So if we can't trust Arenanet not to screw players over less than three months after launch, if we can't trust a company with no prior reputation for screwing its players over, how in the hell would we even consider trusting Sony, a company that does have a bad reputation among gamers?
Why do you need trust at all? Play Sony's game for free. No trust needed. Buy only the items you know you will enjoy. No trust needed.
So if we can't trust Arenanet not to screw players over less than three months after launch, if we can't trust a company with no prior reputation for screwing its players over, how in the hell would we even consider trusting Sony, a company that does have a bad reputation among gamers?
Why do you need trust at all? Play Sony's game for free. No trust needed. Buy only the items you know you will enjoy. No trust needed.
Oh I will happily play for free. But people doing that won't pay the bills. Of course like all F2P devs Sony will try to lure players in and get them to spend money but there is no point in spending that money on a game that might suit my tastes at the moment but due to the desire of Sony to make yet more money will change shortly to entice more spending.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
So if we can't trust Arenanet not to screw players over less than three months after launch, if we can't trust a company with no prior reputation for screwing its players over, how in the hell would we even consider trusting Sony, a company that does have a bad reputation among gamers?
Why do you need trust at all? Play Sony's game for free. No trust needed. Buy only the items you know you will enjoy. No trust needed.
Oh I will happily play for free. But people doing that won't pay the bills. Of course like all F2P devs Sony will try to lure players in and get them to spend money but there is no point in spending that money on a game that might suit my tastes at the moment but due to the desire of Sony to make yet more money will change shortly to entice more spending.
Most players won't pay the bills anyway. The whole F2P industry is supported by a small minority of whales. And since you don't seem to be one, you don't even need to care.
If the game is there .... play it and be happy that someone else is paying. If it is gone .. well . it is free anyway, and there are 100 other games to kill time with.
So if we can't trust Arenanet not to screw players over less than three months after launch, if we can't trust a company with no prior reputation for screwing its players over, how in the hell would we even consider trusting Sony, a company that does have a bad reputation among gamers?
Why do you need trust at all? Play Sony's game for free. No trust needed. Buy only the items you know you will enjoy. No trust needed.
Oh I will happily play for free. But people doing that won't pay the bills. Of course like all F2P devs Sony will try to lure players in and get them to spend money but there is no point in spending that money on a game that might suit my tastes at the moment but due to the desire of Sony to make yet more money will change shortly to entice more spending.
Most players won't pay the bills anyway. The whole F2P industry is supported by a small minority of whales. And since you don't seem to be one, you don't even need to care.
If the game is there .... play it and be happy that someone else is paying. If it is gone .. well . it is free anyway, and there are 100 other games to kill time with.
That's exactly my plan, play free and game hop, especially since no devs seem to want to suit my tastes by not forcing me to group and grind. Actually it works out well for me personally due to my play style.
Yet I'm sad because I've played MMOs for over a decade and most of that time was spent in Anarchy Online, my first MMO (which was great until the level 200-220 group grind).
I had hoped to find another MMO home to settle in and spend some years with. I can see that won't happen. And I can see a lot of people are going to feel angry and ripped off as devs try to make as much money as they can while everything churns faster and faster. It's a sad end. And at this point it seems to be the end of my financial support for MMOs.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
That's exactly my plan, play free and game hop, especially since no devs seem to want to suit my tastes by not forcing me to group and grind. Actually it works out well for me personally due to my play style.
Yet I'm sad because I've played MMOs for over a decade and most of that time was spent in Anarchy Online, my first MMO (which was great until the level 200-220 group grind).
I had hoped to find another MMO home to settle in and spend some years with. I can see that won't happen. And I can see a lot of people are going to feel angry and ripped off as devs try to make as much money as they can while everything churns faster and faster. It's a sad end. And at this point it seems to be the end of my financial support for MMOs.
That is also my ongoing and planned playstyle .. F2P and game hop. However, i am not sad .. i feel good about it. In fact, i use to have a "home" in EQ, and then WOW. I found that very limiting and too much focus on one game. Why should i be shackled to experience only ONE game (or mostly one game), when there are so many fun ones out there?
I don't think i want a "home" in a game anymore. For me, it is about getting variable gameplay experience. It is liberating with no commitment and string attached to a single game.
That is also my ongoing and planned playstyle .. F2P and game hop. However, i am not sad .. i feel good about it. In fact, i use to have a "home" in EQ, and then WOW. I found that very limiting and too much focus on one game. Why should i be shackled to experience only ONE game (or mostly one game), when there are so many fun ones out there?
I don't think i want a "home" in a game anymore. For me, it is about getting variable gameplay experience. It is liberating with no commitment and string attached to a single game.
I felt more immersed when I only played one game for a long time. Even WoW (which I played for about a year in part because my old computer wouldn't handle other games) was more immersive than anything I've played since, because it was all I played.
It's true there are upsides. Free is definitely nice, I'm so sick of spending hundreds of dollars every year on new games or games I haven't tried yet only to be disappointed. Now that money can go to other things and to savings.
Variety. There are some beautiful game worlds being turned out, the old ugly free to play hurts-my-eyes days are over. I look forward to exploring those worlds.
Fresh horizons. If I'm willing to check out even the most cash shop riddled pay to win grinder just to wander around for a few days or weeks that means there are always new games to try.
Maybe if a whole lot of people start doing what I'm doing and the whales get sick of buying shinies instead of playing for them, maybe just maybe devs will respond to customer pressure and come up with a game world and a payment structure that will entice me to stay and spend.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
I felt more immersed when I only played one game for a long time. Even WoW (which I played for about a year in part because my old computer wouldn't handle other games) was more immersive than anything I've played since, because it was all I played.
It depends on what "long" means. Everything becomes boring after a while, even WOW. I played WOW for 3-4 years .. it got quite boring at the end. And i found myself kicking myself for all the well rated games that i did not have time to try. Now i have a huge backlog to go back to.
It's true there are upsides. Free is definitely nice, I'm so sick of spending hundreds of dollars every year on new games or games I haven't tried yet only to be disappointed. Now that money can go to other things and to savings.
Yeh. Or even if you want to spend a little on F2P games, it is totally optional. So far, i have not yet spent a cent but may be i will buy a hero off Marvel Heroes if the combat is really good.
Variety. There are some beautiful game worlds being turned out, the old ugly free to play hurts-my-eyes days are over. I look forward to exploring those worlds.
Not just that .. but also new combat mechanics, and story missions. In fact, in F2P you can afford to play through the content and then move on. I play some of the STO missions like a SP game because a) there is no other trek game, b) it is decent SP content.
Fresh horizons. If I'm willing to check out even the most cash shop riddled pay to win grinder just to wander around for a few days or weeks that means there are always new games to try.
Yeah . there is practically nothing to lose but a little time.
Maybe if a whole lot of people start doing what I'm doing and the whales get sick of buying shinies instead of playing for them, maybe just maybe devs will respond to customer pressure and come up with a game world and a payment structure that will entice me to stay and spend.
I doubt that is goign to happen. In the last 2-3 years, the F2P market has been growing. In fact, people are spending MORE, not less, into F2P games. Look at it on the bright side, they are funding even more fun for you.
Originally posted by Phelcher Those who dont see pay to play going anywhere are the same children who dont see a house payment, nor bar tabs.
Most mmorpg players have no problem wanting to spend $15~$20/month on their game. It is only those ultra-wannabe casual children who dont wish to subscribe to anything... cuz their so neurotic, they cant sit still for one game.
$240/ year is peanuts to an advid gamer... too much to an adolecent who doesnt have an income.
Fixed
Those who dont see free to play going anywhere are the same children who dont see a house payment, nor bar tabs.
Most mmorpg players have no problem wanting to spend $15~$20/month on their game. It is only those ultra-wannabe casual children who dont wish to buy anything... cuz their so neurotic, they cant sit still for one game.
$240/ year is peanuts to an advid gamer... too much to an adolecent who doesnt have an income.
Originally posted by rojo6934 Originally posted by BurntvetThat is the problem. Lack of quality, not one business model vs another.
this ^
both F2P, B2P, and P2P can be successful if the product has enough quality to make a profit with each model.
I personally prefer B2P > F2P > P2P, but success still depends on how good the finished product is wether they have sub or not. The metality of ¨its low quality because its F2P¨ should end. Specially since P2P stopped delivering quality years ago and still charge.
agree with both. b2p can be great model if they release small fractions of game every year or less, like Anet did with GW Proph, Factions, Nightfall, even EotN can be added to this list, I mean game doesn't need to be apart it can be addon either. I have no idea why they gave up this model and started to fail into GW2 (took over 5 years and seems to be major fail or one more mediocre game in a large market). If not f2p or p2p depend on quality. I'm agree to pay 15$ for WoW or real equivalent, but not for less good. I was agree to pay 5$ for runescape but not agree to pay 8$ beside they have other problems. If only Aion was more then eye candy... and seems Tera too... Sony make good TV but can't recall any good game from them...
Shame but I feel like I have only WoW to play... EVE seems good but SiFi is not my style so far.
try before buy, even if it's a game to avoid bad surprises. Worst surprises for me: Aion, GW2
It might be, but I also feel that publishers/developers are using payment models as a scapegoat for their subpar products (ie SWTOR). Maybe if these developers stopped offering us derivative MMOs that have the longevity of a Tic-Tac, we'd be more inclined to sub. "The game did poorly? It's the consumers, they just don't want to pay. It has nothing to do with the game itself. Nope, no siree..."
Originally posted by GN-003 It might be, but I also feel that publishers/developers are using payment models as a scapegoat for their subpar products (ie SWTOR). Maybe if these developers stopped offering us derivative MMOs that have the longevity of a Tic-Tac, we'd be more inclined to sub. "The game did poorly? It's the consumers, they just don't want to pay. It has nothing to do with the game itself. Nope, no siree..."
Originally posted by Phelcher Those who dont see pay to play going anywhere are the same children who dont see a house payment, nor bar tabs.
Most mmorpg players have no problem wanting to spend $15~$20/month on their game. It is only those ultra-wannabe casual children who dont wish to subscribe to anything... cuz their so neurotic, they cant sit still for one game.
$240/ year is peanuts to an advid gamer... too much to an adolecent who doesnt have an income.
Fixed
Those who dont see free to play going anywhere are the same children who dont see a house payment, nor bar tabs.
Most mmorpg players have no problem wanting to spend $15~$20/month on their game. It is only those ultra-wannabe casual children who dont wish to buy anything... cuz their so neurotic, they cant sit still for one game.
$240/ year is peanuts to an advid gamer... too much to an adolecent who doesnt have an income.
Thnx..
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
I think what sony means is..."We can't justify a brutal p2w cash shop in a subbed mmo, and as us corporate stiffs here at sony know...P2W cash shops are far more profitable then subs, but let's just pretend we are doing the genre a favor and focus on the F2P aspect of it! Otherwise we will have to hire professional tear catchers lest the world be satured by the crying of children."
Sony has practically dragged everyone one of their games passed everquest into the ground, and then dragged it far enough that the skin peeled off miles ago. They can't say anything about what the best payment style is, They fail at both P2P and F2P.
Because i can. I'm Hopeful For Every Game, Until the Fan Boys Attack My Games. Then the Knives Come Out. Logic every gamers worst enemy.
Originally posted by Rayshe Sony has practically dragged everyone one of their games passed everquest into the ground, and then dragged it far enough that the skin peeled off miles ago. They can't say anything about what the best payment style is, They fail at both P2P and F2P.
And yet somehow i always end up playing SOE MMOS more than any other so called AAA MMOS on the market. Even now i am subbed to EQ2 and Vanguard and no MMO in market can touch these two MMOS when it comes to content and features especially EQ2.
Its funny that how failure is defined on these forums. yes SOE screwed up with SWG but even then i put thousands of hours in that game past NGE because there was nothing like it on the market. it had a long 7 years before it was put down to rest. I won't call it a failure.
Vanguard was in such a bad shape after release that no company would touch it so when SOE took over they actually did a favor to Sigil because only other option was to shut it down. Do i blame SOE for not dumping more money in to the game that no one wanted to play? they kept it alive and that is more than enough for me otherwise i would never get a chance to play that gem.
And who in their right mind can call EQ2 a failure? 8 years and still going strong with 9 expansions under its belt and more to come soon, with amount of content that can put any MMO in market to shame. Entire game oozes of personality and quality.
So what games exactly except for SWG they screwed up so bad that they dragged everyone off? i think a little resonable opinion is in order without emotional outbursts and exaggeration.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.' -Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid." -Luke McKinney
Says the man/company that ran every P2P MMO they ever produced into the ground, by neglect, ineptitude, and mismanagement. Even the ones that "accidentally" started out well.
"Yeah.. it must be the business model..."
Dumbass.
Plenty of people pay for WoW, Eve, and other games.
SOE has just not put out any game worth paying for in the last 5-6 years.
People are tired of paying for "mediocre" games and for the next "clone with a twist."
That does not mean there is anything wrong with the sub model, just the offerings.
That is the problem. Lack of quality, not one business model vs another.
Says the man/company that ran every P2P MMO they ever produced into the ground, by neglect, ineptitude, and mismanagement. Even the ones that "accidentally" started out well.
"Yeah.. it must be the business model..."
Dumbass.
Plenty of people pay for WoW, Eve, and other games.
SOE has just not put out any game worth paying for in the last 5-6 years.
People are tired of paying for "mediocre" games and for the next "clone with a twist."
That does not mean there is anything wrong with the sub model, just the offerings.
That is the problem. Lack of quality, not one business model vs another.
P2P games will still exist if developers can put out a game worth paying for. Games don't NEED 12 million subscribers (it'd sure be nice though) to turn a profit.
I played FFXI and FFXIV, and while FFXIV didn't turn out so well in its first incarnation, FFXI is SE's most profitable game ever, and I don't think it's ever peaked over 1 million concurrent subscribers. 10 years after its launch and it's still P2P. It's estimated there's still over 200,000 people still playing it.
F2P games suffer from the fact that they will only be as good as people are willing to spend money on "extras". If the game isn't making money, updates won't be forthcoming and you'll end up with nothing to do really quickly and move on to the next game. At least with a good P2P game, steady cash will keep flowing in and regular updates will be made to keep the game enjoyable.
Originally posted by Rayshe Sony has practically dragged everyone one of their games passed everquest into the ground, and then dragged it far enough that the skin peeled off miles ago. They can't say anything about what the best payment style is, They fail at both P2P and F2P.
And yet somehow i always end up playing SOE MMOS more than any other so called AAA MMOS on the market. Even now i am subbed to EQ2 and Vanguard and no MMO in market can touch these two MMOS when it comes to content and features especially EQ2.
Its funny that how failure is defined on these forums. yes SOE screwed up with SWG but even then i put thousands of hours in that game past NGE because there was nothing like it on the market. it had a long 7 years before it was put down to rest. I won't call it a failure.
Vanguard was in such a bad shape after release that no company would touch it so when SOE took over they actually did a favor to Sigil because only other option was to shut it down. Do i blame SOE for not dumping more money in to the game that no one wanted to play? they kept it alive and that is more than enough for me otherwise i would never get a chance to play that gem.
And who in their right mind can call EQ2 a failure? 8 years and still going strong with 9 expansions under its belt and more to come soon, with amount of content that can put any MMO in market to shame. Entire game oozes of personality and quality.
So what games exactly except for SWG they screwed up so bad that they dragged everyone off? i think a little resonable opinion is in order without emotional outbursts and exaggeration.
I have to ageree. I think even when EQ2 rolled out, it was a very good game. The big draw back vs WoW was the heavy instanced world vs WoW's seamless world. WoW was also built more towards the easy solo player path, where EQ2 definately required grouping for much of the content. Some gamers do not want to group and like their content to be something they can blast through.
As long as Publishers are mainly concerned with best profits (which most will be) I doubt we see any game that will have the challenge of what EQ or EQ2 offered. Now most gamers are more concerned with PvP setup because PvP is really the only time a player gets challenged. Difficult PvE content, is just not something that attracts the masses, and F2P usually goes hand in hand with easy content,
P2P games will still exist if developers can put out a game worth paying for. Games don't NEED 12 million subscribers (it'd sure be nice though) to turn a profit.
I played FFXI and FFXIV, and while FFXIV didn't turn out so well in its first incarnation, FFXI is SE's most profitable game ever, and I don't think it's ever peaked over 1 million concurrent subscribers. 10 years after its launch and it's still P2P. It's estimated there's still over 200,000 people still playing it.
F2P games suffer from the fact that they will only be as good as people are willing to spend money on "extras". If the game isn't making money, updates won't be forthcoming and you'll end up with nothing to do really quickly and move on to the next game. At least with a good P2P game, steady cash will keep flowing in and regular updates will be made to keep the game enjoyable.
Did EQ ever exceed 500K subs? Personally, I would rather have 500K at a $3o a month sub if the game offered dynamic content and my $30 paid for a continuous stream of fresh content.
Comments
Why do you need trust at all? Play Sony's game for free. No trust needed. Buy only the items you know you will enjoy. No trust needed.
Oh I will happily play for free. But people doing that won't pay the bills. Of course like all F2P devs Sony will try to lure players in and get them to spend money but there is no point in spending that money on a game that might suit my tastes at the moment but due to the desire of Sony to make yet more money will change shortly to entice more spending.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
Most players won't pay the bills anyway. The whole F2P industry is supported by a small minority of whales. And since you don't seem to be one, you don't even need to care.
If the game is there .... play it and be happy that someone else is paying. If it is gone .. well . it is free anyway, and there are 100 other games to kill time with.
That's exactly my plan, play free and game hop, especially since no devs seem to want to suit my tastes by not forcing me to group and grind. Actually it works out well for me personally due to my play style.
Yet I'm sad because I've played MMOs for over a decade and most of that time was spent in Anarchy Online, my first MMO (which was great until the level 200-220 group grind).
I had hoped to find another MMO home to settle in and spend some years with. I can see that won't happen. And I can see a lot of people are going to feel angry and ripped off as devs try to make as much money as they can while everything churns faster and faster. It's a sad end. And at this point it seems to be the end of my financial support for MMOs.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
That is also my ongoing and planned playstyle .. F2P and game hop. However, i am not sad .. i feel good about it. In fact, i use to have a "home" in EQ, and then WOW. I found that very limiting and too much focus on one game. Why should i be shackled to experience only ONE game (or mostly one game), when there are so many fun ones out there?
I don't think i want a "home" in a game anymore. For me, it is about getting variable gameplay experience. It is liberating with no commitment and string attached to a single game.
I felt more immersed when I only played one game for a long time. Even WoW (which I played for about a year in part because my old computer wouldn't handle other games) was more immersive than anything I've played since, because it was all I played.
It's true there are upsides. Free is definitely nice, I'm so sick of spending hundreds of dollars every year on new games or games I haven't tried yet only to be disappointed. Now that money can go to other things and to savings.
Variety. There are some beautiful game worlds being turned out, the old ugly free to play hurts-my-eyes days are over. I look forward to exploring those worlds.
Fresh horizons. If I'm willing to check out even the most cash shop riddled pay to win grinder just to wander around for a few days or weeks that means there are always new games to try.
Maybe if a whole lot of people start doing what I'm doing and the whales get sick of buying shinies instead of playing for them, maybe just maybe devs will respond to customer pressure and come up with a game world and a payment structure that will entice me to stay and spend.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
Thanks,
Mike
Working on Social Strategy MMORTS (now Launched!) http://www.worldalpha.com
Fixed
Those who dont see free to play going anywhere are the same children who dont see a house payment, nor bar tabs.
Most mmorpg players have no problem wanting to spend $15~$20/month on their game. It is only those ultra-wannabe casual children who dont wish to buy anything... cuz their so neurotic, they cant sit still for one game.
$240/ year is peanuts to an advid gamer... too much to an adolecent who doesnt have an income.
both F2P, B2P, and P2P can be successful if the product has enough quality to make a profit with each model.
I personally prefer B2P > F2P > P2P, but success still depends on how good the finished product is wether they have sub or not. The metality of ¨its low quality because its F2P¨ should end. Specially since P2P stopped delivering quality years ago and still charge.
agree with both.
b2p can be great model if they release small fractions of game every year or less, like Anet did with GW Proph, Factions, Nightfall, even EotN can be added to this list, I mean game doesn't need to be apart it can be addon either. I have no idea why they gave up this model and started to fail into GW2 (took over 5 years and seems to be major fail or one more mediocre game in a large market).
If not f2p or p2p depend on quality.
I'm agree to pay 15$ for WoW or real equivalent, but not for less good. I was agree to pay 5$ for runescape but not agree to pay 8$ beside they have other problems.
If only Aion was more then eye candy... and seems Tera too...
Sony make good TV but can't recall any good game from them...
Shame but I feel like I have only WoW to play... EVE seems good but SiFi is not my style so far.
try before buy, even if it's a game to avoid bad surprises.
Worst surprises for me: Aion, GW2
TYVM I agree 100%
Avid gamers do not play only one game. Their gaming budget probably will be much larger than $240 but that would be spread over many games.
I can afford to spend $240 on games, but why would i *want* to do so on only one game when there are so many out there.
Thnx..
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
-Nariusseldon
Because i can.
I'm Hopeful For Every Game, Until the Fan Boys Attack My Games. Then the Knives Come Out.
Logic every gamers worst enemy.
EQNext will be subscription base only... and demand a high premium ($20/month)
SMed talk about item/cash shops, etc.. was where he thought social gaming was going.. EQnext wasn't included in that sentiment.
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
-Nariusseldon
And yet somehow i always end up playing SOE MMOS more than any other so called AAA MMOS on the market. Even now i am subbed to EQ2 and Vanguard and no MMO in market can touch these two MMOS when it comes to content and features especially EQ2.
Its funny that how failure is defined on these forums. yes SOE screwed up with SWG but even then i put thousands of hours in that game past NGE because there was nothing like it on the market. it had a long 7 years before it was put down to rest. I won't call it a failure.
Vanguard was in such a bad shape after release that no company would touch it so when SOE took over they actually did a favor to Sigil because only other option was to shut it down. Do i blame SOE for not dumping more money in to the game that no one wanted to play? they kept it alive and that is more than enough for me otherwise i would never get a chance to play that gem.
And who in their right mind can call EQ2 a failure? 8 years and still going strong with 9 expansions under its belt and more to come soon, with amount of content that can put any MMO in market to shame. Entire game oozes of personality and quality.
So what games exactly except for SWG they screwed up so bad that they dragged everyone off? i think a little resonable opinion is in order without emotional outbursts and exaggeration.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
-Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."
-Luke McKinney
Thread should have ended right here
barring a few comedic counter points, it did
P2P games will still exist if developers can put out a game worth paying for. Games don't NEED 12 million subscribers (it'd sure be nice though) to turn a profit.
I played FFXI and FFXIV, and while FFXIV didn't turn out so well in its first incarnation, FFXI is SE's most profitable game ever, and I don't think it's ever peaked over 1 million concurrent subscribers. 10 years after its launch and it's still P2P. It's estimated there's still over 200,000 people still playing it.
F2P games suffer from the fact that they will only be as good as people are willing to spend money on "extras". If the game isn't making money, updates won't be forthcoming and you'll end up with nothing to do really quickly and move on to the next game. At least with a good P2P game, steady cash will keep flowing in and regular updates will be made to keep the game enjoyable.
I bet it will go F2P within a year, if it indeed starts with a sub.
I have to ageree. I think even when EQ2 rolled out, it was a very good game. The big draw back vs WoW was the heavy instanced world vs WoW's seamless world. WoW was also built more towards the easy solo player path, where EQ2 definately required grouping for much of the content. Some gamers do not want to group and like their content to be something they can blast through.
As long as Publishers are mainly concerned with best profits (which most will be) I doubt we see any game that will have the challenge of what EQ or EQ2 offered. Now most gamers are more concerned with PvP setup because PvP is really the only time a player gets challenged. Difficult PvE content, is just not something that attracts the masses, and F2P usually goes hand in hand with easy content,
Did EQ ever exceed 500K subs? Personally, I would rather have 500K at a $3o a month sub if the game offered dynamic content and my $30 paid for a continuous stream of fresh content.