Guess there is a new method for making new games: Game box with cd to sell for 60 bucks... then 1 year later make it go free 2 play with cash shop for more money.
Company still thinks greed > fun which is really sad.
People really have some strange thought processes....
If you think this f2p was done out of greed and not out of failure I am surprised you even posses the ability to use a computer.
No one is QQ'n over anything sir. It's an open discussion.
I have no issues with the F2P model, but a lot of the F2P games eventually die down in players and then it's on to the next one.
Sure Tera stays the same as when it was subbed. EVen bonuses for current players and more for paying players. But there are many who are a little less open minded to F2P. And like I said about dying down. That possibility is always there. And I've invested a lot of time into my toons not to mention money on outfits and other vanity stuff. I'll continue as long as it has a decent playerbase and they keep on pumping out more content.
One dfference with TERA is its target audience (the younger portion of the MMORPG population...late teens/young 20s) is the crowd that plays F2P games more. It might catch on because of that.
edit: maybe I shouldnt say target audience, but more of the audience it appeals too. The target audience was a different region than ours.
The restrictions seem really fair, dungeon ones are a bit annoying but whatever. If I had known it was going F2P I woulda picked it up on Amazon for $5 to get the founder benefits.
There is a lot of subscription bigotry here, f2p does not mean fail. It's a valid subscription method that will introduce new players to the game (the quaility of which is yet to be seen). Nonetheless you've got to stay current with the times. F2p is the trend and we'll be seeing many MMOs having this option.
As much as I liked tera when I first picked it up. I never thought it was really worth the sub fee. Now I can have it installed and play when ever. I think it should have been F2p or B2p from the begining.
Originally posted by sapphen There is a lot of subscription bigotry here, f2p does not mean fail. It's a valid subscription method that will introduce new players to the game (the quaility of which is yet to be seen). Nonetheless you've got to stay current with the times. F2p is the trend and we'll be seeing many MMOs having this option.
LOTRO = new content worse after f2p
EQ2 = new content worse after f2p
games meant to be sub games tend to change for the worse after f2p.
And the community becomes worse as well, though that shouldnt matter in TERAs case.
I know. I've been in denial for a while. Or maybe I tried to see and hang onto the potential that Tera had. Bluehole could have done a lot better. I can't really blame En Masse. The devs at Bluehole just couldn't deliver enough decent positives in the game. Well I guess it's on to Blade and Soul.
Good chance you'll be passing on Blade and Soul too. Since it's going to be with NCSoft, it'll more or likely be F2P or will become F2P after a while.
You might not be playing any mmo's since most are becoming F2P.
Originally posted by sapphen There is a lot of subscription bigotry here, f2p does not mean fail. It's a valid subscription method that will introduce new players to the game (the quaility of which is yet to be seen). Nonetheless you've got to stay current with the times. F2p is the trend and we'll be seeing many MMOs having this option.
Actualy yes, yes it does in most cases. It only provides those that cant pay the option to play with limits. Normaly you get a bad crowd also. If you didnt want to pay to play the game before, going f2p doesnt make the game any better, just cheaper. Cash shops are the worst thing in mmorpg history. F2P players will never be on equal grounds to someone that pays or buys from the cash shop. Its only good because you dont have to pay out of pocket, that is the only good thing about going f2p. And the majority of games you label F2P are not actualy free, not if you wish to be on par with others.
Some f2p games are ok, and some people confuse b2p with f2p.
games meant to be sub games tend to change for the worse after f2p.
And the community becomes worse as well, though that shouldnt matter in TERAs case.
So you're trying to tell me that the money F2P players spend make a lesser quaility product than the money of subscribers? F2p creates additional revenue that would not have otherwise been made. If there is a problem with the quaility it is the developers fault, not f2p.
Originally posted by Onomas
Actualy yes, yes it does in most cases. It only provides those that cant pay the option to play with limits. Normaly you get a bad crowd also. If you didnt want to pay to play the game before, going f2p doesnt make the game any better, just cheaper. Cash shops are the worst thing in mmorpg history. F2P players will never be on equal grounds to someone that pays or buys from the cash shop. Its only good because you dont have to pay out of pocket, that is the only good thing about going f2p. And the majority of games you label F2P are not actualy free, not if you wish to be on par with others.
Some f2p games are ok, and some people confuse b2p with f2p.
Actually no, no it doesn't in most cases. Do you mean those who can't pay or those who don't feel the product is worth 15 bucks a month? I can see it now, a hobo sitting on the side of the street playing Tera on his labtop. Those damn free players, they should go out and get a job. As far as the community it brings in, I'd say it has a lot to do with what kind of glasses you're wearing. If you think there are no asshats and trolls in subscription based MMOs then I would suggest you expand the way you see the world.
Going free2play does make the game better because it adds additional income and increases the population to play with. A well made cash shop is one of the best thing to happen to the genre. People who play for free shouldn't have the same accomadations as people who pay a monthly fee. Tera has a very nice f2p model planned, it is not pay to win at all so your logic fails to convince me of your point.
I agree that too many times people and developers confuse buy2play with free2play.
I know. I've been in denial for a while. Or maybe I tried to see and hang onto the potential that Tera had. Bluehole could have done a lot better. I can't really blame En Masse. The devs at Bluehole just couldn't deliver enough decent positives in the game. Well I guess it's on to Blade and Soul.
Hmm, if you're expecting blade and soul to be p2p I'm afraid you will be sadly dissapointed.
games meant to be sub games tend to change for the worse after f2p.
And the community becomes worse as well, though that shouldnt matter in TERAs case.
So you're trying to tell me that the money F2P players spend make a lesser quaility product than the money of subscribers? F2p creates additional revenue that would not have otherwise been made. If there is a problem with the quaility it is the developers fault, not f2p.
You have to shift your philosophy towards making money, not making content. Also f2p players are different target audience than sub players. So what sub players look for in a game is different than what f2p players look for, so you have to account for that in hopes of retaining your f2p customers.
games meant to be sub games tend to change for the worse after f2p.
And the community becomes worse as well, though that shouldnt matter in TERAs case.
So you're trying to tell me that the money F2P players spend make a lesser quaility product than the money of subscribers? F2p creates additional revenue that would not have otherwise been made. If there is a problem with the quaility it is the developers fault, not f2p.
Originally posted by Onomas
Actualy yes, yes it does in most cases. It only provides those that cant pay the option to play with limits. Normaly you get a bad crowd also. If you didnt want to pay to play the game before, going f2p doesnt make the game any better, just cheaper. Cash shops are the worst thing in mmorpg history. F2P players will never be on equal grounds to someone that pays or buys from the cash shop. Its only good because you dont have to pay out of pocket, that is the only good thing about going f2p. And the majority of games you label F2P are not actualy free, not if you wish to be on par with others.
Some f2p games are ok, and some people confuse b2p with f2p.
Actually no, no it doesn't in most cases. Do you mean those who can't pay or those who don't feel the product is worth 15 bucks a month? I can see it now, a hobo sitting on the side of the street playing Tera on his labtop. Those damn free players, they should go out and get a job. As far as the community it brings in, I'd say it has a lot to do with what kind of glasses you're wearing. If you think there are no asshats and trolls in subscription based MMOs then I would suggest you expand the way you see the world.
Going free2play does make the game better because it adds additional income and increases the population to play with. A well made cash shop is one of the best thing to happen to the genre. People who play for free shouldn't have the same accomadations as people who pay a monthly fee. Tera has a very nice f2p model planned, it is not pay to win at all so your logic fails to convince me of your point.
I agree that too many times people and developers confuse buy2play with free2play.
red part- does it matter? If the game isnt worth 15 dollars a month to you when its P2P, why all of the sudden is the game so great when its free? If the game is good to begin with, the price to pay isnt the issue. If the game is bad, its bad no matter the pay model.
Yellow part- is funny because if you google it (im too lazy to post the link), in the past few years cash shop transactions have actualy dropped. They arent getting a whole lot of additional income as you might think. Even Nauris, a lover of F2P games have posted this link. And the population thing, because a game that is already been out for awhile (LoTRO for example) is F2P, but the starting areas are barren, as most the higher up levels are all clustered at the newer released content areas. Which you have to pay for the expansion to get there.
Everyone thinks f2p model is the future and the savior of mmorpgs. Just because you can play for free its ok for games to be released with horrible content and bad mechanics? If a game is a pretty damn good one, the 15/month price tag is trivial. F2P just promotes cheap titles to be pushed out and not great titles.
I respect your opinion, but there is a huge difference between games from 5 years aago compared to today. And F2P isnt making games better it just allows bad games to live a little longer.
You have to shift your philosophy towards making money, not making content. Also f2p players are different target audience than sub players. So what sub players look for in a game is different than what f2p players look for, so you have to account for that in hopes of retaining your f2p customers.
There is no hard line between f2p, b2p or p2p customers. What makes you think that these groups are so different from each other? You say I should focus on money but then you say developers are going to try and retain free2players over pay2players - this doesn't make sense to me.
You have to shift your philosophy towards making money, not making content. Also f2p players are different target audience than sub players. So what sub players look for in a game is different than what f2p players look for, so you have to account for that in hopes of retaining your f2p customers.
There is no hard line between f2p, b2p or p2p customers. What makes you think that these groups are so different from each other? You say I should focus on money but then you say developers are going to try and retain free2players over pay2players - this doesn't make sense to me.
There is a very obvious age difference for one. Not saying older people dont ever f2p, but there is definitely a larger skew towards younger people with a f2p model. And a game like EQ2 or LOTRO that skewed towards older people, there is certainly a divide. TERA might not see this because it skews so young to begin with.
Your p2pers are generally the people that are already hooked on your game and love your game. the effort required to keep them isnt as much as the effort required to get money out of f2pers. In addition, many companies (Turbine, Im looking right at you) try to squeeze even more money out of their p2p customers with things like shared bank space being cash shop only
Actually no, no it doesn't in most cases. Do you mean those who can't pay or those who don't feel the product is worth 15 bucks a month? I can see it now, a hobo sitting on the side of the street playing Tera on his labtop. Those damn free players, they should go out and get a job. As far as the community it brings in, I'd say it has a lot to do with what kind of glasses you're wearing. If you think there are no asshats and trolls in subscription based MMOs then I would suggest you expand the way you see the world.
Going free2play does make the game better because it adds additional income and increases the population to play with. A well made cash shop is one of the best thing to happen to the genre. People who play for free shouldn't have the same accomadations as people who pay a monthly fee. Tera has a very nice f2p model planned, it is not pay to win at all so your logic fails to convince me of your point.
I agree that too many times people and developers confuse buy2play with free2play.
red part- does it matter? If the game isnt worth 15 dollars a month to you when its P2P, why all of the sudden is the game so great when its free? If the game is good to begin with, the price to pay isnt the issue. If the game is bad, its bad no matter the pay model.
No it doesn't matter. The question was to bring attention to your stereotype that f2players have no money to spend.
Would you pay 15 bucks for a waffle? I wouldn't but I'd be happy to pay a dollar for one. Do you really want me to explain to you the basic economic principle of value versus cost?
I agree, if the game is bad it's gonna be bad no matter the payment model but Tera is a pretty decent game. I think by passing out a few free waffles they are going to get a well deserved bump in profits.
Originally posted by Onomas
Yellow part- is funny because if you google it (im too lazy to post the link), in the past few years cash shop transactions have actualy dropped. They arent getting a whole lot of additional income as you might think. Even Nauris, a lover of F2P games have posted this link. And the population thing, because a game that is already been out for awhile (LoTRO for example) is F2P, but the starting areas are barren, as most the higher up levels are all clustered at the newer released content areas. Which you have to pay for the expansion to get there.
Everyone thinks f2p model is the future and the savior of mmorpgs. Just because you can play for free its ok for games to be released with horrible content and bad mechanics? If a game is a pretty damn good one, the 15/month price tag is trivial. F2P just promotes cheap titles to be pushed out and not great titles.
I respect your opinion, but there is a huge difference between games from 5 years aago compared to today. And F2P isnt making games better it just allows bad games to live a little longer.
I'm not lazy and googled it. I haven't seen any information supporting this. No matter if they dropped or not, everything I've read says that are making some money. I don't know how much of a profit but I'm sure they're losing money on them.
No, not everyone thinks f2p model is the savior of mmos. It's nothing more than another option to play a game. I don't agree with your stereotype that free2play means worse content. You are blaming the way they make money instead of the developers who make the game.
Many f2p games have been doing very well (look at League of Legends or HiRez Studios), why do you think that they are becoming more popular? It's not to waste more time and resources on a dying game, although I would have to agree that at first f2p was used by dying games to try and scrap in more cash.
I respect your opinion as well but free2play has progressed since it first pop'd up in MMOs. It is becoming a valid way to make money (even if it's just a little bit), populate servers and advertise the quailty of a game. If it is a bad game it's the fault of the developers, not the payment model.
What makes you think that these groups (f2p and p2p players) are so different from each other?
Originally posted by Onomas
There is a very obvious age difference for one. Not saying older people dont ever f2p, but there is definitely a larger skew towards younger people with a f2p model. And a game like EQ2 or LOTRO that skewed towards older people, there is certainly a divide. TERA might not see this because it skews so young to begin with.
I think you're fogetting that all of them are MMO players. I don't believe that the payment model is greater than the audience the game is designed for, people are not going to play a game they don't like just because it's free2play.
Originally posted by sapphen
You say I should focus on money but then you say developers are going to try and retain free2players over pay2players - this doesn't make sense to me.
Originally posted by Onomas
Your p2pers are generally the people that are already hooked on your game and love your game. the effort required to keep them isnt as much as the effort required to get money out of f2pers. In addition, many companies (Turbine, Im looking right at you) try to squeeze even more money out of their p2p customers with things like shared bank space being cash shop only
F2p players are just as capable to get hooked or fall in love with a game. They are not trying to 'keep' f2p, they are trying to get them to spend money. They want to keep the subscribers and milk the freebies or convert them to p2p.
Many companies have made some bad decisions in this area (Bioware, I'm looking at you). I understand and respect your opinion. There has been many horrible cash shop/f2p models that stained the phrase 'free2play'. Many games and developers are working hard to change these preconceived notions.
What makes you think that these groups (f2p and p2p players) are so different from each other?
Originally posted by Onomas
There is a very obvious age difference for one. Not saying older people dont ever f2p, but there is definitely a larger skew towards younger people with a f2p model. And a game like EQ2 or LOTRO that skewed towards older people, there is certainly a divide. TERA might not see this because it skews so young to begin with.
I think you're fogetting that all of them are MMO players. I don't believe that the payment model is greater than the audience the game is designed for, people are not going to play a game they don't like just because it's free2play.
I think you are forgetting that all MMO players arent the same. TERA players and EQ1 players are both MMO players. Now spend some time observing their respective communities and get back to me.
Originally posted by oafuape and this was suppose to be one of the games competing with GW2. Please can we get a moment of silence?......game didn't even last a year, amen.
This was *never* a game that had any chance it competing with GW2. Its upside was 250k. To expect more than 100k given how poorly L2 and Aion did in the west was just being optimistic.
I think you are forgetting that all MMO players arent the same. TERA players and EQ1 players are both MMO players. Now spend some time observing their respective communities and get back to me.
Very true, I haven't forgetten this. The differences between MMO player's preferences (how they want to play the game) is not effected by how they want to pay for it.
Dear Onomas, your f2p restrictions you mentioned are for discovery edition (Its f2p model which wont be available in February 2013 because Tera goes absolutely f2p), you are really amazing guy and your informations are so brilliant man.
And now seriously, here we have true f2p restrictions and different account types and how can you see f2p Tera will have one of the best models on the market if not the best together with Aion.
Comments
People really have some strange thought processes....
If you think this f2p was done out of greed and not out of failure I am surprised you even posses the ability to use a computer.
One dfference with TERA is its target audience (the younger portion of the MMORPG population...late teens/young 20s) is the crowd that plays F2P games more. It might catch on because of that.
edit: maybe I shouldnt say target audience, but more of the audience it appeals too. The target audience was a different region than ours.
Remove the ip restrictions!!! Damn...
RIP Orc Choppa
LOTRO = new content worse after f2p
EQ2 = new content worse after f2p
games meant to be sub games tend to change for the worse after f2p.
And the community becomes worse as well, though that shouldnt matter in TERAs case.
Good chance you'll be passing on Blade and Soul too. Since it's going to be with NCSoft, it'll more or likely be F2P or will become F2P after a while.
You might not be playing any mmo's since most are becoming F2P.
Actualy yes, yes it does in most cases. It only provides those that cant pay the option to play with limits. Normaly you get a bad crowd also. If you didnt want to pay to play the game before, going f2p doesnt make the game any better, just cheaper. Cash shops are the worst thing in mmorpg history. F2P players will never be on equal grounds to someone that pays or buys from the cash shop. Its only good because you dont have to pay out of pocket, that is the only good thing about going f2p. And the majority of games you label F2P are not actualy free, not if you wish to be on par with others.
Some f2p games are ok, and some people confuse b2p with f2p.
its too early to judge the EQ2 transition
EQ2 started going to f2p in Aug 2011 w freeport server
since that time - seen DOV, AOD, COE expansions
prior to f2p,
EQ2 expansions The Shadow Odyssey and Sentinels Fate were also lackluster (in my opinion)
EQ2 fan sites
So you're trying to tell me that the money F2P players spend make a lesser quaility product than the money of subscribers? F2p creates additional revenue that would not have otherwise been made. If there is a problem with the quaility it is the developers fault, not f2p.
Actually no, no it doesn't in most cases. Do you mean those who can't pay or those who don't feel the product is worth 15 bucks a month? I can see it now, a hobo sitting on the side of the street playing Tera on his labtop. Those damn free players, they should go out and get a job. As far as the community it brings in, I'd say it has a lot to do with what kind of glasses you're wearing. If you think there are no asshats and trolls in subscription based MMOs then I would suggest you expand the way you see the world.
Going free2play does make the game better because it adds additional income and increases the population to play with. A well made cash shop is one of the best thing to happen to the genre. People who play for free shouldn't have the same accomadations as people who pay a monthly fee. Tera has a very nice f2p model planned, it is not pay to win at all so your logic fails to convince me of your point.
I agree that too many times people and developers confuse buy2play with free2play.
Hmm, if you're expecting blade and soul to be p2p I'm afraid you will be sadly dissapointed.
You have to shift your philosophy towards making money, not making content. Also f2p players are different target audience than sub players. So what sub players look for in a game is different than what f2p players look for, so you have to account for that in hopes of retaining your f2p customers.
red part- does it matter? If the game isnt worth 15 dollars a month to you when its P2P, why all of the sudden is the game so great when its free? If the game is good to begin with, the price to pay isnt the issue. If the game is bad, its bad no matter the pay model.
Yellow part- is funny because if you google it (im too lazy to post the link), in the past few years cash shop transactions have actualy dropped. They arent getting a whole lot of additional income as you might think. Even Nauris, a lover of F2P games have posted this link. And the population thing, because a game that is already been out for awhile (LoTRO for example) is F2P, but the starting areas are barren, as most the higher up levels are all clustered at the newer released content areas. Which you have to pay for the expansion to get there.
Everyone thinks f2p model is the future and the savior of mmorpgs. Just because you can play for free its ok for games to be released with horrible content and bad mechanics? If a game is a pretty damn good one, the 15/month price tag is trivial. F2P just promotes cheap titles to be pushed out and not great titles.
I respect your opinion, but there is a huge difference between games from 5 years aago compared to today. And F2P isnt making games better it just allows bad games to live a little longer.
There is no hard line between f2p, b2p or p2p customers. What makes you think that these groups are so different from each other? You say I should focus on money but then you say developers are going to try and retain free2players over pay2players - this doesn't make sense to me.
There is a very obvious age difference for one. Not saying older people dont ever f2p, but there is definitely a larger skew towards younger people with a f2p model. And a game like EQ2 or LOTRO that skewed towards older people, there is certainly a divide. TERA might not see this because it skews so young to begin with.
Your p2pers are generally the people that are already hooked on your game and love your game. the effort required to keep them isnt as much as the effort required to get money out of f2pers. In addition, many companies (Turbine, Im looking right at you) try to squeeze even more money out of their p2p customers with things like shared bank space being cash shop only
No it doesn't matter. The question was to bring attention to your stereotype that f2players have no money to spend.
Would you pay 15 bucks for a waffle? I wouldn't but I'd be happy to pay a dollar for one. Do you really want me to explain to you the basic economic principle of value versus cost?
I agree, if the game is bad it's gonna be bad no matter the payment model but Tera is a pretty decent game. I think by passing out a few free waffles they are going to get a well deserved bump in profits.
I'm not lazy and googled it. I haven't seen any information supporting this. No matter if they dropped or not, everything I've read says that are making some money. I don't know how much of a profit but I'm sure they're losing money on them.
No, not everyone thinks f2p model is the savior of mmos. It's nothing more than another option to play a game. I don't agree with your stereotype that free2play means worse content. You are blaming the way they make money instead of the developers who make the game.
Many f2p games have been doing very well (look at League of Legends or HiRez Studios), why do you think that they are becoming more popular? It's not to waste more time and resources on a dying game, although I would have to agree that at first f2p was used by dying games to try and scrap in more cash.
I respect your opinion as well but free2play has progressed since it first pop'd up in MMOs. It is becoming a valid way to make money (even if it's just a little bit), populate servers and advertise the quailty of a game. If it is a bad game it's the fault of the developers, not the payment model.
I think you're fogetting that all of them are MMO players. I don't believe that the payment model is greater than the audience the game is designed for, people are not going to play a game they don't like just because it's free2play.
F2p players are just as capable to get hooked or fall in love with a game. They are not trying to 'keep' f2p, they are trying to get them to spend money. They want to keep the subscribers and milk the freebies or convert them to p2p.
Many companies have made some bad decisions in this area (Bioware, I'm looking at you). I understand and respect your opinion. There has been many horrible cash shop/f2p models that stained the phrase 'free2play'. Many games and developers are working hard to change these preconceived notions.
I think you are forgetting that all MMO players arent the same. TERA players and EQ1 players are both MMO players. Now spend some time observing their respective communities and get back to me.
This was *never* a game that had any chance it competing with GW2. Its upside was 250k. To expect more than 100k given how poorly L2 and Aion did in the west was just being optimistic.
Very true, I haven't forgetten this. The differences between MMO player's preferences (how they want to play the game) is not effected by how they want to pay for it.
Wow, Onomas is so huge troll, its obvious.
Dear Onomas, your f2p restrictions you mentioned are for discovery edition (Its f2p model which wont be available in February 2013 because Tera goes absolutely f2p), you are really amazing guy and your informations are so brilliant man.
And now seriously, here we have true f2p restrictions and different account types and how can you see f2p Tera will have one of the best models on the market if not the best together with Aion.
http://support.enmasse.com/tera/tera-rising-play-for-free#What_are_the_different_account_tiers?