Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

F2P Model heading for disaster an "apocalypse" in 3-5 years

1235713

Comments

  • SorninSornin Richmond, BCPosts: 1,133Member

    There are two fundamental problems with any F2P game:

    1.) The small minority pays for the vast majority

    2.) The game is designed around inconveniencing you enough to pay

    To the first point, it is well established that "whales," users that spend $50, $100, maybe $500+ per month bear a lot of the cost of the game. The majority of players may spend a few bucks, but many never do. They play for free, forever. The whales are willing to pay a premium for premium treatment, but it is unhealthy to rely on a few very spendy patrons to support everyone.

    The second point is even more crucial. A subscription game's goal is to keep you entertained enough to keep you subscribed. They need to earn your subscription each month, and when they fail to do that, they fail to get your money.

    A F2P game needs to keep you entertained, too, but almost as important, they need to keep you inconvenienced. If the game had absolutely no restrictions for playing freely, few would buy anything. So, the developers design annoyances right into the game. These range from flat-out content restrictions, to time-based restrictions, to perk restrictions. Their goal is to hook you by making the game available for free, getting you playing, but then making it so progression is either very hard or very annoying witout buying things. And once you start buying, the cost can add up to far, far more than $15 per month. It has to, since not everyone pays. If you are paying, you are paying for yourself and probably another 10 players or more.

    These annoyances are things like bag space, or making some duneons or areas or classes or races unavailable, or making your rate of gold, item, or experience gain less. Or it could be that you can buy points to make time-based tasks like crafting finish instantly. There are literally hundreds of ways to monetize things, and most are not just cosmetic. If a developer relied purely on the cosmetic, not enough people would be motivated to pay.

    I would rather play a game where everyone pays the VERY reasonable price of $10-15 per month to get equal, full access to everything. I do not like supporting others, I do not like gating content and such behind cash shops, and I do not like being annoyed in-game to buy things.

    image

  • nerovipus32nerovipus32 dublinPosts: 2,735Member
    Originally posted by fat_taddler

    I genuinely hope F2P goes away soon.  It's not a good fit for community driven games like MMO's.  Sure it brings a few players back to a failing game for a month or two but other than that it's not really helping to advance the genre. 

    Subscription based communities are no better.

  • CelciusCelcius Posts: 1,001Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Fearum
    Originally posted by Celcius

     

    Just want to clear something up here...so you don't like B2P games? Did you buy Bioshock Infinite, Skyrim, or anything else along those lines? Those games are essentially B2P games with a shorter shelf life. They come out at full price. They provide content DLC for money. Hell, they give you less content then B2P MMOs do since they generally charge for additional content.

    I think part of it is what I just mentioned. Games in general are starting to adopt to MMO style payment models. This is something the entire medium is facing, not just MMOs. The thing is about MMO players who are keen on paying a sub (and probably pay one already) feel like they need to defend it because they pay or have paid for it. I guess they feel they are in some sort of VIP lounge that only the cool kids who pay a sub can enter.  Alot of these guys try to convince people, themselves included, that when you pay a subscription you get a higher quality product. This is simply not true anymore. Some would argue that it has never been true.

    So let's clear something up, you think Skyrim should of been F2P? How would that work my friend, I would like to hear your brilliant plans on how to carry the F2P movement over to single player games.

    I didn't realise we were debating single player games here.

     

    I was talking about B2P games. Which are different then F2P games. And yes, singleplayer games are adapting a model similar to that of B2P games. I was proving a point which you clearly could not comprehend.

  • Ice-QueenIce-Queen USA, GAPosts: 2,451Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by fat_taddler

    I genuinely hope F2P goes away soon.  It's not a good fit for community driven games like MMO's.  Sure it brings a few players back to a failing game for a month or two but other than that it's not really helping to advance the genre. 

    Well said.

    image

    What happens when you log off your characters????.....
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFQhfhnjYMk
    Dark Age of Camelot

  • MellozMelloz Charlotte, NCPosts: 26Member
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by MarkJacobs
    Originally posted by Zinzan
    Originally posted by gylnne

    This warning coming from Mark Jacobs in a recent article he did which included his opinion on the unsustainable f2p model so many games are using.

     

    "Camelot Unchained creator and long-time MMO veteran Mark Jacobs has warned of an impending free-to-play “apocalypse” in three to five years time, thanks to a rush towards unsustainable free-to-play models. He predicted to VG247 that developers will close and publishers stand to lose a lot of money.

    “The whole free-to-play thing isn’t going away tomorrow,” Jacobs stressed, “but let’s just see what happens in three to five years – and I’m betting closer to three – where free-to-play will become just another model. Right now you’ve got everybody chasing it, going ‘Isn’t this great? Free to play, we’re going to make so much money’”.

    Jacobs felt that many developers and publishers are chasing the free-to-play market in the hope that a small percentage of players will actually lay down money on micro-payment items. He doesn’t see it as an economically viable strategy."

    Continue reading here:  f2p heading for disaster

    That's a pretty damning article, so CU can never, ever go F2P now, not unless MJ eats his words. oh and alienating most of his potential player base is a bit bold.

    I wonder if he may live to regret this statement if/when CU decides to introduce micro transactions.....F2P is a bad thing maybe, but a subscription based game with a cash shop? 

    LOL. I've already alienated a lot of my potential playerbase by saying:

    1) No PvE leveling

    2) Subscription-based only

    3) It won't be a successor to Dark Age of Camelot

    What I said in this article wasn't news to our backers. In terms of a cash shop, I'd rather shut the game down at that point.

    I guess I find it troubling that you're willing to flush all of the money and time a community has invested in your business venture if it doesn't pan out how you want.

    This is a major reason why I haven't donated to any Kickstarter yet.  There are no investor protections past funding.  If you were beholden to a publisher or publically traded company it wouldn't be as easy to throw away everything everyone else has put into the project.

    It's what I, and I think many others, want as well.  If it went to a cash shop, I'm pretty sure I'd quit based on my previous experiences with that type of system.  So I have no problems with him saying that he'd rather shut down the game than compromise it that way.

    Being beholden to publishers or shareholders that must make more and more money now is exactly what's broken many games in the past including DAoC and WAR.

  • Mtibbs1989Mtibbs1989 Fredericksburg, VAPosts: 2,920Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by gylnne

    This warning coming from Mark Jacobs in a recent article he did which included his opinion on the unsustainable f2p model so many games are using.

     

    "Camelot Unchained creator and long-time MMO veteran Mark Jacobs has warned of an impending free-to-play “apocalypse” in three to five years time, thanks to a rush towards unsustainable free-to-play models. He predicted to VG247 that developers will close and publishers stand to lose a lot of money.

    “The whole free-to-play thing isn’t going away tomorrow,” Jacobs stressed, “but let’s just see what happens in three to five years – and I’m betting closer to three – where free-to-play will become just another model. Right now you’ve got everybody chasing it, going ‘Isn’t this great? Free to play, we’re going to make so much money’”.

    Jacobs felt that many developers and publishers are chasing the free-to-play market in the hope that a small percentage of players will actually lay down money on micro-payment items. He doesn’t see it as an economically viable strategy."

    Continue reading here:  f2p heading for disaster

     I don't see where he's getting at. Wtith a proper F2P model on a good game and I stress good his article has firm ground to stand on. The subscription model can be looked at the same way. Why would anyone pay 15 dollars a month for a game that's not worthy of a 15 dollar monthly charge. Only good games such as WoW, Rift, EQ, and etc can stand the test of time with these models. 

     Why do I say those games? Well because they're the only companies willing enough to actually put forth effor into pumping out content. However, I don't believe a company like TRION should be up there. They've had roughly 1 expansion since release? I think at that point they're pushing it for my 15 dollars.

     The point being and will remain; if your game isn't worth the money. Why would the customer be willing to pay for a constant monthly fee? In addition, many companies like like WoW are double dipping into the cash shop as well. So pardon my language but that's a double fuck you to their customers.

     I'd also like to add that F2P games have been going on for many years. This isn't something new to the MMO genre. It's just "new" to the western audiance because eastern MMO's are making their way over to us and they're starting to become much more worth a customers dollar than these "AAA" titles have to offer.

     MJ will understand fully if his game does not meet the customers standard for a 15 dollar monthly fee. I believe he's shooting too high and as of right now only has concept art and ideas that he's throwing about for his game. While yes, he was the owner of Mythic at one time and Mythic did create DAoC. I don't believe we'll see anymore good work coming from MJ; because you're only as good as your last project (Warhammer Online).

     Kudos to him if he pulls a decent game off. However, in the MMO community catering to the new customer base who only wants a game and not a world. You will lose your hardwork to the content locust and you will eventually lean towards F2P. From what I'm reading CU can be altered in everyway to benefit from a F2P model. With them selling off plots of lands and what not I'm quite interested to see if he actually will make it properly.

     Hopefully he also knows that a PvP only game does not last too long in a gamers eyes when there's no insentive to work towards (Fury Online, GW 2 WvW). It gets boring fast.

    image

    Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
  • znaiikaznaiika denver, PAPosts: 203Member

    I am not a fan of F2P, but I disagree on this disaster thing, most likely it is going to mutate and actualy become better hybrid model.

    If any developer want to be successfull, they need to be adoptive to all kind of play styles.

    Lets be real, not everyone likes a red car, or wear same clothes, or eat same food, etc, etc, etc....

  • TorvalTorval Oregon CountryPosts: 7,221Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Melloz
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by MarkJacobs
    Originally posted by Zinzan
    Originally posted by gylnne

    This warning coming from Mark Jacobs in a recent article he did which included his opinion on the unsustainable f2p model so many games are using.

     

    "Camelot Unchained creator and long-time MMO veteran Mark Jacobs has warned of an impending free-to-play “apocalypse” in three to five years time, thanks to a rush towards unsustainable free-to-play models. He predicted to VG247 that developers will close and publishers stand to lose a lot of money.

    “The whole free-to-play thing isn’t going away tomorrow,” Jacobs stressed, “but let’s just see what happens in three to five years – and I’m betting closer to three – where free-to-play will become just another model. Right now you’ve got everybody chasing it, going ‘Isn’t this great? Free to play, we’re going to make so much money’”.

    Jacobs felt that many developers and publishers are chasing the free-to-play market in the hope that a small percentage of players will actually lay down money on micro-payment items. He doesn’t see it as an economically viable strategy."

    Continue reading here:  f2p heading for disaster

    That's a pretty damning article, so CU can never, ever go F2P now, not unless MJ eats his words. oh and alienating most of his potential player base is a bit bold.

    I wonder if he may live to regret this statement if/when CU decides to introduce micro transactions.....F2P is a bad thing maybe, but a subscription based game with a cash shop? 

    LOL. I've already alienated a lot of my potential playerbase by saying:

    1) No PvE leveling

    2) Subscription-based only

    3) It won't be a successor to Dark Age of Camelot

    What I said in this article wasn't news to our backers. In terms of a cash shop, I'd rather shut the game down at that point.

    I guess I find it troubling that you're willing to flush all of the money and time a community has invested in your business venture if it doesn't pan out how you want.

    This is a major reason why I haven't donated to any Kickstarter yet.  There are no investor protections past funding.  If you were beholden to a publisher or publically traded company it wouldn't be as easy to throw away everything everyone else has put into the project.

    It's what I, and I think many others, want as well.  If it went to a cash shop, I'm pretty sure I'd quit based on my previous experiences with that type of system.  So I have no problems with him saying that he'd rather shut down the game than compromise it that way.

    Being beholden to publishers or shareholders that must make more and more money now is exactly what's broken many games in the past including DAoC and WAR.

    I don't think financial responsibility to a parent corporation "broke many games".  Bad development and design decisions "break" games.  That's just an excuse.

    While I think keeping the integrity of his principles intact is somewhat commendable, I also think that is a major hamper to adoption and support of these sorts of projects.

    It's interesting to me that on one hand he's praised for his adamant adherence to a vision, yet you don't trust him to implement a cash shop.  So far there are a little under seven thousand people willing to donate to the project (at an average of approximately $160 per pledge).  Yet they will toss it all away if they offered a cash shop?  You trust him with money, no working demo, but not with implementing an alternative business model even if it means you get to keep your game.

    If the population were too small to support his expected subscription price, would you be willing to pay $30, $40, or even $50 per month in sub fees to compensate?  After all $30 is just a dollar a day.  You probably burn more gas than that just driving to lunch.

  • supergfunksupergfunk Laurinburg, NCPosts: 95Member Common

    Bottom line is, any game company has to make money....nothing is ever gonna be "free" so the business model is not really the concern, what really matters is the quality of the game and whether or not it's fun to play...

     

    image

  • Mtibbs1989Mtibbs1989 Fredericksburg, VAPosts: 2,920Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by Melloz
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by MarkJacobs
    Originally posted by Zinzan
    Originally posted by gylnne

    This warning coming from Mark Jacobs in a recent article he did which included his opinion on the unsustainable f2p model so many games are using.

     

    "Camelot Unchained creator and long-time MMO veteran Mark Jacobs has warned of an impending free-to-play “apocalypse” in three to five years time, thanks to a rush towards unsustainable free-to-play models. He predicted to VG247 that developers will close and publishers stand to lose a lot of money.

    “The whole free-to-play thing isn’t going away tomorrow,” Jacobs stressed, “but let’s just see what happens in three to five years – and I’m betting closer to three – where free-to-play will become just another model. Right now you’ve got everybody chasing it, going ‘Isn’t this great? Free to play, we’re going to make so much money’”.

    Jacobs felt that many developers and publishers are chasing the free-to-play market in the hope that a small percentage of players will actually lay down money on micro-payment items. He doesn’t see it as an economically viable strategy."

    Continue reading here:  f2p heading for disaster

    That's a pretty damning article, so CU can never, ever go F2P now, not unless MJ eats his words. oh and alienating most of his potential player base is a bit bold.

    I wonder if he may live to regret this statement if/when CU decides to introduce micro transactions.....F2P is a bad thing maybe, but a subscription based game with a cash shop? 

    LOL. I've already alienated a lot of my potential playerbase by saying:

    1) No PvE leveling

    2) Subscription-based only

    3) It won't be a successor to Dark Age of Camelot

    What I said in this article wasn't news to our backers. In terms of a cash shop, I'd rather shut the game down at that point.

    I guess I find it troubling that you're willing to flush all of the money and time a community has invested in your business venture if it doesn't pan out how you want.

    This is a major reason why I haven't donated to any Kickstarter yet.  There are no investor protections past funding.  If you were beholden to a publisher or publically traded company it wouldn't be as easy to throw away everything everyone else has put into the project.

    It's what I, and I think many others, want as well.  If it went to a cash shop, I'm pretty sure I'd quit based on my previous experiences with that type of system.  So I have no problems with him saying that he'd rather shut down the game than compromise it that way.

    Being beholden to publishers or shareholders that must make more and more money now is exactly what's broken many games in the past including DAoC and WAR.

    I don't think financial responsibility to a parent corporation "broke many games".  Bad development and design decisions "break" games.  That's just an excuse.

    While I think keeping the integrity of his principles intact is somewhat commendable, I also think that is a major hamper to adoption and support of these sorts of projects.

    It's interesting to me that on one hand he's praised for his adamant adherence to a vision, yet you don't trust him to implement a cash shop.  So far there are a little under seven thousand people willing to donate to the project (at an average of approximately $160 per pledge).  Yet they will toss it all away if they offered a cash shop?  You trust him with money, no working demo, but not with implementing an alternative business model even if it means you get to keep your game.

    If the population were too small to support his expected subscription price, would you be willing to pay $30, $40, or even $50 per month in sub fees to compensate?  After all $30 is just a dollar a day.  You probably burn more gas than that just driving to lunch.

     I spit at the $15.00 monthly fee model as it is. Don't give a half-twit like MJ an idea to increase a subscription model to more than double. He's already asking for free handouts as it is.

     However, do remember that a person/company is only as good as their last work (Warhammer Online).  Just because MJ left his last company in the hands of EA doesn't mean he's no longer responsible for the utter shit game they recently released.

    image

    Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
  • bingbongbrosbingbongbros Vista, CAPosts: 650Member Uncommon

    I've always always hated f2p.  It is great to try a game out first but overall if you choose to play the game you are going to end up spending a crap load more on the whole package.  Subscription based games never bothered me because of the sub, they bothered me because they were rushed and a buggy mess.

     

    I really hope Mark is correct and 3-5 years later they all emplode and go away.

    Playing: Smite, Marvel Heroes
    Played: Nexus:Kingdom of the Winds, Everquest, DAoC, Everquest 2, WoW, Matrix Online, Vangaurd, SWG, DDO, EVE, Fallen Earth, LoTRo, CoX, Champions Online, WAR, Darkfall, Mortal Online, Guild Wars, Rift, Tera, Aion, AoC, Gods and Heroes, DCUO, FF14, TSW, SWTOR, GW2, Wildstar, ESO, ArcheAge
    Waiting On: Nothing. Mmorpg's are dead.

  • JasonJJasonJ New Port Richey, FLPosts: 395Member

    Jacobs proved in yet another way he is clueless.

    F2P has been around since 1996, it created Nexon Inc, a juggernaut and companies are making more money with F2P than without it.

    Two of the largest gaming companies were built on it. Turbine is making far more now than when they did at the peak of LotRo/DDO, It kept Funcom from closing its doors when AoC lost a large portion of its playerbase. NCSoft is still one of the largest MMO makers on the planet without subscriptions...Jacobs is looking a fool to everyone but former hardcore DaoC players, even the non-harcore DaoC players dont like him which is why they are over in the TESO forums instead of here.

    But, this is coming from a man knowing he is targetting a portion of a small portion of gamers, some of the few that think DaoC was the best game. So, when you are targetting 50-75k people, its easy to hit your mark...a F2P game can cough and get 10x that many people and far more money.

    Jacobs needs to wake up to reality.

  • Mtibbs1989Mtibbs1989 Fredericksburg, VAPosts: 2,920Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by bingbongbros

    I've always always hated f2p.  It is great to try a game out first but overall if you choose to play the game you are going to end up spending a crap load more on the whole package.  Subscription based games never bothered me because of the sub, they bothered me because they were rushed and a buggy mess.

     

    I really hope Mark is correct and 3-5 years later they all emplode and go away.

     F2P is here to stay and the jibberish spewing out of MJ's mouth is utter garbage. F2P models aren't a new thing and won't be going anywhere. They bring in much more money for a company which is always going to kill off an old dinosaur model like subscriptions. When you have "AAA" F2P MMO's being released that are on par / better than the "AAA" subscription models. Guess who is going to play what? People are going to play the F2P model in a heartbeat. Of course, if a company wants to compete against the F2P model. Lowering the cost woud easily be one way to counteract against the F2P market. 

    image

    Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
  • Mtibbs1989Mtibbs1989 Fredericksburg, VAPosts: 2,920Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by JasonJ

    Jacobs proved in yet another way he is clueless.

    F2P has been around since 1996, it created Nexon Inc, a juggernaut and companies are making more money with F2P than without it.

    Two of the largest gaming companies were built on it. Turbine is making far more now than when they did at the peak of LotRo/DDO, It kept Funcom from closing its doors when AoC lost a large portion of its playerbase. NCSoft is still one of the largest MMO makers on the planet without subscriptions...Jacobs is looking a fool to everyone but former hardcore DaoC players, even the non-harcore DaoC players dont like him which is why they are over in the TESO forums instead of here.

    But, this is coming from a man knowing he is targetting a portion of a small portion of gamers, some of the few that think DaoC was the best game. So, when you are targetting 50-75k people, its easy to hit your mark...a F2P game can cough and get 10x that many people and far more money.

    Jacobs needs to wake up to reality.

     100% agree to this. F2P isn't new and could probably date back even before Nexon. 

    image

    Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,672Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by gylnne

    This warning coming from Mark Jacobs in a recent article he did which included his opinion on the unsustainable f2p model so many games are using.

    "Camelot Unchained creator and long-time MMO veteran Mark Jacobs has warned of an impending free-to-play “apocalypse” in three to five years time, thanks to a rush towards unsustainable free-to-play models. He predicted to VG247 that developers will close and publishers stand to lose a lot of money.

    “The whole free-to-play thing isn’t going away tomorrow,” Jacobs stressed, “but let’s just see what happens in three to five years – and I’m betting closer to three – where free-to-play will become just another model. Right now you’ve got everybody chasing it, going ‘Isn’t this great? Free to play, we’re going to make so much money’”.

    Jacobs felt that many developers and publishers are chasing the free-to-play market in the hope that a small percentage of players will actually lay down money on micro-payment items. He doesn’t see it as an economically viable strategy."

    Continue reading here:  f2p heading for disaster

    If you don't realize this as setting the ground work for charging a box fee and per expansion prices, you're kidding yourself. The anti-F2P clowns handed devs the golden key to their wallets when they gave the devs "B2P", and you're going to see more and more devs simply running with that.

     

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • MondoA2JMondoA2J Henderson, NVPosts: 258Member

    No idea where this subject went and I am not going to go through all that eye poking and name calling.

    So I will just refer to the OP.

    I doubt it.

    These companies with F2P models have spent MILLIONS of dollars into research on the subject and if it would be a viable method of making money. They don't give a rats ass about the game. They care about their money....period.

    Not only for today or the next year but for the next DECADE!

    Any business is focused on making money for a long time not a short while. Seeing how much it costs to produce MMOs.

    Ahem.... 2 million for this games KS as example....No one goes into this hoping not to make money.

    Which business model is superior?

    Thats for a market analyst to decide.

    Which method is better for the player?

    Thats YOUR decision.

    If you wanna play F2P games...thats fine.

    If you wanna play SUB games...thats fine.

    If you wanna play B2P games....thats fine!!!

    Whatever the heck floats your boat and have fun!

    MMORPG Gamers/Developers need a reality check!

  • Mtibbs1989Mtibbs1989 Fredericksburg, VAPosts: 2,920Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by gylnne

    This warning coming from Mark Jacobs in a recent article he did which included his opinion on the unsustainable f2p model so many games are using.

    "Camelot Unchained creator and long-time MMO veteran Mark Jacobs has warned of an impending free-to-play “apocalypse” in three to five years time, thanks to a rush towards unsustainable free-to-play models. He predicted to VG247 that developers will close and publishers stand to lose a lot of money.

    “The whole free-to-play thing isn’t going away tomorrow,” Jacobs stressed, “but let’s just see what happens in three to five years – and I’m betting closer to three – where free-to-play will become just another model. Right now you’ve got everybody chasing it, going ‘Isn’t this great? Free to play, we’re going to make so much money’”.

    Jacobs felt that many developers and publishers are chasing the free-to-play market in the hope that a small percentage of players will actually lay down money on micro-payment items. He doesn’t see it as an economically viable strategy."

    Continue reading here:  f2p heading for disaster

    If you don't realize this as setting the ground work for charging a box fee and per expansion prices, you're kdding yourself. The anti-F2P clowns handed devs the golden key to their wallets when they gave the devs "B2P", and you're going to see more and more devs simply running with that.

     

     You know what's quite funny?

    I could say the same thing about Jacobs chasing the dream of the subscription model, "Jacobs feels that he can chase the subscription model in the hopes that a small percentage of players will actually lay down money. He sees it as an economically viable strategy."

    Do you see what I did there? It made me laugh a bit ^.^

     MJ If you read this, you're chasing the great white whale. The only companies who've managed to catch it are few and far in between. Your chance is long gone buddy. Especially after the release of Warhammer Online. I can't believe how many people actually blindly follow you into the depths. So far you have 7,000 willing people who were dumb enough to had you free money. Good luck chasing a dream.

     I love how a person is willing enough to blantantly state the quality of the game lies within the payment model. It's actually quite funny to listen to this guy talk in the interview. The only thing apocalyptic that's going to happen is the after math when people find out CU will end up failing and then turns F2P. Because then we can all laugh at MJ and his incompetence as a businessman and a game designer.

    image

    Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
  • StizzledStizzled Springfield, MOPosts: 1,264Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by bingbongbros

    I've always always hated f2p.  It is great to try a game out first but overall if you choose to play the game you are going to end up spending a crap load more on the whole package.  Subscription based games never bothered me because of the sub, they bothered me because they were rushed and a buggy mess.

     

    I really hope Mark is correct and 3-5 years later they all emplode and go away.

    People always say this, but is it really true? Of all the F2P games I've played, I couldn't imagine spending $240 on the game in it's first year, and then $180 - $220 (sub + $20 - $40 expac) every year after.

     

    Are there people who spend more than that in F2P games? Well sure, there are people who spend that much in a month. But, my question is, do they really need to? I'm betting that most of the time the answer is no.


  • Dren_UtogiDren_Utogi OuterSpacePosts: 1,713Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Mkilbride

     

    He also said that, if the game is in a state where it has to go F2P...he's shutting it down.

    THis really the wrong attiude and something that kills games when a developer speaks.

    LotrO had been running all server , without merging , with healthy populations for years. Then they did DDo which also had an impressive following before free to play mmove, after free to play they added servers.

     What people like Mark Jacobs is missing is the fact the free to play opens up a game world to a bigger market share, and it is not about making 10 dollars a month, but 1 dollar a minute.

    Turbine is doing extremely well in that regard, SOE as well.

    SO what Mark Jacobs is telling his fans of CU, I would rather have a limited number of players, make them spend 9.99 for what could be a medicre game, rather then having a larger player base who will spend 1 dollar  minute and give the subscription players , actual players to play with.

     

    CU is a nich game, and to think little under 9k people can keep a server alive... is laughable and it is also a waste of resources.

    reviews are !@#$ing stupid. Play what you love.

  • SeariasSearias Edmonton, ABPosts: 712Member Uncommon
    Only time will tell, but in my opinion I think that the risk for developer getting into the F2P market is getting bigger and bigger and after some point the risk is not going to be worth the benefit.

    <InvalidTag type="text/javascript" src="http://www.gamebreaker.tv/cce/e.js"></script><div class="cce_pane" content-slug="which-world-of-warcraft-villain-are-you" ctype="quiz" d="http://www.gamebreaker.tv"></div>;

  • Mtibbs1989Mtibbs1989 Fredericksburg, VAPosts: 2,920Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Dren_Utogi
    Originally posted by Mkilbride

     

    He also said that, if the game is in a state where it has to go F2P...he's shutting it down.

    THis really the wrong attiude and something that kills games when a developer speaks.

    LotrO had been running all server , without merging , with healthy populations for years. Then they did DDo which also had an impressive following before free to play mmove, after free to play they added servers.

     What people like Mark Jacobs is missing is the fact the free to play opens up a game world to a bigger market share, and it is not about making 10 dollars a month, but 1 dollar a minute.

    Turbine is doing extremely well in that regard, SOE as well.

    SO what Mark Jacobs is telling his fans of CU, I would rather have a limited number of players, make them spend 9.99 for what could be a medicre game, rather then having a larger player base who will spend 1 dollar  minute and give the subscription players , actual players to play with.

     

    CU is a nich game, and to think little under 9k people can keep a server alive... is laughable and it is also a waste of resources.

    Well, if I were to bash a MMO model then have to convert to it. It'd be a complete embarassment. However, if his game doesn't do good and shuts down. I feel sorry for the millions of dollars wasted to an incompetent developer. Could you source the info on where he stated that?

    image

    Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
  • MarkJacobsMarkJacobs CEO City State Entertainment Fairfax, VAPosts: 473Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Dren_Utogi
    Originally posted by Mkilbride

     

    He also said that, if the game is in a state where it has to go F2P...he's shutting it down.

    THis really the wrong attiude and something that kills games when a developer speaks.

    LotrO had been running all server , without merging , with healthy populations for years. Then they did DDo which also had an impressive following before free to play mmove, after free to play they added servers.

     What people like Mark Jacobs is missing is the fact the free to play opens up a game world to a bigger market share, and it is not about making 10 dollars a month, but 1 dollar a minute.

    Turbine is doing extremely well in that regard, SOE as well.

    SO what Mark Jacobs is telling his fans of CU, I would rather have a limited number of players, make them spend 9.99 for what could be a medicre game, rather then having a larger player base who will spend 1 dollar  minute and give the subscription players , actual players to play with.

     

    CU is a nich game, and to think little under 9k people can keep a server alive... is laughable and it is also a waste of resources.

    Aww, I thought we were just starting to get along. :) Seriously though, here is my thinking:

    >>> What people like Mark Jacobs is missing is the fact the free to play opens up a game world to a bigger market share, and it is not about making 10 dollars a month, but 1 dollar a minute.

      Far from it. I know this and totally respect the games that can pull this off well. However, it's not the game I want to make. I don't want to deal with a large number of free players in an RvR-based game. I absolutely recognize how successful some, not all, FTP comversions and games have been. Why is it wrong for me to want to make a smaller game and use KS to help guage interest if it is okay for FTP players to have their own game(s)?

    >>>>Turbine is doing extremely well in that regard, SOE as well.

      They were doing extremely well. It saved the game.

    >>>>SO what Mark Jacobs is telling his fans of CU, I would rather have a limited number of players, make them spend 9.99 for what could be a medicre game, rather then having a larger player base who will spend 1 dollar  minute and give the subscription players , actual players to play with.

      Without addresing the mediocre part, I'm not making anybody do anything, I'm asking. Again, that's the point of the KSer. If we don't fund, I end up wasting about 150K. OTOH, if I try to make the game without the Kickstarter and it fails, I lose a lot more than that. 

    >>>>CU is a nich game, and to think little under 9k people can keep a server alive... is laughable and it is also a waste of resources.

       Well, yes and no. Even if we had 10K paying $10 per month, that's 1.2M. That's not a large amount but it is not $0 either.  Now, if we only had 10K at launch, then we would be a bad investment for me but assuming that my belief is that 30K - 50K would pay for this game, then it becomes a good investment.

       What it boils down to is simply this, I don't want to try to make a FTP game and I'm promising my backers that the game will be a subscription-based game. Why is wanting to make a small game that appeals to a niche audience suddenly a bad thing especially as I've said the sub price will be below the industry average? 

       Keep one thing in mind please and that is the potential ratio of backers to possible players. Do you really think that games such as Torment and Project Eternity will only sell the copies that they have pre-sold on KS (in other words, no new orders)? Of course not  evenif they are just good games but not outstanding. So, what could the possible ratio be between pre-sold and on release? Back in my EA days, I was told by all the sales folks that PC pre-orders accounted for <10% of total sales (this was back in 2008 and console sales traditionally had a much higher %). Now, if we look at KS as a more risky version of a pre-order, what is that percentage? If you also keep in mind that Obisidian's great games sold in the millions, then their sales on the KS would be, to use the parlance here, an epic failure if that's all they sold. Now, what do you think the chances of that really are? My guess is that if PE is the game I expect it will be, that 73K will represent less than 10% of their total sales. Now, I'm not saying that CU will get that high of a number, as a matter of fact I doubt that. OTOH, is it so unreasonable to think that if we fund with 15K backers that we would get a 3X once the game goes LIVE. I don't think it is. Again, this is all conjecture till one of the mega-hits of KS like Project Eternity goes up for sale.

       Anyway, no matter what I'm taking the biggest risk as I already have by funding and putting my name back out there in interviews, in forums, etc. 

     

      

    Mark Jacobs
    CEO, City State Entertainment

  • AldersAlders Jack Burton'sPosts: 1,857Member Uncommon

    The point of any of these games is to make money.  The price model matters little.  The most important aspect is how each model is handled and monetized.

    In theory, the P2P model fits the community driven goals of MMO's the best.  In theory everyone pays the same and are on equal footing once in the game world, whether it be opportunities or items.  In practice, RMT runs rampant in these games allowing many players to buy their way to the top.  Players often stick or leave these games based on time/money invested rather than quality.

     

    A poorly implemented FTP model is just as bad.  Allowing players to literally pay to win is terrible and goes against what i believe MMO's stand for and shoud be about.  Requiring the cash shop as a means to most efficiently clear or even run content is bad.  Content is actually built around the need for these shops.  These games nickel and dime you around every corner and in the end circumvent what the players believe to be a better deal.  

     

    A proper B2P model should be the future, provided it's handled correctly.  GW2 was on the right track but slipped up a bit with their shop.  Fluff should be the name of the game.  Give players a limitless amount of it and they'll be happy.  The key is to focus on quality content first, absent of any items available in the shop and leave the shop for purely non combat related items.    This is where GW2 slipped up in my eyes.  No one cares about town clothes or exp boosts.  They want armor skins, weapon skins, housing options, and so on.  

    The trick is to make everything that's available in the shop also available in game but get rid of the terriblly low RNG factor typically surrounding them.  Give players long quest chains to obtain them and they'll do it, but also give them a bonus for acquiring them from said quest and not from the shop.  Players with little time can purchase the fluff and players that want to earn them in game can do so with added "bragging rights" so to speak.

     

     Bottom line is, how each model is implemented and handled is more important that the model itself.

  • gylnnegylnne South Hutchinson, KSPosts: 320Member
    Originally posted by Dren_Utogi

     

    CU is a nich game, and to think little under 9k people can keep a server alive... is laughable and it is also a waste of resources.

    Hmm Dren can you give me a source for this number? Kickstart backers have been informed he is not interested in making the next WoW killer and a niche rvr with 30,000 to 40,000 is enough.:)

  • Mtibbs1989Mtibbs1989 Fredericksburg, VAPosts: 2,920Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Searias
    Only time will tell, but in my opinion I think that the risk for developer getting into the F2P market is getting bigger and bigger and after some point the risk is not going to be worth the benefit.

     What risk?

     A MMO isn't an overly expensive project that require many millions more than any other game on a PC or Console. In fact, they're actually a dumbed down version of RPGs that are on the market already (Elder Scrolls, Final Fantasy, Assassins Creed). The difference is that there's more work involved in the networking portion of the game. Servers don't require obsurd amounts of money to upkeep like they use to either. So the only down side to producing a F2P or P2P MMO would be the quality of the product.

    image

    Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Sign In or Register to comment.