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.
I agree and disagree. I found that most people, even if they don't like a sub, will still pay for it if they feel the content of the game is worthwhile. SWTOR wasn't that game, and neither are many of the games coming out these days (in my opinion they're focusing too much on frivolous things like graphics and voice acting and forgetting to add the actual content). So yeah, they're definitely misunderstanding their problems.
However, I don't think they'll have trouble keeping people around for the F2P version. When DCUO when F2P it had even less content than SWTOR. I was level capped in 3 days and aside from raiding for gear, really didn't have much to do, considering I don't care for PvP and those achievements were boring as hell. Yet DCUO took off like a rocket. It's free, so people are evidently willing to put up with a lot more just because they can log in, if only to dick around, and not have to pay that monthly sub. It's not a waste of anything but time. People seem to respond well to that. I actually think F2P SWTOR will do really well, though it'll still be a while before they get to the point where EA gives a damn about them, just because they spent so much on dev.
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
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.
LOTRO was doing OK before the F2P move....not stellar by any stretch of the imagination....but ok. At least thier subs were relatively steady/slow decline when they made the switch...not like TOR's which were in free fall. LOTRO could easly afford to run on 200K subs because THEY DIDN'T RACK UP $200+ MILLION IN DEBT TO BUILD THE GAME. If you count any portion of what EA spent to buy BIOWARE into that...it's a heckuva alot more then that. That's why 500K subs and dropping was an unmitigated DISASTER for TOR.
LOTRO went F2P for 3 reasons....
- They got blinded by what happened with DDO.
- They needed something to make the companies future look brighter then it's present in order to boost the sale to WB.
- It's how Kate Paiz built her reputation...and she was the new hand at the helm.
According to EA the sub based model is dead. Perhaps this occured on Feb. 29th of 2012? In which case leap years are bad for sub based MMO's? I'm not sure, EA didn't go into details but they have exit surveys which definitively proove their assertion.
In all seriousness, it's spin statements like this, and their subsequent industry media bylines and articles that keep an unhealthy ammount of ire and discussion going about this title.
Well we all know that EA are the font of all wisdom and knowledge, right?
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.
I agree and disagree. I found that most people, even if they don't like a sub, will still pay for it if they feel the content of the game is worthwhile. SWTOR wasn't that game, and neither are many of the games coming out these days (in my opinion they're focusing too much on frivolous things like graphics and voice acting and forgetting to add the actual content). So yeah, they're definitely misunderstanding their problems.
However, I don't think they'll have trouble keeping people around for the F2P version. When DCUO when F2P it had even less content than SWTOR. I was level capped in 3 days and aside from raiding for gear, really didn't have much to do, considering I don't care for PvP and those achievements were boring as hell. Yet DCUO took off like a rocket. It's free, so people are evidently willing to put up with a lot more just because they can log in, if only to dick around, and not have to pay that monthly sub. It's not a waste of anything but time. People seem to respond well to that. I actually think F2P SWTOR will do really well, though it'll still be a while before they get to the point where EA gives a damn about them, just because they spent so much on dev.
Yeah, you're probably right, too often I base my assumptions on my personal playing habits which definitely aren't mainstream in any way. I would never log on a game just to "dick around", I'm always trying to achieve some goal or form of progression, but I can see where most others (with perhaps more free time) would enjoy doing so.
Let's see if EA can get the F2P model right..that still remains the question.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
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
Any chance if uo and daoc going free to play then ea?
Honestly this thread, u wouldn't take anything ea say seriously, they built their empire years ago, now like all empires they are at that senile stage, making bad decision after bad decision and being an inverse midas on everything they touch - e.g. how the hell are popcap looking money, their games are cheap to make, they are on just about every platform and they sold umpteen millions.
Who cares what EA says. I'll remind myself of this thread when i pay my next sub fee to another company besides EA.
Becasue of EA's stance can have serious ramifications? GW2 is non sub and many speculated that it will start a trend of deviating from P2P games or at least change it up a bit. EA is a major company who is following suite which can be the start of the P2P buisness model change with major compnaies. Neverwinter and Mechwarrior Online, both games likely to be sub worthy, are also going F2P (granted this is old news). Things are getting changed up, like it or not.
I think this really started with GW1, buy to play is the best best business model for AAA titles, but what needs to be realised is that when games do have cash shops and they sell "power" or "access" to content, they have already failed.
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.
I seriously doubt that SWTOR needed 500K subs to break even for operations month to month. That number has a large chunk of revenue apportioned to ROI. I would believe a number in the 50K range, not 10 times that.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Yes it has to be appreciated that GW1 was not more B2P than F2P. You paid for the content. There were slots etc. you could buy but fundamentally you paid for the content if you wanted it. Hardly a surprise then that each xpac was slick and polished.
With a subscription based game you paid - in advance - on a shaky promise that the developer might release some content and you might like the content.
I have said before I would sell the story lines post-level 15; something like $10 for the first, $7 for the second and $5 for each of the other 6 (or whatever).
F2P should give a boost to sub numbers - although a relaunch will cost money and marketing costs is one of the problems that Zynga has to grapple with but I can#t see it turning the game around. And it will need a lot of new players to increase revenue. As for profit - well. There is no evidence that going F2P increased DDO's profit - revenue was all that was ever talked about not profit. And I agree that LotR going F2P may have damaged the profitability of LotR over time.
SWTOR couldn't have possibly failed because it wasn't a very good game...it HAD to be the business model, that's the ticket!
If the sub model were dead, WoW would not still have like 8 million active players.
Or EVE or L2, most older and successful mmorpgs.
I thing EA will have to make an mmo WORTH a monthly fee before handing out their Expert assessment.
Yeah but that is part of the problem. A good portion of the triple A MMORPGs from 1997-2004 or those with enough funding/large enough company were able to come out with some original ideas. Some were awesome, some not so much, and others were wacky. Now look at all the P2P (or those that used to be) MMORPGs from 2005-present. The majority of the Western developers copied EQ1/EQ2/WOW while Eastern developers copied Lineage/LineageII/WOW.
Look at it this way (and something I've asked quite a few times before)... look at all of the P2P MMORPGs released from 2005 till now. Besides RIFT can you name me one or two other MMORPGs that are strictly running as a P2P business model with a healthy community?
Everyone else that released their product strictly as a P2P model from 2005-present has either closed shop, gone F2P, or has had severe server merges. There are many reasons why which I have discussed before, but this whole copy pasta as well as having 600 online games are key components as to why these games don't last very long and have a massive exodus in less than 6 months.
Hell, look at my earlier post in this very thread in regards to future titles.
That statement is pure arrogance. Blame the monetization model and not the game.
Cronie: Sir, people won't pay $15 bucks a month for OUR game.
CEO: Well, there's nothing wrong with the game so the problem must be the pricing model.
Cronie: Well, people pay $15 bucks for other mmo's.
CEO: But we can't admit that our game failed, so let's say sub fees are dead.
Cronie: Whatever you say boss
If in 1982 we played with the current mentality, we would have burned down all the pac man games since the red ghost was clearly OP. Instead we just got better at the game.
Even if the whole gaming market (e.g. MMOs, Social Games, etc.) indicates that overall spending on F2P titles has overtaken the earnings of subscription based titles [1] this may not necessarily be true for individual titles.
With the social games (e.g. Farmville) and their cash shops it's rather that only a small percentage of players become paying customers. And those few players are literally paying for all other players.
With the "freemium model" like DDO & Lotro there is a higher incentive to unlock content once without paying a subscription. In the long term (e.g. if you stick for several years to a game and keep coming back) the subscription doesn't offer many benefits and you are paying more. That's almost similar to having a lifetime account. Most other things that can be bought are a waste of money (e.g. consumable, mediocre items, cosmetic items (especially if the game offers a crafting system where you can get the equipment designs you like), etc.).
The only thing f2p or any similar model offers is kind of a free access to basic stuff. It's true that the playerbase will be increased, but from a business standpoint paying customers are better. But it's also a chicken-egg dilemma. If there are too few players an online game doesn't have that much appeal. If you can attract or keep a lot of players you need to expand your infrastructure which costs money. At best it's a gamble for an individual title. It may pay off. It may not pay off.
SWTOR will still have the stigma of a failed P2P MMO. If Bioware's / EA's marketing department might change that they'd have some chance. Personally I doubt it. They'll have to lurk along for some time. Even new content will be delivered without their #1 marketing ploy. Namely full VO storytelling. Additionally the transition to a F2P model will bind development resources. The question is whther they can keep their current player base until they can launch the payment changes. This means features that lots of players requested will be implemented later. But EA / Bioware were in a very delicate position. If they don't say anything people will get upset and possibly leave. If they announce the F2P change too early (the question is if Bioware / EA can keep an announced date) a lot of players might cancel their subscriptions to maybe come back later. After the transition.
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.
You realize that the NHL dev team is really small and poorly funded by EA. They can't redo the entire game every single year.
The NHL dev team works realy hard to make hockey more realistic every single year for the fans of the sport.
I don't care for Electronic Arts, but they're also the only ones making ice hockey into video game form now.
So I support the EA Sports NHL dev team. They're good guys, doing their best with very little.
Well, telling the public that sub based games are dead... Activision did the same with Call of Duty when MW2 came out (first CoD game that can't be modded legally) and telling the public that modding FPS games are dead.
Originally posted by CujoSWAoA Originally posted by sookster54Originally posted by winterOriginally 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.You realize that the NHL dev team is really small and poorly funded by EA. They can't redo the entire game every single year.
The NHL dev team works realy hard to make hockey more realistic every single year for the fans of the sport.
I don't care for Electronic Arts, but they're also the only ones making ice hockey into video game form now.
So I support the EA Sports NHL dev team. They're good guys, doing their best with very little.
The NHL (and Need for Speed) dev team are located in Vancouver, where i was born & raised and just moved out of there a year ago, I know a few people that used to work for them but not anymore, they did shrink, but there's no excuse to why they developed the PC version with the Playstation 2 engine for years, NHL 08 for PC was terrible when the console version was 20 times better.
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.
You realize that the NHL dev team is really small and poorly funded by EA. They can't redo the entire game every single year.
The NHL dev team works realy hard to make hockey more realistic every single year for the fans of the sport.
I don't care for Electronic Arts, but they're also the only ones making ice hockey into video game form now.
So I support the EA Sports NHL dev team. They're good guys, doing their best with very little.
You do realize that the reason that there is only one company, EA, producing NHL ice hockey games is because EA bought a long term licence for exclusice rights to NHL Hockey games. After shutting everyone else out of the market, their reasoning behind underfunding their hockey dev team is bacause the license cost "so much". They are rellying on people to buy their hockey game, since it is the only one, year after year; despite the fact that the game is essentially the same every year; due to EA underfunding thier dev team in a search to "maximize profits".
EA declares P2P dead and I declare that Bioware is dead.............and EA will follow soon, if they do not start putting game designers in charge of the projects rather than their marketing directors..
Let's see which prediction will be the more realistic..............
You realize that the NHL dev team is really small and poorly funded by EA. They can't redo the entire game every single year.
The NHL dev team works realy hard to make hockey more realistic every single year for the fans of the sport.
I don't care for Electronic Arts, but they're also the only ones making ice hockey into video game form now.
So I support the EA Sports NHL dev team. They're good guys, doing their best with very little.
Agreed, it is not their fault that they like Maxis have a slave contract and have to put out stuff way too often with too low budget.
But I still wish they released a new game like that every third year instead and made it different and better than earlier games. The same slightly updated game every single year is highway robbery.
Sub costs were originally put in place to help offset server costs for early MMOs. In a time where server costs for a MMO now barely reaches 100k, there is pretty much no excuse to have a sub fee these days. Or at least a sub fee as high as $13 a month like some MMOs charge.
EA declares P2P dead and I declare that Bioware is dead.............and EA will follow soon, if they do not start putting game designers in charge of the projects rather than their marketing directors..
Let's see which prediction will be the more realistic..............
Bioware isnt exactly dead, they just cant make a good MMO. They can still make acceptable singleplayer games, maybe not as good as NWN or BG 1 & 2 but at least acceptable like the ME series.
But I agree, EA must stop #%¤& with their studios and allow the devs to make fun games. Good games are made by gamers, not slimy weasels in suits.
Comments
I agree and disagree. I found that most people, even if they don't like a sub, will still pay for it if they feel the content of the game is worthwhile. SWTOR wasn't that game, and neither are many of the games coming out these days (in my opinion they're focusing too much on frivolous things like graphics and voice acting and forgetting to add the actual content). So yeah, they're definitely misunderstanding their problems.
However, I don't think they'll have trouble keeping people around for the F2P version. When DCUO when F2P it had even less content than SWTOR. I was level capped in 3 days and aside from raiding for gear, really didn't have much to do, considering I don't care for PvP and those achievements were boring as hell. Yet DCUO took off like a rocket. It's free, so people are evidently willing to put up with a lot more just because they can log in, if only to dick around, and not have to pay that monthly sub. It's not a waste of anything but time. People seem to respond well to that. I actually think F2P SWTOR will do really well, though it'll still be a while before they get to the point where EA gives a damn about them, just because they spent so much on dev.
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
LOTRO was doing OK before the F2P move....not stellar by any stretch of the imagination....but ok. At least thier subs were relatively steady/slow decline when they made the switch...not like TOR's which were in free fall. LOTRO could easly afford to run on 200K subs because THEY DIDN'T RACK UP $200+ MILLION IN DEBT TO BUILD THE GAME. If you count any portion of what EA spent to buy BIOWARE into that...it's a heckuva alot more then that. That's why 500K subs and dropping was an unmitigated DISASTER for TOR.
LOTRO went F2P for 3 reasons....
- They got blinded by what happened with DDO.
- They needed something to make the companies future look brighter then it's present in order to boost the sale to WB.
- It's how Kate Paiz built her reputation...and she was the new hand at the helm.
Well we all know that EA are the font of all wisdom and knowledge, right?
Yeah, you're probably right, too often I base my assumptions on my personal playing habits which definitely aren't mainstream in any way. I would never log on a game just to "dick around", I'm always trying to achieve some goal or form of progression, but I can see where most others (with perhaps more free time) would enjoy doing so.
Let's see if EA can get the F2P model right..that still remains the question.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
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
Honestly this thread, u wouldn't take anything ea say seriously, they built their empire years ago, now like all empires they are at that senile stage, making bad decision after bad decision and being an inverse midas on everything they touch - e.g. how the hell are popcap looking money, their games are cheap to make, they are on just about every platform and they sold umpteen millions.
I agree, good post.
If you work in the games industry F2P is just another box to put on your bullshit bingo card for those meetings with the marketing drones.
Who cares what EA says. I'll remind myself of this thread when i pay my next sub fee to another company besides EA.
Becasue of EA's stance can have serious ramifications? GW2 is non sub and many speculated that it will start a trend of deviating from P2P games or at least change it up a bit. EA is a major company who is following suite which can be the start of the P2P buisness model change with major compnaies. Neverwinter and Mechwarrior Online, both games likely to be sub worthy, are also going F2P (granted this is old news). Things are getting changed up, like it or not.
I think this really started with GW1, buy to play is the best best business model for AAA titles, but what needs to be realised is that when games do have cash shops and they sell "power" or "access" to content, they have already failed.
I seriously doubt that SWTOR needed 500K subs to break even for operations month to month. That number has a large chunk of revenue apportioned to ROI. I would believe a number in the 50K range, not 10 times that.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Yes it has to be appreciated that GW1 was not more B2P than F2P. You paid for the content. There were slots etc. you could buy but fundamentally you paid for the content if you wanted it. Hardly a surprise then that each xpac was slick and polished.
With a subscription based game you paid - in advance - on a shaky promise that the developer might release some content and you might like the content.
I have said before I would sell the story lines post-level 15; something like $10 for the first, $7 for the second and $5 for each of the other 6 (or whatever).
F2P should give a boost to sub numbers - although a relaunch will cost money and marketing costs is one of the problems that Zynga has to grapple with but I can#t see it turning the game around. And it will need a lot of new players to increase revenue. As for profit - well. There is no evidence that going F2P increased DDO's profit - revenue was all that was ever talked about not profit. And I agree that LotR going F2P may have damaged the profitability of LotR over time.
Or EVE or L2, most older and successful mmorpgs.
I thing EA will have to make an mmo WORTH a monthly fee before handing out their Expert assessment.
Yeah but that is part of the problem. A good portion of the triple A MMORPGs from 1997-2004 or those with enough funding/large enough company were able to come out with some original ideas. Some were awesome, some not so much, and others were wacky. Now look at all the P2P (or those that used to be) MMORPGs from 2005-present. The majority of the Western developers copied EQ1/EQ2/WOW while Eastern developers copied Lineage/LineageII/WOW.
Look at it this way (and something I've asked quite a few times before)... look at all of the P2P MMORPGs released from 2005 till now. Besides RIFT can you name me one or two other MMORPGs that are strictly running as a P2P business model with a healthy community?
Everyone else that released their product strictly as a P2P model from 2005-present has either closed shop, gone F2P, or has had severe server merges. There are many reasons why which I have discussed before, but this whole copy pasta as well as having 600 online games are key components as to why these games don't last very long and have a massive exodus in less than 6 months.
Hell, look at my earlier post in this very thread in regards to future titles.
That statement is pure arrogance. Blame the monetization model and not the game.
Cronie: Sir, people won't pay $15 bucks a month for OUR game.
CEO: Well, there's nothing wrong with the game so the problem must be the pricing model.
Cronie: Well, people pay $15 bucks for other mmo's.
CEO: But we can't admit that our game failed, so let's say sub fees are dead.
Cronie: Whatever you say boss
If in 1982 we played with the current mentality, we would have burned down all the pac man games since the red ghost was clearly OP. Instead we just got better at the game.
Even if the whole gaming market (e.g. MMOs, Social Games, etc.) indicates that overall spending on F2P titles has overtaken the earnings of subscription based titles [1] this may not necessarily be true for individual titles.
With the social games (e.g. Farmville) and their cash shops it's rather that only a small percentage of players become paying customers. And those few players are literally paying for all other players.
With the "freemium model" like DDO & Lotro there is a higher incentive to unlock content once without paying a subscription. In the long term (e.g. if you stick for several years to a game and keep coming back) the subscription doesn't offer many benefits and you are paying more. That's almost similar to having a lifetime account. Most other things that can be bought are a waste of money (e.g. consumable, mediocre items, cosmetic items (especially if the game offers a crafting system where you can get the equipment designs you like), etc.).
The only thing f2p or any similar model offers is kind of a free access to basic stuff. It's true that the playerbase will be increased, but from a business standpoint paying customers are better. But it's also a chicken-egg dilemma. If there are too few players an online game doesn't have that much appeal. If you can attract or keep a lot of players you need to expand your infrastructure which costs money. At best it's a gamble for an individual title. It may pay off. It may not pay off.
SWTOR will still have the stigma of a failed P2P MMO. If Bioware's / EA's marketing department might change that they'd have some chance. Personally I doubt it. They'll have to lurk along for some time. Even new content will be delivered without their #1 marketing ploy. Namely full VO storytelling. Additionally the transition to a F2P model will bind development resources. The question is whther they can keep their current player base until they can launch the payment changes. This means features that lots of players requested will be implemented later. But EA / Bioware were in a very delicate position. If they don't say anything people will get upset and possibly leave. If they announce the F2P change too early (the question is if Bioware / EA can keep an announced date) a lot of players might cancel their subscriptions to maybe come back later. After the transition.
[1] http://www.mediabuzz.com.sg/asian-emarketing/game-based-marketing/1663-free-to-play-f2p-games-from-a-business-perspective
You realize that the NHL dev team is really small and poorly funded by EA. They can't redo the entire game every single year.
The NHL dev team works realy hard to make hockey more realistic every single year for the fans of the sport.
I don't care for Electronic Arts, but they're also the only ones making ice hockey into video game form now.
So I support the EA Sports NHL dev team. They're good guys, doing their best with very little.
Well, telling the public that sub based games are dead... Activision did the same with Call of Duty when MW2 came out (first CoD game that can't be modded legally) and telling the public that modding FPS games are dead.
Neither sub games nor mod games are dead.
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.
You realize that the NHL dev team is really small and poorly funded by EA. They can't redo the entire game every single year.
The NHL dev team works realy hard to make hockey more realistic every single year for the fans of the sport.
I don't care for Electronic Arts, but they're also the only ones making ice hockey into video game form now.
So I support the EA Sports NHL dev team. They're good guys, doing their best with very little.
The NHL (and Need for Speed) dev team are located in Vancouver, where i was born & raised and just moved out of there a year ago, I know a few people that used to work for them but not anymore, they did shrink, but there's no excuse to why they developed the PC version with the Playstation 2 engine for years, NHL 08 for PC was terrible when the console version was 20 times better.
You do realize that the reason that there is only one company, EA, producing NHL ice hockey games is because EA bought a long term licence for exclusice rights to NHL Hockey games. After shutting everyone else out of the market, their reasoning behind underfunding their hockey dev team is bacause the license cost "so much". They are rellying on people to buy their hockey game, since it is the only one, year after year; despite the fact that the game is essentially the same every year; due to EA underfunding thier dev team in a search to "maximize profits".
Sounds a bit like Frankenstein story.
Our p2p SWTOR is dead,now its f2p ,its alive!i ts aliveee!
Let's internet
EA declares P2P dead and I declare that Bioware is dead.............and EA will follow soon, if they do not start putting game designers in charge of the projects rather than their marketing directors..
Let's see which prediction will be the more realistic..............
Agreed, it is not their fault that they like Maxis have a slave contract and have to put out stuff way too often with too low budget.
But I still wish they released a new game like that every third year instead and made it different and better than earlier games. The same slightly updated game every single year is highway robbery.
Bioware isnt exactly dead, they just cant make a good MMO. They can still make acceptable singleplayer games, maybe not as good as NWN or BG 1 & 2 but at least acceptable like the ME series.
But I agree, EA must stop #%¤& with their studios and allow the devs to make fun games. Good games are made by gamers, not slimy weasels in suits.