It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I know theres this like militant F2P crowd and they use P2P games that change to a free-er payment model as proof they are winning ect.
Most of the p2p games that went free-er didnt go f2p. f2p requires that all the content is free, making it free to play.
Asking people to subscribe for full access, or making them pay for more content isnt free. I consider games like WAR and AOC as more games with very generous trials, in AOC you can trial the game up untill endgame, and then expansion content requiers a sub...and in a game with pvp like that not having content gear is a pretty significant gimp.
TOR isnt a free game, just look at what you get for free and look at what you get for paying. No operations is a pretty big restriction if you want to actually play the end game.
Its really a silly argument when you look at it all.
Originally posted by Hrimnir F2P games simply ARE NOT good for consumers, they are only good for developers.
You have things reversed. Developers love it when all they have to do is hype players up and sell a lot of boxes. Who needs gameplay that's actually fun? Just run some flashy commercials and rake in the cash.
Conversely, if they only get money by delivering fun to players (because their game is F2P and players actually get a sense of quality and fun before paying) then that puts the burden on them to actually release something awesome if they want to make money.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The success / failure of SWTOR really isn't as significant to the p2p vs. f2p situation.
The reason why subs are declining is for a number of different reasons:
1) Gamers are growing increasingly tired of putting down large sums of money (relatively large, at least), for a game that they aren't sure if it's going to be good or not. This will take a while to fully die out (and it may never 100% die out), because there is still the belief that subscriptions guaruntee quality and are necessary (even though there is evidence to the contrary).
2) F2P has actually been shown to generate more revenue that sub games. There are numerous examples of this, including games like DDO and LotRO which saw record turn arounds in profits after switching to a F2P model. It seems counter-intuitive, so there is still some opposition from a corporate lvl, but that is changing.
3) Subscriptions force competition on your games. So by having a subscription fee, you are actually forcing your fans to choose between your game, and the next new hotness. This is another thing that seems counter-intuitive, but is another realisation that is sinking in for most developers.
I'm not sure if subscriptions will ever 100% die out, but it's pretty clear to most industry professionals that f2p is where things are headed. There's even talk of it possibly spilling out into other mediums, and not just gaming.
Originally posted by Humphrie No, the fall of TOR is NOT the harbinger of things to come. Sorry -- you're going to need to back up the carriage on that one. The root problem in all of this (everything -- from the moment the game was first spun into development) was that Bioware believed their own hype. They believed that everything they touched turned to gold, and that the 'magic' of their storylines would infect the MMORPG genre with some kind of mass hysteria (the good kind for players, and the bad kind for developers). Bioware fully expected that they would light the digital world on fire with their creativity, and that explains much of why they were absolutely resolute in resisting suggestions for changes made by beta testers. They -- and only they -- knew best. The problem with that is, their stories in TOR might have been decent (as an author, I'd argue they were barely passable, but whatever, it's academic now), but the rest of the game was a shameless clone of a 7-year-old product, with little to none of the changes made to enhance said product over that timeframe. TOR is, foundationally, a wreck, beginning with the hero engine, and then moving upwards into the clunky combat and ridiculous world design. There were elements that were good, but all of them were consumed and blown away by the immense enormity of the flaws. It's like somebody decided to build a gleaming castle on top of a volcano, KNOWING THE ENTIRE TIME that said mountain was a volcano, and then popped their pinky into their mouth when the thing exploded and went 'whoops!' I imagine that at some point last summer, a few of the higher-up types began to realize that there were serious issues. I got the sensation throughout the season -- based on just the general tone and tenor of the talk about the game -- that something was wrong. So I'm giving Bioware a bit of credit here: I think they figured it out slightly before zero hour that this puppy was going to flop, and flop big. It was just way too late to change anything substantial at that point. They could either launch, or announce a sizable delay to make changes. They chose the former, and in doing so, decided to assume we were dumb. [mod edit] And thus, in the span of less than a year, TOR has surpassed SWG as the most epic MMORPG failure in the history of gaming. I didn't think it could be done, but when you look at the numbers of people involved; at the money that was spent in development -- money that is NEVER coming back for EA/Bioware[mod edit] But that is no reason to make wide-ranging conclusions about MMORPGs. No sir. The industry hasn't 'evolved.' The F2P model is not 'the future.' This is not 'where the genre is going.' SWTOR sank to the bottom because it was a bad game; because it was a game that not only was living in the dark ages of the first year of WoW, but also refused to acknowledge that the way people approach these games is beginning to shift yet again. It didn't fail because people were 'looking for that F2P experience.' Anyone who eats up a line like that from EA is a sad and sorry individual. The fact is, F2P is where bad games go to die, and that hasn't changed just because a few poor 16-year-olds run around the internet screaming about how it's 'the future.' F2P is the glue factory for Kentucky Derby horses that break their legs. The big money is in the subscription model, and will continue to be in the subscription model. WoW proves this (and, make no mistake, WoW isn't losing subs because it's P2P either -- it's losing subs because the game is closing in on a decade of age and people are tired of it. White knight? Hello! SOMEBODY SWEEP ME OFF MY FEET!). Rather, what has changed are player expectations. While I'm not by any means claiming the sandbox is the future, I think players are increasingly looking for the following: challenges, comradery and individuality. The Facebook fad is already passing us by; those worthless souls who polluted this genre with their lack of any skill have moved onto Angry Birds and Farmville. What's left is a larger crowd composed of basically the same people MMORPGs started with -- diehards looking for action. And the game that's going to unseat WoW; the game that's going to be 'the next' game (my 'white knight) will cater to those people, and less to the 'GIMME IT RIGHT NOW' crowd. This theoretical game will give players the tools to be heroes rather than shoving their unearned majesty down their collective throats. It will give them the ability to do what they want (within reason); play how they want; slay how they want. The sandbox might be dead, but the message people should take away from TOR isn't that the subscription model is finished, but that the time of the half-***ed themepark is over. From now on, you either do it different, you do it spectacularly, or you don't do it at all. In closing, I'd like to once again praise EA for being such AMAZING and UPSTANDING citizens of the gaming world. There's nothing like seeing a company claim that 40% of the 700k(ish) or so people who had quit since launch stated that the 'subscription model' was the primary reason for canceling. First of all, that's an outright lie. Second of all, yeah, we all had an issue paying money for crap.[mod edit] So, in that sense, yes, of course all of us who quit had an 'issue' with the subscription model. I don't like subscriptions for bad games. Voila.
I couldn't agree more if it bit me on my ass.
Been saying all of this for years, and each time I get attacked by kids whom glorify "F2P" like it's some sort of saviour simply because they don't have a job or don't know how to manage money well enough to put $15 aside each month to have UNLIMITED ACCESS to their favorite game.
Hell, look at the Koreans, their primary model is PAY BY THE HOUR. Most people don't even understand, at all, what fantastic lives they live where they can just throw money worth a Pizza once a month at a decent game to waste their time in socializing with people whom live all over the world.
FreeToPlay == the Future my foot. Only fools and children, or paid-off fools, would believe that line from EA.
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity:Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
I guess, the future is, milking the cow better than you did before. It is not F2P. It is not that simple.
- We will see pre-order/-purchase betas as a rule to get some initial cash flow.
- Most games will sell their boxes / downloads at launch and of course expansions. Some will not (especially the asians), in order to advertise with the term "free"
- A lot of games will have a subscription, at least at the beginning. The hype will allow them to milk the maximum during a short phase of about 6-12 month this way.
- All games will have a cash-shop. The subscription based games just with a very smart shop with cosmetics, services and such. But their entire architecture will be ready to switch to F2P on the fly whenever needed. With afterwards an extended cash-shop. Perhaps not P2W, but much more nasty than before.
I guess TSW is the 1st game of this type. Starting with everything you can do in order to milk the customer and then customize your very flexible milking machine over time accordingly. We will see TSW going F2P soon, and this transition will be the smoothest in history, because it was planned from the very beginning.
I am either surprised that the good old economical modell of "Skimming off Excess Profits" took more than 10 years to make in into MMO-industry.
PS: And some guys will never learn, how MMO works, like Mr. Smedley and his weird freemium model. Milking should not be too obvious, because humans are no cows.
played: Everquest I (6 years), EVE (3 years)months: EQII, Vanguard, Siedler Online, SWTOR, Guild Wars 2 weeks: WoW, Shaiya, Darkfall, Florensia, Entropia, Aion, Lotro, Fallen Earth, Uncharted Waters days: DDO, RoM, FFXIV, STO, Atlantica, PotBS, Maestia, WAR, AoC, Gods&Heroes, Cultures, RIFT, Forsaken World, Allodds
Originally posted by mbrodie LOTRO, GW(B2P though), Aion, Vanguard (going F2P), DDO, AoC unchained and numerous other games which have become more thriving in players then before when they were P2P would like to have a word with you about how F2P is horrible. i dont mind paying a sub, i'm currently subbed to TERA, TSW and WoW, but i also enjoy the shit out of Aion F2P and guild wars 1 (doing my unlocks).
I don't see how you can do it, be playing so many different MMORPG's at the same time. I am challenged to master the combat rotations of my 5 different builds in TSW, let alone the interfacce of multiple MMO's. I salute you!
I'm a one MMO at a time player, and I prefer they last a long time if possible, because it takes me a long time to really understand them. (I played EVE 3.5 years and still only comprehend about 1/2 of what that title offers)
What I see the future of almost every AAA title is the initial release with a sub model, some may offer F2P options at start, definitiely will have a cash shop at launch, better to first get the initial box price, then milk the paying sub base for as long as it holds up, 6 months to a year at tops (who knows someone might even get lucky and string it out like WOW did) and then quickly convert to a F2P/Sub hybrid for the rest of the titles life.
It will all be part of the plan rather than reactive as it has been in the past. I'm pretty sure Funcom has had TSW's conversion along these lines built in right from the start and they'll jump to the hybrid F2P model in a flash.
On hiatus from EVE Online since Dec 2016 - Screw off-grid PVE boosting changes
Pouring on extra "Salt" for 2017
In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™ "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Originally posted by Kyleran
Agree, exactly, what i said.
The game of the future will have a proactive infrastructure and design, able to adapt the business model on the fly. This way maximum profit is generated and every possible loss of profit due to transition is avoided. Today the F2P transitions are still reactive and less profitable as they could be.
Well, you still have to make a good game for a the real big money.
The sub model might not be dead.. but in my eyes it is.. Games today are being pushed out the door with minimal content and charging a premium fee ontop of it.... From now on, I'm focusing on F2P or B2P games.. After Rift and TOR, I've learned my lesson on sub based models.. NO thanks..
A lot of people only have room for one MMO
Given two equal or fairly equally fun games the subscription based game will lose out every time (to a b2p game for instance).
heres the future, please bookmark my post.
59.99 box price
Full cash shop
F2P conversion of said box price after 8months-1 year.
More added to cash shop
Amount spent on game? maybe 20-50mil
Amount earned after full cycle completes and coders have been fired, 100mill +.
The egg on your faces? priceless
Originally posted by alexanys1982 heres the future, please bookmark my post. 59.99 box price Full cash shop F2P conversion of said box price after 8months-1 year. More added to cash shop Life support. Amount spent on game? maybe 20-50mil Amount earned after full cycle completes and coders have been fired, 100mill +. The egg on your faces? priceless
I'll bookmark this just to throw it back in your face when Titan smashes sales record utilizing the tried-and-true model.
Originally posted by Humphrie Originally posted by ste2000 EVE has now 500K subscribers and they are not thinking of going F2P, because those 500K subscribers a month means 5 Million dollars per month or 60 Million Dollars a year of revenues
The truly wonderful thing about EVE is that the game was essentially designed from the outset to be niche, and thus the following that they have developed over the years is nothing short of a massive windfall, because I am sure that their operating costs have remained relatively low, even as growth has taken hold.
I wish we'd see more games like that, TBH -- games with a sub model designed to cater to a small audience; games that acknowledge that the market is flooded at the moment, and whose designers realize that, if you do it right, 500k subs a year can be a very profitable business.
Part of the problem with MMOs right now is that everyone big is trying to be THE GUY. Eventually, it's true, someone else will be THE GUY. However, it'd be interesting and nice if fewer people tried to be THE GUY, and instead were content with being A GUY.
I actually didn't like EVE. And I love pvp/rvr games. In the end, the pvp wasn't tactical enough for me, and the things I adored (the intrigue, politics and economy) it took me too long to enjoy them.
Yet EVE's devotion to their goal still inspires me. They have a purity that is refreshing for a game company. They made a niche. And then they said "how can we make the niche better" not "how can we maximize short term subs." And they continue to make money hand over fist.
While the raw revenue isn't what TOR is, you can bet your last penny that the ROI on EVE is expotentially better than TOR.
Originally posted by Baddogbill The scam is paying a subscription ...please explain what WoW has done with the 15$ a month folks have paid for the last 3 years. The reasoning that because you pay for something makes it better ...need I go any farther than the fact people pay 2-3$ for bottled water that comes out of the same tap that someone else pays 0.005$ to drink and flush down their toilet.
WoW has lasted almost a decade. If you can find me a F2P game that delivered value to its customers the way WoW did for the time it has.....
When a game is this old, you are going to basically get inertia. But they have rebooted the way they approached the game with Cataclysm (for better or worse) and they are doing so again with Mists of Pandaria (again, for better or worse.)
You don't have to like WoW (I hated it) to admire at how they have remained the top dog, and how even when they are failing (they are down to around 9 million subscribers), they lose more subscribers in a year than most games get playing for the entire span of that game.
People still think WoW is an anamoly. They became the top dog through a combination of brilliant research, easy marketing, a gold plated reputation, and good fortune. And they've remained the top dog through continuing to keep their game relevant maybe not to veteran gamers like those that visit this site, but they stil bring in people every day.
Originally posted by Humphrie Originally posted by alexanys1982 heres the future, please bookmark my post. 59.99 box price Full cash shop F2P conversion of said box price after 8months-1 year. More added to cash shop Life support. Amount spent on game? maybe 20-50mil Amount earned after full cycle completes and coders have been fired, 100mill +. The egg on your faces? priceless
I'm sure it will smash sales records. However I'm equally sure it wouls smash records no matter what payment model they used, f2p or p2p.
I see the majority of MMO's doing exactly what Alex states, and I'm equally sure that the majority of MMO's will actually plan for that and have a conversion tucked away in their pocket ready to go.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by Humphrie Originally posted by alexanys1982 heres the future, please bookmark my post. 59.99 box price Full cash shop F2P conversion of said box price after 8months-1 year. More added to cash shop Life support. Amount spent on game? maybe 20-50mil Amount earned after full cycle completes and coders have been fired, 100mill +. The egg on your faces? priceless
That's not evidence of anything, though. I'm certain the U.S. has plans to invade (or head off an invasion from) Canada or the United Kingdom. It doesn't mean it would ever in a million years happen, but if you're smart, you plan for every eventuality.
And, in the case of MMOs, when nearly all games will eventually die due to old age/technology marching onwards, it's important to plan for the 'endgame.' That doesn't mean it's what they're aiming for -- it means that they've got a contingency 'just in case' they can't cut it as a P2P game.
Again, F2P is where MMOs go to die. It's like the retirement home in Boca Raton, FL. Yeah, you might go visit granny and granpa there every year or two... but make no mistake why they're there: it's to die.
Originally posted by Humphrie Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by Humphrie Originally posted by alexanys1982 heres the future, please bookmark my post. 59.99 box price Full cash shop F2P conversion of said box price after 8months-1 year. More added to cash shop Life support. Amount spent on game? maybe 20-50mil Amount earned after full cycle completes and coders have been fired, 100mill +. The egg on your faces? priceless
Good thing I didn't say it was evidence of anything. In fact I'm pretty sure I said, "I"m sure, I"m pretty sure," and "I see" clearly expressing my opinion.
You also haven't given evidence of anything. You presented your opinion.
No F2p is not where MMO's go to die, and several with stable populations and making a profit have gone f2p.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by ste2000
WOW shows that Subscription model is where the money is.
No. This may show that subs model brings in more than f2p when the number of subscribers goes beyond a certain point.
F2P is just a lifeboat for a dieing MMOs.
No. See above post.
EVE has now 500K subscribers and they are not thinking of going F2P, because those 500K subscribers a month means 5 Million dollars per month or 60 Million Dollars a year of revenues
Eve doesn't have 500k but it is doing very well. It actually has a method of f2p in there (pay for sub with plex). http://www.ccpgames.com/en/public-relations/press-releases/article/9086/ccp-names-tiancity-exclusive-eve-online-publisher-for
No Western F2P MMO can make a similar amount of money, not even close.
Sources please. I don't have any clue at all, not even a glimmer as to how much money EQ2, EQ, CoH, Lotro... is making with their f2p model. So if you have numbers please share them.
Also eve is played on a world market, 200 countries. If you are going to compare Eve's world numbers, then you cannot just look at western MMO subs, you need to compare world subs. Compare like to like.
You don't follow much the MMO industry.
EQ2 had 200K at its peak 4 years ago, since then its population declined drammatically, same for LOTRO, DDO ( which was technically dead), AoC and so on.
Every "Western" MMO that went F2P had less than 100K players when they switched to RMT transaction.
But you do not need to trust me saying that only "dead" MMO goes F2P in the western market (I am not talking about the Asians which are built on F2P model and they are successful indeed)
Look at Funcom.
AoC is F2P, so they have the technology, yet TSW is subscription based (for now, though I predict it will go F2P in 6 months time...................because it will lose subs)
If Funcom thought the F2P model was the winning formula they would have launched TSW as a F2P, but they didn't, because the Subscription model is still the more profitable if you can have a steady player base at least between 300K and 500K subs.
Problem with Western MMOs is that the majority of them, don't have more than 200K subs after few months from their release because they are so shallow that player simply refuses to pay a monthly fee for a WoW clone or even worse for an Online Game (Single Player game with MMO features)
F2P games could be very profitable, if they were built on the Pay To Win model like all the Asian MMOs.
But Western MMOs goes F2P because they aren't good enough and they fail to have a decent subscription base.
This is sad but it's the truth.
Originally posted by eyelolled Here is the most basic truth of it. There are high quality F2P games out there. F2P is a viable revenue model. The most anticipated game on the horizon is B2P. B2P is a viable revenue model. There are people that will realize they can play an enjoyable game without paying a subscription. There are people that will feel a subscription is the best model, and continue to pay to play. Here is the assumption. I think the number of people that choose B2P or F2P will continue to be an increasing percentage of the market.
Of course, it's a great marketing technique. Use the word "free" and watch the masses come running. Paying for stuff is so passe.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.-- Herman Melville
Originally posted by ste2000 F2P games could be very profitable, if they were built on the Pay To Win model like all the Asian MMOs. But Western MMOs goes F2P because they aren't good enough and they fail to have a decent subscription base. This is sad but it's the truth.
i thought Smeds overview, from last year, of the rise in free to play was well written
The Free Future
Kickstarter: Stuff I'm supporting
Originally posted by Nadia Originally posted by ste2000 F2P games could be very profitable, if they were built on the Pay To Win model like all the Asian MMOs. But Western MMOs goes F2P because they aren't good enough and they fail to have a decent subscription base. This is sad but it's the truth.
Funny he used Zynga as an example, their stock hit an all time low the other day.
Originally posted by dave6660
Yeah, and marketing technqiue usually works great when it is backed up by reality. Like in this case, as shown again and again, most F2P players never pay a dime.
Of course the masses come running. Heck, i come running too. Fun for Free. And i have been doing that for 2-3 years now.
In fact, after my WOW annual pass is up, i probably will never play a sub MMO again.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by dave6660
The F2P model will work great until the small minority who subsidize the large majority get fed up and stop paying.