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

145791013

Comments

  • tauraktaurak rock cave, WVPosts: 174Member

    I agree with Mark here 100%

    You can only sell so many items before the game becomes "Pay to Win".

    Hosting servers capable of running a game is not cheap I'm sure. Not to mention the staff salaries etc etc.

    They may make a lot of $ initially but once the game starts to die down a little I'm guessing they'll have no option but to close it down.

    The only way I see a game surviving as F2P is if they push out expansions very fast, and make most things in the game to where you have to buy them, or your gameplay will suffer a lot. Such as, extra bank slots and things like that. Who wants to pay extra RL $ just to have enough bank space to make your game life less of a living hell? Not me.

    The only successful games that are F2P are the ones that are Pay to Win. People know they can easily buy an awesome sword and dominate the game for a while, so  they go out and do it. Then they usually quickly get tired of the game and quit.

    People will only buy so many cool weapon skins.

  • MarkJacobsMarkJacobs CEO City State Entertainment Fairfax, VAPosts: 467Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Dren_Utogi
    Originally posted by MarkJacobs
    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.

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

      They were doing extremely well. It saved the game.

     

      

    I sstopped reading there cause my response would of been a book.

    With the first reponse, what does a payement model have to do with the content of a game ? My mind is blown away at how arrogant your statement was.

    Okay, I'm confused here. You said "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."

    My response was: Far from it (responding to your point about "....Mark Jacobs is missing"). Meaning that I do understand it opens a wider world. In other words, all I said was that I agree with you that FTP opens up a wider market. I've said this from day 1 about out KS, I've said this to VCs, etc. I just don't want to go down that route, simple as that.

    With your second statement, Asheron Call is OLDER then DAoC, and it has a 14.99 a month payemnt model, LotrO has had over 500k players for half a decade at times reching millions of players world wide. SOE has run the everyquest series for decades with payment models. The notion that some of the best developers in the industry  needs saving, is absolutely fucking ludacris and completly out of touch at where the market is.

    And this makes even less sense. LoTRO was doing badly until LoTRO went free to play. Once it made the transition, it made them (Turbine and then WB) a lot of money and was a huge success. Once again I agreed with you. How come I agreed with both of your points and you started screaming at me for agreeing with you? I'm glad I didn't disagree, the forums would have melted down. :)

     

    You may beleive you are not insulting millions of players around the world with these idiculous claims, but you are, and it just keeps getting worse with tever letter typed.

    I'm sorry, what claims are you referring to? The ones where I said that a lot of developers were going to go out of business because too much competition would cause a market shakeout? Please show me one industry where that doesn't happen. Also, how I have insulted anyone? My points were that too many devs/pubs are rushing into FTP and there will be a shakeout. There's already been a lot of casualites in the mobile space (look at the number of devs that have closed up shop), just as there were in the MMO space when lots of devs flooded there.

    Mark Jacobs
    CEO, City State Entertainment

  • Dren_UtogiDren_Utogi OuterSpacePosts: 1,708Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by taurak

    I agree with Mark here 100%

    You can only sell so many items before the game becomes "Pay to Win".

    Hosting servers capable of running a game is not cheap I'm sure. Not to mention the staff salaries etc etc.

    They may make a lot of $ initially but once the game starts to die down a little I'm guessing they'll have no option but to close it down.

    The only way I see a game surviving as F2P is if they push out expansions very fast, and make most things in the game to where you have to buy them, or your gameplay will suffer a lot. Such as, extra bank slots and things like that. Who wants to pay extra RL $ just to have enough bank space to make your game life less of a living hell? Not me.

    The only successful games that are F2P are the ones that are Pay to Win. People know they can easily buy an awesome sword and dominate the game for a while, so  they go out and do it. Then they usually quickly get tired of the game and quit.

    People will only buy so many cool weapon skins.

    my mind won;t stop blowing away  right now, THe f2p mdel is going on it;s 5th year with Anarchary Online leading the pack. It is the MARKET, get over it and retire.

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

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

    I agree with Mark here 100%

    You can only sell so many items before the game becomes "Pay to Win".

    Hosting servers capable of running a game is not cheap I'm sure. Not to mention the staff salaries etc etc.

    They may make a lot of $ initially but once the game starts to die down a little I'm guessing they'll have no option but to close it down.

    The only way I see a game surviving as F2P is if they push out expansions very fast, and make most things in the game to where you have to buy them, or your gameplay will suffer a lot. Such as, extra bank slots and things like that. Who wants to pay extra RL $ just to have enough bank space to make your game life less of a living hell? Not me.

    The only successful games that are F2P are the ones that are Pay to Win. People know they can easily buy an awesome sword and dominate the game for a while, so  they go out and do it. Then they usually quickly get tired of the game and quit.

    People will only buy so many cool weapon skins.

     You do know a server is a dime a dosen now-a-days right? Every major console game has multiplayer of some sort without monthly membership fees to pay for these games.

     Where do you think they're hosting these games on? Servers.

    I can easily go out a buy a server for dirt cheap. This is what I found in less than 30 seconds of searching: http://www.newegg.com/Servers-Workstations/Category/ID-271

    They're very inexpensive. So don't be fooled into believing servers require MMO's to have a subscription. F2P games do push our a lot of content all the time. In fact I see more content coming from the F2P market then I see coming from subscription based models. F2P games don't require their customer to purchase addition content (unless it's fashion,exp boosts, or potions from the cash shop). Your game experience doesn't suffer from not having overly abundent storage slots. That just comes down to how much of a pack rat you end up being in a game.

    I have to disagree with the only successful F2P games that are "pay to win". This is completely untrue. DCUO, DDO, AoC, Tera, Raiderz, Dragons Nest, Wizardry Online, Anarchy Online, AION, I can keep this list going but I'd rather not. That P2W statement is completely false and don't believe what people tell you. F2P companies for the most part try hard to no make their game F2P. They understand that the Western Audiance doesn't want P2W so they don't make their games as such.

    What makes a MMO last is the quality of the game and time and effort put within the game. A customer won't spend years in a very shallow/linear game and this is a proven fact. Which is beyond me as to why developers keep making MMO's as such.

    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 Dren_Utogi
    Originally posted by taurak

    I agree with Mark here 100%

    You can only sell so many items before the game becomes "Pay to Win".

    Hosting servers capable of running a game is not cheap I'm sure. Not to mention the staff salaries etc etc.

    They may make a lot of $ initially but once the game starts to die down a little I'm guessing they'll have no option but to close it down.

    The only way I see a game surviving as F2P is if they push out expansions very fast, and make most things in the game to where you have to buy them, or your gameplay will suffer a lot. Such as, extra bank slots and things like that. Who wants to pay extra RL $ just to have enough bank space to make your game life less of a living hell? Not me.

    The only successful games that are F2P are the ones that are Pay to Win. People know they can easily buy an awesome sword and dominate the game for a while, so  they go out and do it. Then they usually quickly get tired of the game and quit.

    People will only buy so many cool weapon skins.

    my mind won;t stop blowing away  right now, THe f2p mdel is going on it;s 5th year with Anarchary Online leading the pack. It is the MARKET, get over it and retire.

     Wrong wrong wrong, F2P has been out much longer than Anarchy Online (which is a very fun game and I love it to this day).

    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.
  • tleartlear Toronto, ONPosts: 142Member
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by taurak

    I agree with Mark here 100%

    You can only sell so many items before the game becomes "Pay to Win".

    Hosting servers capable of running a game is not cheap I'm sure. Not to mention the staff salaries etc etc.

    They may make a lot of $ initially but once the game starts to die down a little I'm guessing they'll have no option but to close it down.

    The only way I see a game surviving as F2P is if they push out expansions very fast, and make most things in the game to where you have to buy them, or your gameplay will suffer a lot. Such as, extra bank slots and things like that. Who wants to pay extra RL $ just to have enough bank space to make your game life less of a living hell? Not me.

    The only successful games that are F2P are the ones that are Pay to Win. People know they can easily buy an awesome sword and dominate the game for a while, so  they go out and do it. Then they usually quickly get tired of the game and quit.

    People will only buy so many cool weapon skins.

     You do know a server is a dime a dosen now-a-days right? Every major console game has multiplayer of some sort without monthly membership fees to pay for these games.

     Where do you think they're hosting these games on? Servers.

    I can easily go out a buy a server for dirt cheap. This is what I found in less than 30 seconds of searching: http://www.newegg.com/Servers-Workstations/Category/ID-271

    They're very inexpensive. So don't be fooled into believing servers require MMO's to have a subscription. F2P games do push our a lot of content all the time. In fact I see more content coming from the F2P market then I see coming from subscription based models. F2P games don't require their customer to purchase addition content (unless it's fashion,exp boosts, or potions from the cash shop). Your game experience doesn't suffer from not having overly abundent storage slots. That just comes down to how much of a pack rat you end up being in a game.

    I have to disagree with the only successful F2P games that are "pay to win". This is completely untrue. DCUO, DDO, AoC, Tera, Raiderz, Dragons Nest, Wizardry Online, Anarchy Online, AION, I can keep this list going but I'd rather not. That P2W statement is completely false and don't believe what people tell you. F2P companies for the most part try hard to no make their game F2P. They understand that the Western Audiance doesn't want P2W so they don't make their games as such.

    What makes a MMO last is the quality of the game and time and effort put within the game. A customer won't spend years in a very shallow/linear game and this is a proven fact. Which is beyond me as to why developers keep making MMO's as such.

    It is not pay to win. It is WHATEVER IT TAKES to hook in another whale that will drop few thousand a MONTH on a game. It is a crack dealer business model. Find the addicts. hook them in, feed on them. Make new game repeat. People do not get how f2p actually works. It is not sustainable long term. I get recrutiers trying to get me to work for one of these scam companies every week, they pop up all over the place non stop. Crash is coming

  • boxsndboxsnd Kraxton, ARPosts: 438Member Uncommon
    I think we now know the reason WAR and DAoC are being held hostage with a few thousand subscribers when they could go F2P and flourish.

    DAoC - Excalibur & Camlann

  • Dren_UtogiDren_Utogi OuterSpacePosts: 1,708Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by Dren_Utogi
    Originally posted by taurak

    I agree with Mark here 100%

    You can only sell so many items before the game becomes "Pay to Win".

    Hosting servers capable of running a game is not cheap I'm sure. Not to mention the staff salaries etc etc.

    They may make a lot of $ initially but once the game starts to die down a little I'm guessing they'll have no option but to close it down.

    The only way I see a game surviving as F2P is if they push out expansions very fast, and make most things in the game to where you have to buy them, or your gameplay will suffer a lot. Such as, extra bank slots and things like that. Who wants to pay extra RL $ just to have enough bank space to make your game life less of a living hell? Not me.

    The only successful games that are F2P are the ones that are Pay to Win. People know they can easily buy an awesome sword and dominate the game for a while, so  they go out and do it. Then they usually quickly get tired of the game and quit.

    People will only buy so many cool weapon skins.

    my mind won;t stop blowing away  right now, THe f2p mdel is going on it;s 5th year with Anarchary Online leading the pack. It is the MARKET, get over it and retire.

     Wrong wrong wrong, F2P has been out much longer than Anarchy Online (which is a very fun game and I love it to this day).

    Thanks, so now we have clearified , that F2P works.  thanks !

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

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

     

      

     There's nothing wrong with making a subscription-based game. What's wrong is that you come out and shit on the doorsteps of everyone who likes F2P by bashing the model because you've had a few bad run-ins with angry customers who didn't like how you handled your business.

     Heck I don't blame them either check my rant about your article, it's nothing but trash talking the F2P model and the community who back it.

     As far as the biggest risk, that's a joke. You're not an indie developer. You're the ex-owner of Mythic who sold off the company to EA. Quite a big back stabbing move on your part ( I bet you made a killing from that deal). But who's to blame? *cough* MJ *cough*. Now you're using a KS and acting like an indie developer with your background with DAoC. Trust me I loved DAoC and I love Indie-Developers, but I'll never forget the trash that came out of your studio when Mythic worked for EA.

    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 boxsnd
    I think we now know the reason WAR and DAoC are being held hostage with a few thousand subscribers when they could go F2P and flourish.

     Well, I don't believe MJ has anything to do with it anymore seeing that he has split from the company to create a new studio. But I do believe that if this is the way he thinks, then his employees probably think the same way.

    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.
  • usuckmmorpgcomusuckmmorpgcom c, KYPosts: 1,348Member
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by MarkJacobs
    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. 

     

      

     There's nothing wrong with making a subscription-based game. What's wrong is that you come out and shit on the doorsteps of everyone who likes F2P by bashing the model because you've had a few bad run-ins with angry customers who didn't like how you handled your business.

     Heck I don't blame them either check my rant about your article, it's nothing but trash talking the F2P model and the community who back it.

     As far as the biggest risk, that's a joke. You're not an indie developer. You're the ex-owner of Mythic who sold off the company to EA. Quite a big back stabbing move on your part ( I bet you made a killing from that deal). But who's to blame? *cough* MJ *cough*. Now you're using a KS and acting like an indie developer with your background with DAoC. Trust me I loved DAoC and I love Indie-Developers, but I'll never forget the trash that came out of your studio when Mythic worked for EA.

    +1000

    I find it interesting that Mark Jacobs' psychic clarity doesn't extend to his own games.

  • MarkJacobsMarkJacobs CEO City State Entertainment Fairfax, VAPosts: 467Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by MarkJacobs
    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. 

     

      

     There's nothing wrong with making a subscription-based game. What's wrong is that you come out and shit on the doorsteps of everyone who likes F2P by bashing the model because you've had a few bad run-ins with angry customers who didn't like how you handled your business.

    Maybe we are talking about two different articles. Where did I bash the model? I've said the same exact things for years:

    1) FTP has a place in the market

    2) BTP has a place in the market

    3) Sub has a place in the market

    If one of these is seen as the "The One Model", it will get too crowded, reset and the market will correct.

     Heck I don't blame them either check my rant about your article, it's nothing but trash talking the F2P model and the community who back it.

    I did? What I did bash is the total flood of developers/pubs who are pouring in there right now. Please show me a period in the last 30 years of games when a ton of developers/pubs pouring into a new model didn't end badly. How many times have pubs/devs been burned when that happened (the first console market collapse happened more than 2 decades ago). I have no problem with the FTP model but I don't want to make games for it. I also strongly support the BTP model for certain games as you said you did. The point of the article was to talk about what was going to happen to developers/pubs and also what it would mean to consumers who do like FTP and pay for their enjoyment as opposed to those that don't.

     As far as the biggest risk, that's a joke. You're not an indie developer. You're the ex-owner of Mythic who sold off the company to EA. Quite a big back stabbing move on your part ( I bet you made a killing from that deal). But who's to blame? *cough* MJ *cough*. Now you're using a KS and acting like an indie developer with your background with DAoC. Trust me I loved DAoC and I love Indie-Developers, but I'll never forget the trash that came out of your studio when Mythic worked for EA.

    Ah, I see. I was the guy who sold the studio. Not the investors, not my partner it was me,the guy with a minority share of the company. Got it. And when I was at EA, I suppose I also was the CEO of EA so any decisions that were made were all mine. Okay. Now it's clear.

    Mark Jacobs
    CEO, City State Entertainment

  • JasonJJasonJ New Port Richey, FLPosts: 395Member
    Originally posted by tlear

    It is not pay to win. It is WHATEVER IT TAKES to hook in another whale that will drop few thousand a MONTH on a game. It is a crack dealer business model. Find the addicts. hook them in, feed on them. Make new game repeat. People do not get how f2p actually works. It is not sustainable long term. I get recrutiers trying to get me to work for one of these scam companies every week, they pop up all over the place non stop. Crash is coming

    Nexon:Kingdom of the Winds, F2P since 1996

    DarkEden 1997

    Mir 2, 2000

    Priston Tale 2001

    Runescape 2001

    Ragnarok Online 2002

    MappleStory 2003

    And those are just the popular very profitable ones I can think of off the top of my head...and when I say popular, I dont mean DaoC 250k players popular I mean, Maple Story MMOs have had over 39 MILLION accounts created worldwide. Back in 2006 the company made just over 300 million from it...thats equal to 1.6 million subscribers at $15 a month.

    THAT is why Nexon is one of the largest gaming companies on the PLANET with a profit so massive, from F2P games. Its sustainable, has been for a long time.

    Just say you dont like most F2P games and let it go, there is no point in throwing out remarks like you are, they are not true.

     

     

     

  • krevrakrevra Kissimmee, FLPosts: 31Member
    Well after reading some of MJ's own comments and ignorant statements with zero proof to back it and his past im actually glad im not supporting the kickstarter. Alienate moar before your game is even released plox lets see how great it does. Oh an this is coming from a die hard RvR'er
  • Mtibbs1989Mtibbs1989 Fredericksburg, VAPosts: 2,920Member Uncommon

     The worst part of it all, is that I was probably one of those people on the mythic boards who were pointing out many of the major flaws in Warhammer Online all the time.

    I remember the podcasts and forum posts that laughed at fellow forum posters  simply stating that the game was working as intended. Or, well then those players need to learn to play around the mechanics that system because we don't see anything wrong with it.

     We found major exploites like bright wizards/sorcs were able to cast their spells through ceilings and walls ( which if I remember correctly was fixed 5-6 months after release).

    There were many other issues with class skills not properly working as they should. However, we'd simply be laughed at and shrugged off by the company. Why did I continue to play Warhammer Online for 2 years after it's release? I liked the game and I liked the concept behind it. I only wished to see the game in the hands of people who actually cared about their product. However, had finally come to the realization that they didn't care. So I turned off my subscription, as did my entire guild of 100+ players (Ebonlore) and we moved on to better games.

    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.
  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Pittsville, VAPosts: 5,211Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by krevra
    Well after reading some of MJ's own comments and ignorant statements with zero proof to back it and his past im actually glad im not supporting the kickstarter. Alienate moar before your game is even released plox lets see how great it does. Oh an this is coming from a die hard RvR'er

    One question. Do you believe the market is being flooded with cheap poorly conceived and executed free to play games? There are some good ones, I'm not asking about those.

    "Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause" ~Victor Hugo

  • tleartlear Toronto, ONPosts: 142Member
    Originally posted by JasonJ
    Originally posted by tlear

    It is not pay to win. It is WHATEVER IT TAKES to hook in another whale that will drop few thousand a MONTH on a game. It is a crack dealer business model. Find the addicts. hook them in, feed on them. Make new game repeat. People do not get how f2p actually works. It is not sustainable long term. I get recrutiers trying to get me to work for one of these scam companies every week, they pop up all over the place non stop. Crash is coming

    Nexon:Kingdom of the Winds, F2P since 1996

    DarkEden 1997

    Mir 2, 2000

    Priston Tale 2001

    Runescape 2001

    Ragnarok Online 2002

    MappleStory 2003

    And those are just the popular very profitable ones I can think of off the top of my head...and when I say popular, I dont mean DaoC 250k players popular I mean, Maple Story MMOs have had over 39 MILLION accounts created worldwide. Back in 2006 the company made just over 300 million from it...thats equal to 1.6 million subscribers at $15 a month.

    THAT is why Nexon is one of the largest gaming companies on the PLANET with a profit so massive, from F2P games. Its sustainable, has been for a long time.

    Just say you dont like most F2P games and let it go, there is no point in throwing out remarks like you are, they are not true.

    I got some Zynga stock I would like to sell you. Actually no I knew that thing was gona crash and burn before the ipo, too bad I do not have enough cash to be able to short them effectively.

     

    In general educate yourself, find out where the $$ come in those games. You gona be surprised.

  • XthosXthos Columbus, OHPosts: 2,628Member
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Originally posted by krevra
    Well after reading some of MJ's own comments and ignorant statements with zero proof to back it and his past im actually glad im not supporting the kickstarter. Alienate moar before your game is even released plox lets see how great it does. Oh an this is coming from a die hard RvR'er

    One question. Do you believe the market is being flooded with cheap poorly conceived and executed free to play games? There are some good ones, I'm not asking about those.

    Exactly.  B2p, we will see how it shakes out, but most of the mmos that were made to be f2p from the beginning are garbage cash grabs imo.  F2p works better for regular games, haven't seen a mmo that targeted f2p on release worth playing.

  • MarkJacobsMarkJacobs CEO City State Entertainment Fairfax, VAPosts: 467Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989

     The worst part of it all, is that I was probably one of those people on the mythic boards who were pointing out many of the major flaws in Warhammer Online all the time.

    I remember the podcasts and forum posts that laughed at fellow forum posters  simply stating that the game was working as intended. Or, well then those players need to learn to play around the mechanics that system because we don't see anything wrong with it.

     We found major exploites like bright wizards/sorcs were able to cast their spells through ceilings and walls ( which if I remember correctly was fixed 5-6 months after release).

    There were many other issues with class skills not properly working as they should. However, we'd simply be laughed at and shrugged off by the company. Why did I continue to play Warhammer Online for 2 years after it's release? I liked the game and I liked the concept behind it. I only wished to see the game in the hands of people who actually cared about their product. However, had finally come to the realization that they didn't care. So I turned off my subscription, as did my entire guild of 100+ players (Ebonlore) and we moved on to better games.

    Look. I know you think I'm an idiot, that I sold Mythic on my own and that somehow I knew how buggy WAR was at launch. I know nothing will convince you otherwise and that's fine. I won't throw anybody under the bus because I did make my own mistakes (crafting) but I ask you two simple things.

    If I was the problem at Mythic as you seem to say, how did things go after I left? If they went better, well, you certainly have reason to blame me. If worse or the same, maybe it was more complicated than you think.

     It's a reasonable assumption that I've reached all the people I could have expected to reach through being on the forums correct? Yet here I am on a Friday night, talking to you and others. I'm not screaming, threatening, calling people names, simply talking. I could have ignored this thread totally, doing so would have no effect on my KS (so no alterior motive) but instead I came in knowing full well what would happen. And this is my second question, if I was the guy that you seem to think I am, would I really spend all the time here talking to you and others?

    For what it's worth and I've said this before, I fought the selling off of Mythic from the time our investors said we had to sell it. I was a minority owner at that point and well, the investors thought the timing was right. And before you say "Well, you could have quit!" Actually, I did and the only way I would come back was if I was allowed to make the deal I needed to without interference. And the deal I wanted, well, it was to protect my whole studio because that's what killed the next to last deal, my insistence on protecting all the members of my studio it had nothing to do with money, we had already agreed to an amount.

    I doubt you'll believe anything I just said and that's fine, you have a right to your opinion. You should also consider one thing before you do that, if you asked almost anybody who worked at Mythic at the time of the M&A, they could tell you why I walked away from the deal and why I did so because I told them. That information is not confidential which is why I could tell you (or anybody else) but why I won't talk about other things.

    I'm really sorry, truly, that you helped out with WAR and apparently we didn't listen. It doesn't matter why we didn't, WAR had too many problems on release. It launched before it was ready and as I have also said and even JR said in an earnings call, some of EA's games the quarter that WAR launched were pushed out too soon and that's as far as I'll go with that statement because the reason it launched was complicated and JR was not the bad guy.

    Anyway, like I said I know nothing I said here will probably change your opinion and that's fine but at least I said it.

    Mark Jacobs
    CEO, City State Entertainment

  • Dren_UtogiDren_Utogi OuterSpacePosts: 1,708Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Originally posted by krevra
    Well after reading some of MJ's own comments and ignorant statements with zero proof to back it and his past im actually glad im not supporting the kickstarter. Alienate moar before your game is even released plox lets see how great it does. Oh an this is coming from a die hard RvR'er

    One question. Do you believe the market is being flooded with cheap poorly conceived and executed free to play games? There are some good ones, I'm not asking about those.

    It alwats has been, it is not till now that AAA mmo;s have gone F2P that people are nit piicking. Why woould cheap f2p game hamper anyones decisions about the games THEY can choose to play ?

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

  • Mtibbs1989Mtibbs1989 Fredericksburg, VAPosts: 2,920Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by MarkJacobs
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by MarkJacobs
    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. 

     

      

     There's nothing wrong with making a subscription-based game. What's wrong is that you come out and shit on the doorsteps of everyone who likes F2P by bashing the model because you've had a few bad run-ins with angry customers who didn't like how you handled your business.

    Maybe we are talking about two different articles. Where did I bash the model? I've said the same exact things for years:

    1) FTP has a place in the market

    2) BTP has a place in the market

    3) Sub has a place in the market

    If one of these is seen as the "The One Model", it will get too crowded, reset and the market will correct.

     Heck I don't blame them either check my rant about your article, it's nothing but trash talking the F2P model and the community who back it.

    I did? What I did bash is the total flood of developers/pubs who are pouring in there right now. Please show me a period in the last 30 years of games when a ton of developers/pubs pouring into a new model didn't end badly. How many times have pubs/devs been burned when that happened (the first console market collapse happened more than 2 decades ago). I have no problem with the FTP model but I don't want to make games for it. I also strongly support the BTP model for certain games as you said you did. The point of the article was to talk about what was going to happen to developers/pubs and also what it would mean to consumers who do like FTP and pay for their enjoyment as opposed to those that don't.

     As far as the biggest risk, that's a joke. You're not an indie developer. You're the ex-owner of Mythic who sold off the company to EA. Quite a big back stabbing move on your part ( I bet you made a killing from that deal). But who's to blame? *cough* MJ *cough*. Now you're using a KS and acting like an indie developer with your background with DAoC. Trust me I loved DAoC and I love Indie-Developers, but I'll never forget the trash that came out of your studio when Mythic worked for EA.

    Ah, I see. I was the guy who sold the studio. Not the investors, not my partner it was me,the guy with a minority share of the company. Got it. And when I was at EA, I suppose I also was the CEO of EA so any decisions that were made were all mine. Okay. Now it's clear.

    Companies jumping on board of the new F2P bandwage?

    MJ please, man come on get with reality F2P is not new!

    F2P has been around longer than you obviously imagine. It's not going anywhere. The games which are the best will stay on the top regardless of which model a company uses. This is how the free market works. The first console market collasped because of lazy developers who took the customer for granted and produced crappy product. This has nothing to do with the subscription/free-to-play/buy-to-play models.

     

    If your article was to open other companies eyes to impending doom of the MMO market then you wouldn't add.

    “They’re just looking for the next free game, who are going to complain about it a lot, even though they’re not spending any money, who will feel they can say and do whatever they want because – who cares? It’s a free game – so you ban them. Whoopee.

    “So they create an a new account, come back and start doing the same thing. No, I’ll leave that to the big publishers who want to have fun in that space, and who will make their money in the short-term, and I’ll happily take my smaller subscriber base who wants this game, and together we’ll make it something special.” - MJ

    Customers complain about a bad product regardless of F2P/B2P/P2P. That goes for anyone with anything someone buys. Including you MJ. If you go out and buy a steak from your local super market and it's bad and or not the quality you paid for. Would you have a negative opinon about it? Yeah, I do believe you would.

     

     Were you not one of the bosses in Mythic?

    You were, which means you have/had final say over a project and its outcomes.

     I still stand my ground with you MJ stating that you're not an indie-developer. You shouldn't be taking advantage of peoples money. While I can't stop you from abusing the kindness of people. I definitely frown upon it. Enjoy your free ride through the games developement.

     Please, pray that your game doesn't turn out like Warhammer Online and for the love of future MMO's everywhere. Listen to your customers when they complain about major issue, because in the end. They're your boss and without them you wouldn't even be making this game.

     

     

    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.
  • TaldierTaldier Camp Hill, PAPosts: 235Member

    Im really confused by some of the comments in this thread.  Where did he ever bash the F2P model?  And he certainly never said anything bad about its customers as a group.

    All he did was point out that its the "new thing" and way too many game developers are just flocking to it as if the model has some sort of magical powers without bothering to evaluate whether its actually the best model for their game.

    I suppose he also pointed out that F2P models lead to more compliants and bad behavior, but thats just common sense.  No cost of entry means more different people who have very different visions of what the game should be like.  If you have to pay, you'll only pay if you actually want what is already being offered.

    What exactly is being seen as offensive?

     

  • NetSageNetSage Lake Geneva, WIPosts: 1,040Member Uncommon
    There are some good F2P models and there are bad ones.  I think we'll see the pay to win ones dieing out in the long run but F2P isn't going away.  Just look at the mobile market.
  • Mtibbs1989Mtibbs1989 Fredericksburg, VAPosts: 2,920Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Originally posted by krevra
    Well after reading some of MJ's own comments and ignorant statements with zero proof to back it and his past im actually glad im not supporting the kickstarter. Alienate moar before your game is even released plox lets see how great it does. Oh an this is coming from a die hard RvR'er

    One question. Do you believe the market is being flooded with cheap poorly conceived and executed free to play games? There are some good ones, I'm not asking about those.

     There are some lower end F2P games that are being released. I've played quite a bit of them. But I believe the P2P market has been flooded with too many low quality games (which then turn to F2P and do quite well).

    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: 467Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by NetSage
    There are some good F2P models and there are bad ones.  I think we'll see the pay to win ones dieing out in the long run but F2P isn't going away.  Just look at the mobile market.

    My point entirely, a shakeout that hurts a lot of people, including consumers too (usually) once the consolidation happens.

    Mark Jacobs
    CEO, City State Entertainment

145791013
Sign In or Register to comment.