I'm willing to pay a sub if the game is good, if SWG was still around and hadn't turned into the NGE, I'd still be playing it today. Reading around TOR's forums, lots of posters said they'll keep paying for a sub even after it goes F2P, dunno if they're serious or trolling but the majority aren't willing.
Also referring to an earlier post, WoW still retains ~2.5 million players from EU & NA (look on warcraftrealms), that's more than what SWTOR can sustain longer than 3 months. Games like City of Heroes that has never gone above 200K players in the past 8 years it's been out, are still holding ~150K players with F2P, only a handful (half of my outfit) actually pays a sub to access the premium server and zone, when you gain enough tokens on your account, you get to keep what you gain instead of having to pay and get for a limited time- so there's no reason to pay a sub when you've gotten all the tokens, unless you want to access the server (which isn't very populated).
You haven't burst my bubble because you are saying exactly what i said. EA mentioned before SWTOR release that they need 500K subs to keep things going on profitable rate. But since it is EA they will never be satisfied with this. If any other company was involved they would be veyr happy with that many players and try to improve game further while tryign to make sure that they maintain those numbers.
But i don't blame them going F2P is lot more profitable considering that monthly sub option is still there and they will rake in even more cash through in game item shop. This combo never fails.
I guess Turbine was also desperate when they made LOTRO F2P right? what you call desperaton is what i call 'grabbing the opprtunity when you see it'.
SWTOR had 500k+ subscribers before the August 20th 6 month subs ran out. The game was in trouble.
In regards to LOTRO, they went FTP precisely bacause they were in trouble. The game's subscriber base had fallen to 200,000 in spring of 2010. After the switch to FTP, it jumped back up to 550,000 players (Not subscribers, players total.) at its peak in January of 2011. The infusion of players and the cash shop allowed the game to remain open.
Here's the thing. Since 2011, the ammount of total players (subs and FTPers) has fallen back to 250,000 total across 29 servers. Also, since it went to FTP the quality and quantity of new content has been reduced (although the cash shop is under constant expansion and revision.)
LOTRO, the model which SWTOR is now basing itself, converted to Freemium because it had to, not because it wanted to.
The boost was at its peak 350,000 people, most of which paid little to nothing. Just over 2 years later, the game finds itself back in almost the same situation they were in before the FTP, or as you put it, desperate.
Making a game FTP doesn't gurantee profits. Just ask Zynga how that's going lately.
You haven't burst my bubble because you are saying exactly what i said. EA mentioned before SWTOR release that they need 500K subs to keep things going on profitable rate. But since it is EA they will never be satisfied with this. If any other company was involved they would be veyr happy with that many players and try to improve game further while tryign to make sure that they maintain those numbers.
But i don't blame them going F2P is lot more profitable considering that monthly sub option is still there and they will rake in even more cash through in game item shop. This combo never fails.
I guess Turbine was also desperate when they made LOTRO F2P right? what you call desperaton is what i call 'grabbing the opprtunity when you see it'.
SWTOR had 500k+ subscribers before the August 20th 6 month subs ran out. The game was in trouble.
In regards to LOTRO, they went FTP precisely bacause they were in trouble. The game's subscriber base had fallen to 200,000 in spring of 2010. After the switch to FTP, it jumped back up to 550,000 players (Not subscribers, players total.) at its peak in January of 2011. The infusion of players and the cash shop allowed the game to remain open.
Here's the thing. Since 2011, the ammount of total players (subs and FTPers) has fallen back to 250,000 total across 29 servers. Also, since it went to FTP the quality and quantity of new content has been reduced (although the cash shop is under constant expansion and revision.)
LOTRO, the model which SWTOR is now basing itself, converted to Freemium because it had to, not because it wanted to.
The boost was at its peak 350,000 people, most of which paid little to nothing. Just over 2 years later, the game finds itself back in almost the same situation they were in before the FTP, or as you put it, desperate.
Making a game FTP doesn't gurantee profits. Just ask Zynga how that's going lately.
Population of LOTRO is still quite healthy considering how old it is now. So yes in long run F2P model does work. Ioreover SW IP also helps and game is still new so i am quite sure that they will double or tripple their profits with F2P model.
No way a 200, 000 + player base for a game like LOTRO is considered as a 'trouble'. That is a very decent player base for P2P title.
But since Turbine saw the jump in profits with DDO, they decided to go with same model for LOTRO.
Once cable tv and theater movies didn't have commercials then someone realized people would pay for a service with commercials.
Subs aren't dead, but cash shops are here to stay.
swtor didn't die because it was sub. It died because to much money was dumped into it. You should only spend as much money on a game that you can realistically expect to make off of it (at least then you break even).
Population of LOTRO is still quite healthy considering how old it is now. So yes in long run F2P model does work. Ioreover SW IP also helps and game is still new so i am quite sure that they will double or tripple their profits with F2P model.
No way a 200, 000 + player base for a game like LOTRO is considered as a 'trouble'. That is a very decent player base for P2P title.
But since Turbine saw the jump in profits with DDO, they decided to go with same model for LOTRO.
Ok, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Opinions come in many flavors, as does Kool-Aid.
Population of LOTRO is still quite healthy considering how old it is now. So yes in long run F2P model does work. Ioreover SW IP also helps and game is still new so i am quite sure that they will double or tripple their profits with F2P model.
No way a 200, 000 + player base for a game like LOTRO is considered as a 'trouble'. That is a very decent player base for P2P title.
But since Turbine saw the jump in profits with DDO, they decided to go with same model for LOTRO.
Ok, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Opinions come in many flavors, as does Kool-Aid.
Yes it is my opinion that 250 000 player base is very decent for P2P. How many P2P titles hit 10 mill like WOW anyways? or even get to be at 1 million or 500K and stay stable there for many years? FF MMO was the only exception and even there too majority of subs came from Asian players. so it frequeted between 300K to 400K subs for many years.
So yes i completely disagree tha LOTRO went F2P because 250, 000 player base spelled doomed for the game. Majority of P2P titles would kill to have that many players.
If you don't have anything better to say atleast don't try to undermine my opinion by using words like 'kool aid'. That is very low.
Originally posted by busdriver Someone call Blizzard that they're doing it wrong.
Wow have been out for 8 years and people are addicted so that is not really proving anything.
I still think EA is just trying to cover up their misstake but for Blizzard to prove or disprove anything you need to wait 2 more years (or more) until Titan releases.
It is my opinion that P2Ps flirt with itemshops is causing a problem to the model though.If future P2P games includes all content and actually get free updates instead of paid expansions the model will live on for a long time. But most companies seems to both want to eat the cake and keep it and that isnt really possible anymore.
Originally posted by busdriver Someone call Blizzard that they're doing it wrong.
Wow have been out for 8 years and people are addicted so that is not really proving anything.
I still think EA is just trying to cover up their misstake but for Blizzard to prove or disprove anything you need to wait 2 more years (or more) until Titan releases.
It is my opinion that P2Ps flirt with itemshops is causing a problem to the model though.If future P2P games includes all content and actually get free updates instead of paid expansions the model will live on for a long time. But most companies seems to both want to eat the cake and keep it and that isnt really possible anymore.
I think that GW2 will probably be the death knell for themepark P2P...
But I dunno, I think that a game remaining profitable with a P2P model for eight years actually is an argument in favor of P2P being viable. Saying that you have to ignore something because it has remained successfuly with the P2P model for a long time doesn't make much sense to me.
In fact, I think that WoW even gives more credence to the P2P model's viability because it has remained dominant with the P2P model despite a legion of F2P competitors and the fact that it is eight years old.
I would rather pay $15 a month for a game I like then a free to play model. Heck I paid $45 a month to play SWG because I hade 3 accounts and never thought twice about it.Now I would like to see all games have a free trail sooner to see if they are worth the $50 bucks to buy in the first place.
Population of LOTRO is still quite healthy considering how old it is now. So yes in long run F2P model does work. Ioreover SW IP also helps and game is still new so i am quite sure that they will double or tripple their profits with F2P model.
No way a 200, 000 + player base for a game like LOTRO is considered as a 'trouble'. That is a very decent player base for P2P title.
But since Turbine saw the jump in profits with DDO, they decided to go with same model for LOTRO.
Ok, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Opinions come in many flavors, as does Kool-Aid.
Yes it is my opinion that 250 000 player base is very decent for P2P. How many P2P titles hit 10 mill like WOW anyways? or even get to be at 1 million or 500K and stay stable there for many years? FF MMO was the only exception and even there too majority of subs came from Asian players. so it frequeted between 300K to 400K subs for many years.
So yes i completely disagree tha LOTRO went F2P because 250, 000 player base spelled doomed for the game. Majority of P2P titles would kill to have that many players.
If you don't have anything better to say atleast don't try to undermine my opinion by using words like 'kool aid'. That is very low.
I'm sorry if you don't like the term Kool-Aid, but it seemed apt to me. It is a bit sophomoric I guess.
It is generally accepted that LOTRO went FTP because it had to or shut down. Turbine spun it that it was to tripple revenue. You seem to be taking the same stance.
It is generally accepted that SWTOR went FTP because it had to. EA spun it that it is because P2P is no longer a valid payment model . You seem to be taking the same stance.
I'll agree to disagree and not lob in pejorative "Buzz Words".
Although I am having a hard time figuring out why FTP is the way to go, but LOTRO was a success as a sub; don't judge LOTRO by WoW's success; WoW doesn't prove that P2P is a viable payment model: therefore SWTOR which has over 500k subs should go FTP, because the 500 k means its a success but FTP maximizes profits. There's a lot of contradictions in there.
Originally posted by grimal It's about time the big studios started admitting what many have known for some time. This declaration is a win-win for all.
You do understand of course EA doesn't have a clue as their recent releases like ME3, SW:tor, and DA2 have shown. EA is very much a failing company (check their stocks over the last year) So by saying you back them as knowledgable when they can't make any good economic choices themselves I'd have to wonder.
Originally posted by grimal It's about time the big studios started admitting what many have known for some time. This declaration is a win-win for all.
You do understand of course EA doesn't have a clue as their recent releases like ME3, SW:tor, and DA2 have shown. EA is very much a failing company (check their stocks over the last year) So by saying you back them as knowledgable when they can't make any good economic choices themselves I'd have to wonder.
a bit like taking marriage guidance advice from a 3 times divorcee
Originally posted by grimalIt's about time the big studios started admitting what many have known for some time. This declaration is a win-win for all.
You do understand of course EA doesn't have a clue as their recent releases like ME3, SW:tor, and DA2 have shown. EA is very much a failing company (check their stocks over the last year) So by saying you back them as knowledgable when they can't make any good economic choices themselves I'd have to wonder.
They were also voted the worst gaming company. Their console releases are become very stale too, I've been a long time player in NFL Madden and NHL series and I stopped after NHL 10 and Madden 09 as they were turned into trashy noob games with recycled textures and features from the previous (play them and you'll see what I mean).
As long as Rock-Star keeps releasing fun Grand Theft Auto and related games, I'll be playing those, but once Rock-Star attempts an MMO game, it's game over. I also think the Skyrim MMO is a bad idea.
The TV comparison is interesting. People do subscriber to e.g. HBO and will continue to do so despite "free to watch" television. It is all about value.
And that is what EA seem to have missed.
Sure going F2P should boost the population - it kept Anarchy Online afloat for year. And has boosted the numbers for lots of other games ... at least the initial numbers. After all we can all sign up. We can all be counted as players of 20, 50, 100 or more F2P games. There are very few that any of us will play at any one time however.
Zynga data simply confirm what we all "know" - that most F2P players pay nothing or very little. and lots of advertising is needed to replace churn.
EA are going to need millions of F2P "subscribers" and millions of new F2P "subscribers" every month even if they only need a fraction of the 500k they talked of to cover their costs.
They've misunderstood their exit interviews. They assume that 40% won't pay a subscription, I maintain most of them will (since it really is a small amount of money) if the content is worth the buyers time.
Apparently they failed to deliver on engaging long term content, but don't seem to realize it yet.
Don't worry, when people don't stick around for the F2P version either, they'll understand the real issue.
+ 100. Completely agree. MMO's now a days have no content, making f2p the only option. Too many mmos that only last a couple months. What happened to worlds like Vanguard with content for a year on release?
Yes, the sub based model for sub par games is pretty much dead. Sure your marketing may convience people to buy the box but it in no way shape or form can keep them paying monthly. Need long term fun,quality and content for that which isn't EA's area of expertise lol.
Originally posted by gervaise1 The TV comparison is interesting. People do subscriber to e.g. HBO and will continue to do so despite "free to watch" television. It is all about value.
Kind of, depends on who the cable provider is, HBO has decent shows (I like Boardwalk Empire), but other paid packages are usually garbage, MovieCentral plays horrible movies 95% of the time over and over, but that's part of the package to get HBO. The Video on Demand usually has crap movies and "free" episodes of past TV series, which usually are a year old or older.
Basically on my provider, most of it is garbage, I don't even know why I bother with a HD box when most of it is just crap in HD.
They've misunderstood their exit interviews. They assume that 40% won't pay a subscription, I maintain most of them will (since it really is a small amount of money) if the content is worth the buyers time.
Apparently they failed to deliver on engaging long term content, but don't seem to realize it yet.
Don't worry, when people don't stick around for the F2P version either, they'll understand the real issue.
Exactly. Which is also completely illogical anyway. Why would people buy a game that has a subscription model, if they aren;t prepared to pay a subscription. That would make no sense, unless you really believed these people didn;t know before they purchased the box.
EA is purposefully reading the wrong conclusions from the exit interviews. Its all investor spin so that they don;t lose confidence in the move to F2P. "Look Mr Investor, we aren't doing a poor job, this is what players are asking for!"
They treat players and investors alike as if they are stupid. They should get burnt and I really hope your prediction about F2P is spot on.
According to EA's own statement they had around 500K players when they announced F2P model. So their decision to go F2P has more to do with taking advantage of this model than SWTOR not having enough players to support it in P2P category.
EA knows that they can easily hit 1 mill playerbase by going F2P. it has the playerbase who won't mind payign monthly subs at the same time there is huge market of those players who like F2P games.
I would say EA is very clever and companies like Trion too should follow EA and go F2P while keeping monthly sub option on for those who prefer it.
I hate to burst your bubble there, but according to EA's own public statements, 500K subscription sustained was the MINIMUM required for TOR to break even. Outside analysts had placed it even higher (some even more then TWICE that amount). Given that, the trend in thier subscription numbers had been sharply declining and it's unkown where it would have bottomed out...... the decision to go F2P in this case is nothing to do with cleverness....it's simple damage control and desperation.
They are trying to salvage what they can. Furthmore 1 million players at $7.50 per month would put TOR significantly worse off then 500K players at $15 per month.
It's Operations 101 for any service based offering (which is what MMO's are). Each USER/PLAYER you have is a COST to you. It's only when that user is making more PURCHASES each month then they cost to keep, that you gain a proffit. You can gain some economies of scale but a large number of operatings costs are inelastic beyond a certain minimal threshold. Basicaly that means you've got to find a way to cut your COSTS per user, often by cutting/reducing your level or quality of service, and hope you get such a big increase in volume that it more then makes up for the higher markup you would have gotten at $15 per month. Clearly that CAN work (and some supposed "F2P" offerings may even be able to push thier average gross revenue higher then $15 per user) but by no means is it a sure thing.
You haven't burst my bubble because you are saying exactly what i said. EA mentioned before SWTOR release that they need 500K subs to keep things going on profitable rate. But since it is EA they will never be satisfied with this. If any other company was involved they would be veyr happy with that many players and try to improve game further while tryign to make sure that they maintain those numbers.
But i don't blame them going F2P is lot more profitable considering that monthly sub option is still there and they will rake in even more cash through in game item shop. This combo never fails.
I guess Turbine was also desperate when they made LOTRO F2P right? what you call desperaton is what i call 'grabbing the opprtunity when you see it'.
Lets try a little logic here....
EA's public statement (which BTW would have been low-balled in order to soften the blow to stockholders if the game didn't get as many subs as they hoped) was that 500K was the MINIMUM amount required to break even from an operating standpoint. Anything less then that would have put them in the RED. Breaking even is NOT what you invest 200+ million (largest Development budget of any MMO in history) dollars in to do..... that's a first rate DISASTER. For 200+ million in capital sunk in over that amount of time you need an excellent ROI to justify the opportunity costs to the investors...not something where they could have done better sinking thier money into Government insured T-bills.
A game that had been built with MUCH lower development costs could be quite satisfied with 500K subs...one built with TOR's budget would really want something more like 2 million+ subs to JUSTIFY that level of investment.
I give you $1, 5 years later you give me back $100,001.... I'm extatic. I give you $100,000, 5 years later you give me back $100,001..... I think you are the biggest flop I've ever met.
At the point at which EA announced FTP they had 500K subs....BUT thier trend in subs had been in STEADY and SHARP decline for months. Fast forward a few month's time with the same trends and they are WAY UNDER the 500K minimum they need to break even. Changing pricing models isn't clevernness under that scenerio, it's PANIC.
Turbines case with LOTRO was different. Thier subs weren't in FREE FALL. They weren't exactly what the company hoped for, but they at least were relatively steady. Turbines other MMO, DDO was an absolute celler dweller. They tried switching pricing models with it as an EXPERIMENT...since they had nothing to lose. Kate Paiz (formerly of the flopped there.com) was championing F2P/Freemium....it's how she was trying to stake her reputation as an executive. DDO saw something like a 500 percent increase in revenue as a result of the switch...but again this was a 500 percent increase in next to nothing. Turbine got all excited thinking it could repeat the experiment with LOTRO, which while not a blockbuster, was actualy doing a significant amount of business. At the same time they wanted to sell the company to WB...so they needed a big hook to pitch the businesses future and make it look more exciting to a potential buyer then it actualy was. Thats what drove the decision in LOTRO's case.
As it was, LOTRO got a decent SHORT TERM bump from the move, though nothing like the 500 percent that they were expecting. The bump dropped off over time. What Turbine's actual numbers look like, no one external really knows....but it's not exactly a powerhouse. It's actualy debatable whether the Freemium move has resulted in better long term proffit for the game then sticking with the sub model and using the resources invested in switching pricing models to invest in further development of the game and content to boost subs would have been. We'll never really know. It certainly helped sell Turbine to WB though.
F2P has now become the latest industry buzzword, just like "social gaming" was a few years ago. Like with other buzzwords in other industry, there is a whole sub-industry involved in pitching the buzzword (pricing model in this case) to the industry itself. Like so many other buzzwords, there is a kernel of truth in there....as there is the POTENTIAL to realize alot of proffit there....same was true of "social gaming" as well....but as with so many other buzzwords, it's built on alot more HYPE then anything else. In the end, SOME companies will make some decent proffit of the model.....but it's hardly the magic bullet recipie for MMO success that the hypsters are pitching it as. Fast forward a few years and F2P will be yesterdays news (just as "social gaming" is starting to become today) and they'll be on to the next new buzzword that has become the "greatest thing ever invented" and executives will be eating it up....mostly because the are nearly as clueless about what it takes to make an outstanding success as the rest of us....just that they can't afford to be PERCIEVED as clueless in their positions....so they ride the hype-wave in order to try to build the confidence in thier investors and stockholders that they know hold to lead thier companies to outstanding success...whether they do or not.... all you have to do is "trust them". Same thing happens in most other industries. Once you've been around for awhile and recognize the cycle for what it really is....it's rather humerous to watch.
Comments
I'm willing to pay a sub if the game is good, if SWG was still around and hadn't turned into the NGE, I'd still be playing it today. Reading around TOR's forums, lots of posters said they'll keep paying for a sub even after it goes F2P, dunno if they're serious or trolling but the majority aren't willing.
Also referring to an earlier post, WoW still retains ~2.5 million players from EU & NA (look on warcraftrealms), that's more than what SWTOR can sustain longer than 3 months. Games like City of Heroes that has never gone above 200K players in the past 8 years it's been out, are still holding ~150K players with F2P, only a handful (half of my outfit) actually pays a sub to access the premium server and zone, when you gain enough tokens on your account, you get to keep what you gain instead of having to pay and get for a limited time- so there's no reason to pay a sub when you've gotten all the tokens, unless you want to access the server (which isn't very populated).
SWTOR had 500k+ subscribers before the August 20th 6 month subs ran out. The game was in trouble.
In regards to LOTRO, they went FTP precisely bacause they were in trouble. The game's subscriber base had fallen to 200,000 in spring of 2010. After the switch to FTP, it jumped back up to 550,000 players (Not subscribers, players total.) at its peak in January of 2011. The infusion of players and the cash shop allowed the game to remain open.
Here's the thing. Since 2011, the ammount of total players (subs and FTPers) has fallen back to 250,000 total across 29 servers. Also, since it went to FTP the quality and quantity of new content has been reduced (although the cash shop is under constant expansion and revision.)
LOTRO, the model which SWTOR is now basing itself, converted to Freemium because it had to, not because it wanted to.
The boost was at its peak 350,000 people, most of which paid little to nothing. Just over 2 years later, the game finds itself back in almost the same situation they were in before the FTP, or as you put it, desperate.
Making a game FTP doesn't gurantee profits. Just ask Zynga how that's going lately.
Population of LOTRO is still quite healthy considering how old it is now. So yes in long run F2P model does work. Ioreover SW IP also helps and game is still new so i am quite sure that they will double or tripple their profits with F2P model.
No way a 200, 000 + player base for a game like LOTRO is considered as a 'trouble'. That is a very decent player base for P2P title.
But since Turbine saw the jump in profits with DDO, they decided to go with same model for LOTRO.
Once cable tv and theater movies didn't have commercials then someone realized people would pay for a service with commercials.
Subs aren't dead, but cash shops are here to stay.
swtor didn't die because it was sub. It died because to much money was dumped into it. You should only spend as much money on a game that you can realistically expect to make off of it (at least then you break even).
Ok, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Opinions come in many flavors, as does Kool-Aid.
Yes it is my opinion that 250 000 player base is very decent for P2P. How many P2P titles hit 10 mill like WOW anyways? or even get to be at 1 million or 500K and stay stable there for many years? FF MMO was the only exception and even there too majority of subs came from Asian players. so it frequeted between 300K to 400K subs for many years.
So yes i completely disagree tha LOTRO went F2P because 250, 000 player base spelled doomed for the game. Majority of P2P titles would kill to have that many players.
If you don't have anything better to say atleast don't try to undermine my opinion by using words like 'kool aid'. That is very low.
Wow have been out for 8 years and people are addicted so that is not really proving anything.
I still think EA is just trying to cover up their misstake but for Blizzard to prove or disprove anything you need to wait 2 more years (or more) until Titan releases.
It is my opinion that P2Ps flirt with itemshops is causing a problem to the model though.If future P2P games includes all content and actually get free updates instead of paid expansions the model will live on for a long time. But most companies seems to both want to eat the cake and keep it and that isnt really possible anymore.
I think that GW2 will probably be the death knell for themepark P2P...
But I dunno, I think that a game remaining profitable with a P2P model for eight years actually is an argument in favor of P2P being viable. Saying that you have to ignore something because it has remained successfuly with the P2P model for a long time doesn't make much sense to me.
In fact, I think that WoW even gives more credence to the P2P model's viability because it has remained dominant with the P2P model despite a legion of F2P competitors and the fact that it is eight years old.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I'm sorry if you don't like the term Kool-Aid, but it seemed apt to me. It is a bit sophomoric I guess.
It is generally accepted that LOTRO went FTP because it had to or shut down. Turbine spun it that it was to tripple revenue. You seem to be taking the same stance.
It is generally accepted that SWTOR went FTP because it had to. EA spun it that it is because P2P is no longer a valid payment model . You seem to be taking the same stance.
I'll agree to disagree and not lob in pejorative "Buzz Words".
Although I am having a hard time figuring out why FTP is the way to go, but LOTRO was a success as a sub; don't judge LOTRO by WoW's success; WoW doesn't prove that P2P is a viable payment model: therefore SWTOR which has over 500k subs should go FTP, because the 500 k means its a success but FTP maximizes profits. There's a lot of contradictions in there.
No logic was found in that response, try again.
You do understand of course EA doesn't have a clue as their recent releases like ME3, SW:tor, and DA2 have shown. EA is very much a failing company (check their stocks over the last year) So by saying you back them as knowledgable when they can't make any good economic choices themselves I'd have to wonder.
omg. show me the statistical data to how many wow players are in the eastern market instead of just speculation.
I dont think there should be one payment model to rule them all. We have choices now.
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
a bit like taking marriage guidance advice from a 3 times divorcee
As long as Rock-Star keeps releasing fun Grand Theft Auto and related games, I'll be playing those, but once Rock-Star attempts an MMO game, it's game over. I also think the Skyrim MMO is a bad idea.
The TV comparison is interesting. People do subscriber to e.g. HBO and will continue to do so despite "free to watch" television. It is all about value.
And that is what EA seem to have missed.
Sure going F2P should boost the population - it kept Anarchy Online afloat for year. And has boosted the numbers for lots of other games ... at least the initial numbers. After all we can all sign up. We can all be counted as players of 20, 50, 100 or more F2P games. There are very few that any of us will play at any one time however.
Zynga data simply confirm what we all "know" - that most F2P players pay nothing or very little. and lots of advertising is needed to replace churn.
EA are going to need millions of F2P "subscribers" and millions of new F2P "subscribers" every month even if they only need a fraction of the 500k they talked of to cover their costs.
+ 100. Completely agree. MMO's now a days have no content, making f2p the only option. Too many mmos that only last a couple months. What happened to worlds like Vanguard with content for a year on release?
Personally, I think they are just clueless as to what 'Content' is and to what Features/Content/Games should use/require a Subscription model.
Saying 'Subscription Model Games are dead' is just an excuse for incompetence and lack of research/thought on their part.
Trying to milk money out of people by charging subscriptions for what is given away for free in a market is always going to turn out badly.
EA will have to work harder to get peoples money, whether work is better games or (more likely) better ways to scam people.
Basically on my provider, most of it is garbage, I don't even know why I bother with a HD box when most of it is just crap in HD.
As I understand it, WoW never had 10+ million subscribers.
The players paid differently in Asia.
The subscription model only applied to NA/EU where the numbers were much, much.....MUCH less.
Exactly. Which is also completely illogical anyway. Why would people buy a game that has a subscription model, if they aren;t prepared to pay a subscription. That would make no sense, unless you really believed these people didn;t know before they purchased the box.
EA is purposefully reading the wrong conclusions from the exit interviews. Its all investor spin so that they don;t lose confidence in the move to F2P. "Look Mr Investor, we aren't doing a poor job, this is what players are asking for!"
They treat players and investors alike as if they are stupid. They should get burnt and I really hope your prediction about F2P is spot on.
Lets try a little logic here....
EA's public statement (which BTW would have been low-balled in order to soften the blow to stockholders if the game didn't get as many subs as they hoped) was that 500K was the MINIMUM amount required to break even from an operating standpoint. Anything less then that would have put them in the RED. Breaking even is NOT what you invest 200+ million (largest Development budget of any MMO in history) dollars in to do..... that's a first rate DISASTER. For 200+ million in capital sunk in over that amount of time you need an excellent ROI to justify the opportunity costs to the investors...not something where they could have done better sinking thier money into Government insured T-bills.
A game that had been built with MUCH lower development costs could be quite satisfied with 500K subs...one built with TOR's budget would really want something more like 2 million+ subs to JUSTIFY that level of investment.
I give you $1, 5 years later you give me back $100,001.... I'm extatic. I give you $100,000, 5 years later you give me back $100,001..... I think you are the biggest flop I've ever met.
At the point at which EA announced FTP they had 500K subs....BUT thier trend in subs had been in STEADY and SHARP decline for months. Fast forward a few month's time with the same trends and they are WAY UNDER the 500K minimum they need to break even. Changing pricing models isn't clevernness under that scenerio, it's PANIC.
Turbines case with LOTRO was different. Thier subs weren't in FREE FALL. They weren't exactly what the company hoped for, but they at least were relatively steady. Turbines other MMO, DDO was an absolute celler dweller. They tried switching pricing models with it as an EXPERIMENT...since they had nothing to lose. Kate Paiz (formerly of the flopped there.com) was championing F2P/Freemium....it's how she was trying to stake her reputation as an executive. DDO saw something like a 500 percent increase in revenue as a result of the switch...but again this was a 500 percent increase in next to nothing. Turbine got all excited thinking it could repeat the experiment with LOTRO, which while not a blockbuster, was actualy doing a significant amount of business. At the same time they wanted to sell the company to WB...so they needed a big hook to pitch the businesses future and make it look more exciting to a potential buyer then it actualy was. Thats what drove the decision in LOTRO's case.
As it was, LOTRO got a decent SHORT TERM bump from the move, though nothing like the 500 percent that they were expecting. The bump dropped off over time. What Turbine's actual numbers look like, no one external really knows....but it's not exactly a powerhouse. It's actualy debatable whether the Freemium move has resulted in better long term proffit for the game then sticking with the sub model and using the resources invested in switching pricing models to invest in further development of the game and content to boost subs would have been. We'll never really know. It certainly helped sell Turbine to WB though.
F2P has now become the latest industry buzzword, just like "social gaming" was a few years ago. Like with other buzzwords in other industry, there is a whole sub-industry involved in pitching the buzzword (pricing model in this case) to the industry itself. Like so many other buzzwords, there is a kernel of truth in there....as there is the POTENTIAL to realize alot of proffit there....same was true of "social gaming" as well....but as with so many other buzzwords, it's built on alot more HYPE then anything else. In the end, SOME companies will make some decent proffit of the model.....but it's hardly the magic bullet recipie for MMO success that the hypsters are pitching it as. Fast forward a few years and F2P will be yesterdays news (just as "social gaming" is starting to become today) and they'll be on to the next new buzzword that has become the "greatest thing ever invented" and executives will be eating it up....mostly because the are nearly as clueless about what it takes to make an outstanding success as the rest of us....just that they can't afford to be PERCIEVED as clueless in their positions....so they ride the hype-wave in order to try to build the confidence in thier investors and stockholders that they know hold to lead thier companies to outstanding success...whether they do or not.... all you have to do is "trust them". Same thing happens in most other industries. Once you've been around for awhile and recognize the cycle for what it really is....it's rather humerous to watch.