselves to be.
Playing: varies every day it seems.
WTF are you talking about,everyone i talk to are happy to have the FTP,many of us have been playing since release,their is nothing a FTP can get that we haven't already got.
We welcome FTP players.
if you can't afford $15 a month or $20 for ALL their games, or even less than $15 if you pick and choose, you should probably think about getting a job instead of playing video games.
I'm not talking about anyone speficially so this can't fall under the heading of personal attack.
I have to agree with this to be honest.
Thats what the last nail being pounded into the coffin sounds like.
I am considering subbing when FTP begins (to have more people to play with), but I think the structure for this FTP is PATHETIC. If I wasn't intending to sub I would not consider wasting my time on the FTP portion with all of the restrictions in place.
Was looking forward to the conversion, but looking at the list...it's a no-go for me. The restrictions are horrible for a F2P. They should have used a better model.
Here is what I digest, same model VG wants to put out but let us upgrade for a 1 time fee of 60 bucks. Add new content in your item shop and make money for giving quality product, not for the right to log into the game. Really? Only gold membership can equip a weapon above common? I will pass, no thanks.
I agree - there needs to be different names for games that are "Free 2 Play" that run on different models.
How about something like this;
Pay to win = P2W = old microtransaction model
Play to Earn = P2E = Games where you can earn points to buy content / items by playing
Freemium = Games with areas restricted to subscribers only.
Buy to Own = B2O =where you can buy zones / content / items and continue to own them even without a subscription.
Unlimited trial = you can play up to a certain level.
So really, thinking about it there is a bit of overlap in some models...
For example
Wizard 101 is an Unlimited trial with Freemium / B2O option.
LotRO and DDO are P2E + Freemium / B2O games.
Unlimited trial would be AoC
etc
As for SOE - yes they never really understood customers or "Free 2 Play".
They have experimented with it a lot and I believe they are trying to find the 'sweet spot' where they can maximise their revenue while not allowing players to have too much for free... while at the same time not driving them away... sucking them in to buy more.
This is what I believe they were doing with Pirates of the Burning Sea. They constantly changed and meddled with the system and rules. My belief is that they were seeing just how much they could squeeze players.
Interestingly - if you GOOGLE PotBS you get this:
Pirates of the Burning Sea » Home
Free to Play!
Australia and New Zealand!
Forums
Captain's Club members
Download Installer
Store
And following those links is interesting because if you follow those links it's hard to get the correct information:
The "Free to Play" link doesn't tell you what you get (and more importantly DON'T get) for your money?
The "Australia and New Zealand!" link - links to BigPond which is more than 2 years out of date. BigPond no longer have any involvement with PotBS.
The "Store" lists "Pirates of the Burning Sea is a subscription based MMO."!
It also directs people to the Steam Store - which is yet another dead end.
All this is typical of SOE marketing
...and before anyone says "But that is an FLS page!" yes, but SOE (are supposed to) do marketing and billing) so you would think someone from either company (FLS or SOE) would be on the ball about this?
This link http://www.burningsea.com/page/news/article&article_id=271108 talks about the development of "F2P" with regard to PotBS and there are some interesting insights in there.
It seems to me that PotBS was a F2P experiment for SOE (in partnership with FLS). They really had little to no idea how it would work - or what players were prepared to pay for - or what players were prepared to put up with!
It also didn't help that PotBS was an Instanced Lobby Game.
But SOE didn't really care about that. IMHO they were more concerned with making the "F2P" model work and more importantly - turn a profit!
Years later - they are still trying to emulate companies like Turbine - but they won't.
Why not?
Because SOE doesn't understand what is important with regard to selling games.
It has to be fun.
And if it's an MMO it has to be long term fun. Fun in a way that makes people want to log in regularly for days / weeks / months on end. Fun that makes people want to keep returning to the game and think about it perhaps months after they played it last.
Because "F2P" will not save your game. Not if it's a bad game to begin with and / or not if you make your F2P so limiting that people cannot enjoy it without the constant spectre of having to pay hanging over their head.
People will play F2P games (and even spend money on them!) if they can do so on their own terms without feeling any pressure to do so.
SOE simply doesn't get that.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
There is 1 plus here. Pay 15$ a month for the station pass and play every SOE game as gold. Who else can offer that ?
Agreed.
It is a big misstake, I was just thinking "time to start playing VG again" when I saw it and decided to do something else instead.
If you are interested in 2 of the games it is a good deal but I kinda feel myself done with EQ 1 & 2 after all this time.
This is kind of all over the place, but there is certainly some truth in it.
F2p will not save your game, this is true. Bad games are bad games. You get an initial spark of interest around L2 or STO, but are these games popular past the initial month or two? Not really. Because they are not good games (or they are games with extremely limited appeal. L2 will never, ever be interesting to someone who hates 'korean grinders.').
But this whole notion that 'SoE doesnt get it' is wrong. Oh, there are things they 'dont get it' about, but ths isnt one of them. They arent interested in getting people that occasionally play and drop a few bucks here and there, they ultimately want subscribers. If the model hasnt been successful for them in EQ2, they would have rolled out something different for EQ and VG. I played on the EQ server that opened with the f2p launch. By the time people got to the point where the f2p restrcitions mattered, many of them had subbed already. In the locked-content f2p model, you reach the point where you are required to spend money fairly quickly. Of course in the SoE model, the only time you ever reach that point is high end, max level content.
You say they are trying to emulate Turbine. Its obvious they got the idea from Turbine, because DDO is what sparked the whole trend, and then when Turbine followed with LOTRO, it was the first time a still successful game went f2p. But at this stage EQ2 has probably surpassed LOTRO in market share, and DCUO's conversion has been a comparable success to DDO. Maybe its the model, maybe its the games are better, you can theorize all you want, but SoE certainly isnt looking up at Turbine.
The question is, is Vanguard good enough for people to sub. There is certainly a segment of the population that raves about VG as this great, forgotten MMORPG. If VG really does have appeal for more than just a small niche, then this model will work. The gear restriction is a psychological one and not a mechanical one, so the people that are intrigued by the game will play past it until they make their decision to sub or not based on the quality of the game.
I don't get where SoE is going with this one. They're taking a game very few people played or cared about, and trying to make it successful with a f2p model that's so restrictive, you'd need to sub anyway to actually play.
If that sounds bass ackwards, it's because it is. They seem to be pretty intent on killing this game. I feel bad for the people that have loved this game and hoped f2p would bring in the community it needs to thrive. I don't see it happening, now. I'd be feeling pretty crushed.
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
That is the question. Well, part of the question. The other part of the question is is Vanguard good enough for people to sub at the suggested price? If the monthly sub was cheaper - would that make a difference?
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
i would never pay a cent for this trash, even if it was truly f2p.
SOE has always had the absolutely worst Freemium model in the industry. Glad to see that they are upholding that tradition with Vanguard. Their model is so restricted it's barely playable. This will not bring in the hoards of new players they hope it will no more than it did for EQ or EQ II. They will get some but nothing like what they would have seen with a less restrictive model.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}