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

17891012

Comments

  • William12William12 Saint paul, MNPosts: 680Member

    My opinion is this shows he is out of touch with what todays gamers want this is not 2001 they want something they can play for cheap and they will buy stuff if they want to not need to.   

     

    It's funny but SOE is making millions from PS2 and free realms people buy stuff if you don't force feed it down their throats.

  • danwest58danwest58 Cincinnati, OHPosts: 981Member Uncommon
    F2P is good for older games or limited F2P in games like SWTOR.  The people who just want to level and see part of the game can, then they can choose to subscribe because to not subscribe you limit yourself severly.  The problem is F2P is here to stay until publishers close and several MMOs shut down for good.  Which NEEDS to happen.  There is no room for 3+ dozen MMOs for 15 Million Players.  MMO Must go back to the Niche crowed, not the Lobby D3 players, or the FPS players, or the single players that want Dragon Age or a Subscription Skyrim where they talk to other players but not play with them.  

    image

  • TaldierTaldier Camp Hill, PAPosts: 235Member
    Originally posted by Dren_Utogi
    Originally posted by Taldier
    Originally posted by Dren_Utogi
    Originally posted by Hjamnr
    Originally posted by Dren_Utogi
    Originally posted by Taldier
    Originally posted by Dren_Utogi

     I think it is this type of elitism that needs to be weeded out for the genre to continue it;s positive gains in the last 4 years. Also believe every successful game from now to the future, will be free to play. Any game that does not have a hybrid payment module, will die out with in a year, like War did.

     

    Riiiiiight.... youre the victim and everyone else is "elitist"..

     

    Mr. "Im always right and anyone who thinks more than one type of model can work in the same market is a dummy".

     

    This is just such a blindly obstinate viewpoint.  F2P is just a business model, not a religion.  Stop trying to burn folks like heretics for denying the "one and only almighty model".

    How is creating an enviroment everyone can enjoy "elitist" ?

    Free-To-Play does not create an environment I, and many others, can enjoy.

    what binds you play a free to play game ?

    Apparently people like you who think every game should be F2P?

    Nobody is saying you cant go play your F2P game.   We dont want to.  We want to play this subscription game that these forums have been set up to talk about.  The forum that you chose to post in...

    I guess having an opinion is only for the millionaires ...

    What I beleive, has no bearing on your opinion, so im curious why would my opinion be any different then Marks ?

    If you bothered to read anything Mark said instead of blindly lashing out at him, he never once said that the F2P model was inherently bad, or that it should be used, or that everyone need to use subscription based models.

    He just said a subscription based model was best for what he wanted to do with this game, and its what the people backing him want.

    Your opinion is different because you are a zealot who refuses to leave anyone else alone unless they agree that your way is the only way.

  • danwest58danwest58 Cincinnati, OHPosts: 981Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by William12

    My opinion is this shows he is out of touch with what todays gamers want this is not 2001 they want something they can play for cheap and they will buy stuff if they want to not need to.   

     

    It's funny but SOE is making millions from PS2 and free realms people buy stuff if you don't force feed it down their throats.

    He is not as out of touch as you seem to think.  Yes a handlful of games work with Free2Play.  However It is not a viable model for MMOs as much as you think it is.  There are fewer and fewer good MMO developers because there are so many MMOs the good ones are asking for more and more money, you cannot pay them with Free2Play when everyone is going Free2Play.  In Time people will see how much money they are wasting in Free2Play models outside of the P2P models they use to pay for.  Some people in the Free2Play models will spend $500+ a year when if they just subed they would be paying $150 for the year.  

    image

  • danwest58danwest58 Cincinnati, OHPosts: 981Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Taldier
    Originally posted by Dren_Utogi
    Originally posted by Taldier
    Originally posted by Dren_Utogi
    Originally posted by Hjamnr
    Originally posted by Dren_Utogi
    Originally posted by Taldier
    Originally posted by Dren_Utogi

     I think it is this type of elitism that needs to be weeded out for the genre to continue it;s positive gains in the last 4 years. Also believe every successful game from now to the future, will be free to play. Any game that does not have a hybrid payment module, will die out with in a year, like War did.

     

    Riiiiiight.... youre the victim and everyone else is "elitist"..

     

    Mr. "Im always right and anyone who thinks more than one type of model can work in the same market is a dummy".

     

    This is just such a blindly obstinate viewpoint.  F2P is just a business model, not a religion.  Stop trying to burn folks like heretics for denying the "one and only almighty model".

    How is creating an enviroment everyone can enjoy "elitist" ?

    Free-To-Play does not create an environment I, and many others, can enjoy.

    what binds you play a free to play game ?

    Apparently people like you who think every game should be F2P?

    Nobody is saying you cant go play your F2P game.   We dont want to.  We want to play this subscription game that these forums have been set up to talk about.  The forum that you chose to post in...

    I guess having an opinion is only for the millionaires ...

    What I beleive, has no bearing on your opinion, so im curious why would my opinion be any different then Marks ?

    If you bothered to read anything Mark said instead of blindly lashing out at him, he never once said that the F2P model was inherently bad, or that it should be used, or that everyone need to use subscription based models.

    He just said a subscription based model was best for what he wanted to do with this game, and its what the people backing him want.

    Your opinion is different because you are a zealot who refuses to leave anyone else alone unless they agree that your way is the only way.

    He is also saying he would rather have 200K subscription players paying $10 a month and only spent $20 Million on a game than try to copy WoW.  Spend $250 Million on a game and try for 10 Million Subs then go free to play because they need more money than 500K subs can make alone.  

     

    Today we have too many MMOs, the bubble must burst at some point and close a large number of MMOs down.  

    image

  • NcrediblebulkNcrediblebulk San Marcos, TXPosts: 137Member
    Originally posted by William12

    My opinion is this shows he is out of touch with what todays gamers want this is not 2001 they want something they can play for cheap and they will buy stuff if they want to not need to.   

     

    It's funny but SOE is making millions from PS2 and free realms people buy stuff if you don't force feed it down their throats.

    They are making money off the games but look at the design of PS 2. It's become watered down crap. It looks almost nothing like the original PS. Even with the F2P model in PS 2 it's been turned into a Pay2Win because of granted experience bonuses to subbing players.

     

    Frankly I can understand how someone would think a statement like Mark's would be out of touch. We haven't seen a successfull sub game since WoW and EvE which was back in 2003/2004. Sub games can work but we as players have gotten to a point where we won't pay for a crappy game, which is why we haven't seen a sub game since 2003/2004.

    "Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth."

  • TaldierTaldier Camp Hill, PAPosts: 235Member
    Originally posted by William12

    My opinion is this shows he is out of touch with what todays gamers want this is not 2001 they want something they can play for cheap and they will buy stuff if they want to not need to.   

     

    It's funny but SOE is making millions from PS2 and free realms people buy stuff if you don't force feed it down their throats.

    He isnt trying to get ALL of today's gamers.  People who played the earliest MMO's arent dead.  Heck, a lot people who played EQ, UO, and DAOC are still in their early 20's.  Our voices have just been drowned out by the mainstream market of instant gratification casual players.

     

    You dont need millions and millions of subscribers to have an active and interesting gameworld to play in.

     

    So no, we arent the mainstream.  We arent the majority.  But we are a dedicated community that want to be allowed to have ONE game that we are allowed to play without other people coming in and demanding everything about it be changed.

     

    Is that really too much to ask?

  • Mtibbs1989Mtibbs1989 Fredericksburg, VAPosts: 2,920Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by jesteralways
    even though i have no interest in camelot unchained, i agree with Mark Jacobs. i hope more developers and publishers come to realize this. pay2play is where the quality is.

     I hate to come back into a forum that has already been discussed to the death. Unfortunately I hate seeing posts likes these (no offense to you). However, the quality of the product lies with the companies willingness to create something great and continue it's developement post production. Not the payment model they use to obtain money from their customers.

    There's a reason why companies who make games such as Tera Online, AoC, and DCUO which start out with a subscription model end up forced to convert to a different payment method. It's because of the amount of content they're producing post release isn't sufficient enough to keep a customer coming back for more. These games still have great combat systems and incredible graphics for MMO's. They are truly good products for what they are.

     However, I don't see how you think that a P2P model makes the quality of a product better. Please explain how you're coming to this conclusion?

     

    There are F2P games on the market that are pushing the boundries of MMO genre:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2jZbNHa3jc - EIN Online

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouuhK7IQ_OQ- Bless Online

     

    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.
  • poisonmanpoisonman Warwick, RIPosts: 59Member
    Originally posted by Ayulin 
    He hits the nail squarely on the head with that first statement, but really fleshes it out beautifully. He knows what he wants, he understands the type of players he's catering to, he doesn't care about those who "want to play for free", and he's unapologetic about it.
    If more people thought like Mark in this industry, we'd see a lot more MMOs that catered to a specific market segment and did it well, and fewer trying to "cater to everyone" and doing a half-assed job of it.

    This ^

    F2P is not a new concept but it seems to be a huge craze right now, everyone is doing it and trying it, but it won't stay that way forever.  

    There is a ton of F2P MMOs out right now, and I could imagine in a year or 2 a bunch of them won't be around anymore. Most people that play F2P games play a lot of them and won't be spending money on all of them or even any of them. Most of the time just one, if that.  

    Just the over saturation of F2P will cause a "Shakeout" like MJ said and only the profitable ones will survive. That is why it is jokingly referred to as Free 2 Pay at times.

    The F2P model can work, and it can work well (there are plenty of examples), but it doesn't  work for every developer or game, same with subscription.

    Point is subscription is less random in the fact you can always see where your break even point is based on how many subs you have. And all your work / money can go into fixing bugs / patching the game, developing more content, providing support, etc.

    F2P not so much since people don't have to pay anything it can be completely random. So you have to waste a bunch of development time on the cash shop and balancing it, making people want to buy stuff, etc. (not all companies do this well and it turns into pay to win) How can you continue to develop the game, content in general, and patch / fix the game as a F2P game if you're not making enough money from microtransactions to afford it.

    I'm not sure about you all, but I dislike pay to win games, systems, etc.  It is obnoxious and hilarious when these shops also come with things that use to be standard and just came with the game (like game features,etc).

    I'd rather pay a sub to pay for the developers to actually develop the game / content and fix / patch the game, rather than the developers waste as much development time as needed on the cash shop so they can cover their paychecks.  I want to play a game not a cash shop. A bit of a exaggeration, but still. 

  • NcrediblebulkNcrediblebulk San Marcos, TXPosts: 137Member
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by jesteralways
    even though i have no interest in camelot unchained, i agree with Mark Jacobs. i hope more developers and publishers come to realize this. pay2play is where the quality is.

     I hate to come back into a forum that has already been discussed to the death. Unfortunately I hate seeing posts likes these (no offense to you). However, the quality of the product lies with the companies willingness to create something great and continue it's developement post production. Not the payment model they use to obtain money from their customers.

    There's a reason why companies who make games such as Tera Online, AoC, and DCUO which start out with a subscription model end up forced to convert to a different payment method. It's because of the amount of content they're producing post release isn't sufficient enough to keep a customer coming back for more. These games still have great combat systems and incredible graphics for MMO's. They are truly good products for what they are.

     However, I don't see how you think that a P2P model makes the quality of a product better. Please explain how you're coming to this conclusion?

    You basically provided the evidence yourself. If the quality of content provided is sub par or a steady flow of content becomes a problem people quit or unsub forcing the game to go F2P. Even if the game play is fun it can't offset lack or quality of content. I don't see this being a problem with CU mainly because the content will come in the form of new areas, classes, races, etc. The hook of the game will be the game play itself (RvR) and not the content because you will have multitudes more of unique encounters by having the main interaction being between Players and not having to deal with an excessive amount of scripted NPCs who actions at some point become predictable.

    "Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth."

  • DavisFlightDavisFlight Talahasee, FLPosts: 2,556Member
    Originally posted by Golelorn
    Just like MJ missed with ToA, NF, and Warhammer he is wrong about this, too.

    Really? Because he seems far FAR more in touch about just about everything happening in the MMO space than any other developer.

     

    Notice how devs don't rave about their increased revenue over the long haul? They get a big boost when they go free, of people trying it, and it has saved a few games that went frrom making -10 money to +1 money, but it has not lasted in most games. And even some games that started as FTP (Tribes) is adding back in a BTP option.

    The rush to FTP will die. FTP won't go away, it fits some games, but it does not fit nearly as many as are going for it. Darkfall and Eve prove that a niche MMO with the right design can do a monthly fee and do well.

  • Dren_UtogiDren_Utogi OuterSpacePosts: 1,708Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Taldier

    Originally posted by Dren_Utogi

    Originally posted by Taldier

    Originally posted by Dren_Utogi

    Originally posted by Hjamnr

    Originally posted by Dren_Utogi

    Originally posted by Taldier

    Originally posted by Dren_Utogi  I think it is this type of elitism that needs to be weeded out for the genre to continue it;s positive gains in the last 4 years. Also believe every successful game from now to the future, will be free to play. Any game that does not have a hybrid payment module, will die out with in a year, like War did.  
    Riiiiiight.... youre the victim and everyone else is "elitist"..   Mr. "Im always right and anyone who thinks more than one type of model can work in the same market is a dummy".   This is just such a blindly obstinate viewpoint.  F2P is just a business model, not a religion.  Stop trying to burn folks like heretics for denying the "one and only almighty model".
    How is creating an enviroment everyone can enjoy "elitist" ?
    Free-To-Play does not create an environment I, and many others, can enjoy.
    what binds you play a free to play game ?
    Apparently people like you who think every game should be F2P? Nobody is saying you cant go play your F2P game.   We dont want to.  We want to play this subscription game that these forums have been set up to talk about.  The forum that you chose to post in...
    I guess having an opinion is only for the millionaires ... What I beleive, has no bearing on your opinion, so im curious why would my opinion be any different then Marks ?
    If you bothered to read anything Mark said instead of blindly lashing out at him, he never once said that the F2P model was inherently bad, or that it should be used, or that everyone need to use subscription based models. He just said a subscription based model was best for what he wanted to do with this game, and its what the people backing him want. Your opinion is different because you are a zealot who refuses to leave anyone else alone unless they agree that your way is the only way.
    Where did I say p2p was bad ? Iif I found a game I really liked, I pay for it, the irony is that all the games I like, are f2p.

     

    Segregation, is never best for anyone.

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

  • DalekThayDalekThay Bangor, MIPosts: 52Member
    Originally posted by boxsnd
    Originally posted by Mkilbride
    Originally posted by Kinh021

    How the free to play games has to do with low quality?

    Nobody knows Path of Exile?

    And if companies adopt the model free to play is because their customers are not as loyal as well.

    Don't use Path of Exile as "high quality" stuff.

     

    The animations, art assets, and skills are all free-use stuff. It's pretty "meh" quality, it makes a nice picture.

     

    It's great for a free ARPG...but there are much, much better ones out there, that you can buy.

     

    I've followed POE for a year now and played abit myself...but the game is so boring. It has nothing going for it except that people who hate Diablo 3 play it.

    It's superior to D3 in almost every aspect.

    The skills aren't as good, the graphics aren't as good, the combat isn't as smooth & weighty, the story isn't as good (well, more like completely absent)... so yeah, you're just wrong on almost every level. PoE is fun but it's just leagues below D3 in nearly every conceivable category.

  • Mtibbs1989Mtibbs1989 Fredericksburg, VAPosts: 2,920Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Ncrediblebulk
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by jesteralways
    even though i have no interest in camelot unchained, i agree with Mark Jacobs. i hope more developers and publishers come to realize this. pay2play is where the quality is.

     I hate to come back into a forum that has already been discussed to the death. Unfortunately I hate seeing posts likes these (no offense to you). However, the quality of the product lies with the companies willingness to create something great and continue it's developement post production. Not the payment model they use to obtain money from their customers.

    There's a reason why companies who make games such as Tera Online, AoC, and DCUO which start out with a subscription model end up forced to convert to a different payment method. It's because of the amount of content they're producing post release isn't sufficient enough to keep a customer coming back for more. These games still have great combat systems and incredible graphics for MMO's. They are truly good products for what they are.

     However, I don't see how you think that a P2P model makes the quality of a product better. Please explain how you're coming to this conclusion?

    You basically provided the evidence yourself. If the quality of content provided is sub par or a steady flow of content becomes a problem people quit or unsub forcing the game to go F2P. Even if the game play is fun it can't offset lack or quality of content. I don't see this being a problem with CU mainly because the content will come in the form of new areas, classes, races, etc. The hook of the game will be the game play itself (RvR) and not the content because you will have multitudes more of unique encounters by having the main interaction being between Players and not having to deal with an excessive amount of scripted NPCs who actions at some point become predictable.

      If you've read my mosts in this thread before. You'll easily understand that I have no issue with the P2P model. There's also more to the issue then people just quitting before a company can get it's footing. The game needs to be able to last long enough for the customer and sorry but there haven't been many titles that have been able to hold their customers attention in recent years.

     If game developers want to chase the "content locust" that's their choice. However you can't please the crowds who seek instant gratification. Those who want the easy life in a video game such as, quick teleportation, auction houses for fast or instant trade, quick and easy content so they don't have to work hard to obtain better gear, automatic quest routes and pin-point QPS, and easy class repec's. These things make MMO's live for short periods of time and if companies want a product to last long (especially MMO's) they need to stop holding these consumers hands.

     When I hear/read about someone complaining on how they, "don't have the time for the long haul and work that goes through a classic MMO". I have to simply say to them, "It's about time you start thinking of quitting the MMO genre". Because MMO's are about getting the customer invested in their character and the world around them. 

    F2P titles are going to produce quality updates regardless:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=UDCnBmgw-CY - Aion 3.0

    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.
  • reeereeereeereee Posts: 1,201Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    Originally posted by Golelorn
    Just like MJ missed with ToA, NF, and Warhammer he is wrong about this, too.

    Really? Because he seems far FAR more in touch about just about everything happening in the MMO space than any other developer.

     

    Notice how devs don't rave about their increased revenue over the long haul? They get a big boost when they go free, of people trying it, and it has saved a few games that went frrom making -10 money to +1 money, but it has not lasted in most games. And even some games that started as FTP (Tribes) is adding back in a BTP option.

    The rush to FTP will die. FTP won't go away, it fits some games, but it does not fit nearly as many as are going for it. Darkfall and Eve prove that a niche MMO with the right design can do a monthly fee and do well.

    I would love to see some numbers on that.  I've definatly noticed a drop off over time after the initial surge in population for most games going f2p... but almost all the games that have gone f2p had declining subscription rates so moving from one declining model to another is not shocking.  It would be interesting to compare where they are now vs. where they were projected to be had they stayed subscription.  For aging games like L2 there is really only so much you can hope for regarless of model.

     

    Also you're ignoring how insanely fast the f2p market has ramped up.  L2 when it went f2p a little over a year ago was one of the better f2p games on the market.  Now it's fairly far down the list since Aion/swtor/tera/rift/ect have all gone f2p.  Some of the drop off has to be the surge in competition in the f2p market.

  • NcrediblebulkNcrediblebulk San Marcos, TXPosts: 137Member
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by Ncrediblebulk
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by jesteralways
    even though i have no interest in camelot unchained, i agree with Mark Jacobs. i hope more developers and publishers come to realize this. pay2play is where the quality is.

     I hate to come back into a forum that has already been discussed to the death. Unfortunately I hate seeing posts likes these (no offense to you). However, the quality of the product lies with the companies willingness to create something great and continue it's developement post production. Not the payment model they use to obtain money from their customers.

    There's a reason why companies who make games such as Tera Online, AoC, and DCUO which start out with a subscription model end up forced to convert to a different payment method. It's because of the amount of content they're producing post release isn't sufficient enough to keep a customer coming back for more. These games still have great combat systems and incredible graphics for MMO's. They are truly good products for what they are.

     However, I don't see how you think that a P2P model makes the quality of a product better. Please explain how you're coming to this conclusion?

    You basically provided the evidence yourself. If the quality of content provided is sub par or a steady flow of content becomes a problem people quit or unsub forcing the game to go F2P. Even if the game play is fun it can't offset lack or quality of content. I don't see this being a problem with CU mainly because the content will come in the form of new areas, classes, races, etc. The hook of the game will be the game play itself (RvR) and not the content because you will have multitudes more of unique encounters by having the main interaction being between Players and not having to deal with an excessive amount of scripted NPCs who actions at some point become predictable.

      If you've read my mosts in this thread before. You'll easily understand that I have no issue with the P2P model. There's also more to the issue then people just quitting before a company can get it's footing. The game needs to be able to last long enough for the customer and sorry but there haven't been many titles that have been able to hold their customers attention in recent years.

     If game developers want to chase the "content locust" that's their choice. However you can't please the crowds who seek instant gratification. Those who want the easy life in a video game such as, quick teleportation, auction houses for fast or instant trade, quick and easy content so they don't have to work hard to obtain better gear, automatic quest routes and pin-point QPS, and easy class repec's. These things make MMO's live for short periods of time and if companies want a product to last long (especially MMO's) they need to stop holding these consumers hands.

     When I hear/read about someone complaining on how they, "don't have the time for the long haul and work that goes through a classic MMO". I have to simply say to them, "It's about time you start thinking of quitting the MMO genre". Because MMO's are about getting the customer invested in their character and the world around them. 

    F2P titles are going to produce quality updates regardless:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=UDCnBmgw-CY - Aion 3.0

    Apologies I wasn't clear as to what I was addressing with what you said. You asked how one might come to the conclusion a P2P model makes the qualtiy of a product better. My response was that you list games which had to go F2P because of the lack of quantity of content but I'd go further and say in most cases it was also the quality. Build a game around a mechanic that is interesting and always presents new encounters and you have a much higher chance of surviving as P2P in my opinion frankly because the content is there to add variety to the mechanics. Maybe this isn't the case but hopefully we will see with CU.

     

    @Dren_Utogi I'm not sure how much of each post you've looked at here because I always find reading your broken english a good challenge, not the point, but I don't think anyone here is saying what you posted. I do think they are saying a P2P model has a place in the market and it can do the things you listed which makes for a much more enjoyable time for those who are looking for that F2P fails to do completely. F2P games give people who don't invest in the game a much larger voice than those who support the game. This influences design choices and often leads to ruining the game for the players who support it with money.

    "Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth."

  • troublmakertroublmaker St. George''s, NFPosts: 337Member

    Just another developer standing on a platform preaching to his choir.  A lot of developers who are trying to work with other models are calling F2P a problem in one way or another.

    What he's missing is that in business every single way of doing business has changed over X number of years.  His prediction is simply that (as all things do) some free to play publishers and developers will collapse in the next 5-10 years.

    That has nothing at all to do with F2P, that's just how business works.

    I'm going to make a bold prediction.

    Are you ready?

    In 5-10 years because of the explosion of cell phone and Internet providers some of them won't exist anymore.

    Don't ask me which ones of course because if I actually told you which ones I felt would no longer exist there is a higher chance I'd be wrong.

    Website: http://www.thegameguru.me / YouTube:

  • Mtibbs1989Mtibbs1989 Fredericksburg, VAPosts: 2,920Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Ncrediblebulk
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by Ncrediblebulk
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by jesteralways
    even though i have no interest in camelot unchained, i agree with Mark Jacobs. i hope more developers and publishers come to realize this. pay2play is where the quality is.

     I hate to come back into a forum that has already been discussed to the death. Unfortunately I hate seeing posts likes these (no offense to you). However, the quality of the product lies with the companies willingness to create something great and continue it's developement post production. Not the payment model they use to obtain money from their customers.

    There's a reason why companies who make games such as Tera Online, AoC, and DCUO which start out with a subscription model end up forced to convert to a different payment method. It's because of the amount of content they're producing post release isn't sufficient enough to keep a customer coming back for more. These games still have great combat systems and incredible graphics for MMO's. They are truly good products for what they are.

     However, I don't see how you think that a P2P model makes the quality of a product better. Please explain how you're coming to this conclusion?

    You basically provided the evidence yourself. If the quality of content provided is sub par or a steady flow of content becomes a problem people quit or unsub forcing the game to go F2P. Even if the game play is fun it can't offset lack or quality of content. I don't see this being a problem with CU mainly because the content will come in the form of new areas, classes, races, etc. The hook of the game will be the game play itself (RvR) and not the content because you will have multitudes more of unique encounters by having the main interaction being between Players and not having to deal with an excessive amount of scripted NPCs who actions at some point become predictable.

      If you've read my mosts in this thread before. You'll easily understand that I have no issue with the P2P model. There's also more to the issue then people just quitting before a company can get it's footing. The game needs to be able to last long enough for the customer and sorry but there haven't been many titles that have been able to hold their customers attention in recent years.

     If game developers want to chase the "content locust" that's their choice. However you can't please the crowds who seek instant gratification. Those who want the easy life in a video game such as, quick teleportation, auction houses for fast or instant trade, quick and easy content so they don't have to work hard to obtain better gear, automatic quest routes and pin-point QPS, and easy class repec's. These things make MMO's live for short periods of time and if companies want a product to last long (especially MMO's) they need to stop holding these consumers hands.

     When I hear/read about someone complaining on how they, "don't have the time for the long haul and work that goes through a classic MMO". I have to simply say to them, "It's about time you start thinking of quitting the MMO genre". Because MMO's are about getting the customer invested in their character and the world around them. 

    F2P titles are going to produce quality updates regardless:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=UDCnBmgw-CY - Aion 3.0

    Apologies I wasn't clear as to what I was addressing with what you said. You asked how one might come to the conclusion a P2P model makes the qualtiy of a product better. My response was that you list games which had to go F2P because of the lack of quantity of content but I'd go further and say in most cases it was also the quality. Build a game around a mechanic that is interesting and always presents new encounters and you have a much higher chance of surviving as P2P in my opinion frankly because the content is there to add variety to the mechanics. Maybe this isn't the case but hopefully we will see with CU.

    I think we are debating very similar points. You believe it's not the quantity it's the quality and I believe it's the not the quality it's the quantity. I think I can leave it at that as I can see very valid points from both arguments.

    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.
  • ShaighShaigh Posts: 542Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by Ncrediblebulk
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by jesteralways
    even though i have no interest in camelot unchained, i agree with Mark Jacobs. i hope more developers and publishers come to realize this. pay2play is where the quality is.

     I hate to come back into a forum that has already been discussed to the death. Unfortunately I hate seeing posts likes these (no offense to you). However, the quality of the product lies with the companies willingness to create something great and continue it's developement post production. Not the payment model they use to obtain money from their customers.

    There's a reason why companies who make games such as Tera Online, AoC, and DCUO which start out with a subscription model end up forced to convert to a different payment method. It's because of the amount of content they're producing post release isn't sufficient enough to keep a customer coming back for more. These games still have great combat systems and incredible graphics for MMO's. They are truly good products for what they are.

     However, I don't see how you think that a P2P model makes the quality of a product better. Please explain how you're coming to this conclusion?

    You basically provided the evidence yourself. If the quality of content provided is sub par or a steady flow of content becomes a problem people quit or unsub forcing the game to go F2P. Even if the game play is fun it can't offset lack or quality of content. I don't see this being a problem with CU mainly because the content will come in the form of new areas, classes, races, etc. The hook of the game will be the game play itself (RvR) and not the content because you will have multitudes more of unique encounters by having the main interaction being between Players and not having to deal with an excessive amount of scripted NPCs who actions at some point become predictable.

      If you've read my mosts in this thread before. You'll easily understand that I have no issue with the P2P model. There's also more to the issue then people just quitting before a company can get it's footing. The game needs to be able to last long enough for the customer and sorry but there haven't been many titles that have been able to hold their customers attention in recent years.

     If game developers want to chase the "content locust" that's their choice. However you can't please the crowds who seek instant gratification. Those who want the easy life in a video game such as, quick teleportation, auction houses for fast or instant trade, quick and easy content so they don't have to work hard to obtain better gear, automatic quest routes and pin-point QPS, and easy class repec's. These things make MMO's live for short periods of time and if companies want a product to last long (especially MMO's) they need to stop holding these consumers hands.

     When I hear/read about someone complaining on how they, "don't have the time for the long haul and work that goes through a classic MMO". I have to simply say to them, "It's about time you start thinking of quitting the MMO genre". Because MMO's are about getting the customer invested in their character and the world around them. 

    F2P titles are going to produce quality updates regardless:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=UDCnBmgw-CY - Aion 3.0

    Aion is p2p in korea.

  • Mtibbs1989Mtibbs1989 Fredericksburg, VAPosts: 2,920Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Shaigh
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by Ncrediblebulk
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by jesteralways
    even though i have no interest in camelot unchained, i agree with Mark Jacobs. i hope more developers and publishers come to realize this. pay2play is where the quality is.

     I hate to come back into a forum that has already been discussed to the death. Unfortunately I hate seeing posts likes these (no offense to you). However, the quality of the product lies with the companies willingness to create something great and continue it's developement post production. Not the payment model they use to obtain money from their customers.

    There's a reason why companies who make games such as Tera Online, AoC, and DCUO which start out with a subscription model end up forced to convert to a different payment method. It's because of the amount of content they're producing post release isn't sufficient enough to keep a customer coming back for more. These games still have great combat systems and incredible graphics for MMO's. They are truly good products for what they are.

     However, I don't see how you think that a P2P model makes the quality of a product better. Please explain how you're coming to this conclusion?

    You basically provided the evidence yourself. If the quality of content provided is sub par or a steady flow of content becomes a problem people quit or unsub forcing the game to go F2P. Even if the game play is fun it can't offset lack or quality of content. I don't see this being a problem with CU mainly because the content will come in the form of new areas, classes, races, etc. The hook of the game will be the game play itself (RvR) and not the content because you will have multitudes more of unique encounters by having the main interaction being between Players and not having to deal with an excessive amount of scripted NPCs who actions at some point become predictable.

      If you've read my mosts in this thread before. You'll easily understand that I have no issue with the P2P model. There's also more to the issue then people just quitting before a company can get it's footing. The game needs to be able to last long enough for the customer and sorry but there haven't been many titles that have been able to hold their customers attention in recent years.

     If game developers want to chase the "content locust" that's their choice. However you can't please the crowds who seek instant gratification. Those who want the easy life in a video game such as, quick teleportation, auction houses for fast or instant trade, quick and easy content so they don't have to work hard to obtain better gear, automatic quest routes and pin-point QPS, and easy class repec's. These things make MMO's live for short periods of time and if companies want a product to last long (especially MMO's) they need to stop holding these consumers hands.

     When I hear/read about someone complaining on how they, "don't have the time for the long haul and work that goes through a classic MMO". I have to simply say to them, "It's about time you start thinking of quitting the MMO genre". Because MMO's are about getting the customer invested in their character and the world around them. 

    F2P titles are going to produce quality updates regardless:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=UDCnBmgw-CY - Aion 3.0

    Aion is p2p in korea.

    We're not in korea are we?

    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.
  • ShaighShaigh Posts: 542Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by Shaigh
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by Ncrediblebulk
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by jesteralways
    even though i have no interest in camelot unchained, i agree with Mark Jacobs. i hope more developers and publishers come to realize this. pay2play is where the quality is.

     I hate to come back into a forum that has already been discussed to the death. Unfortunately I hate seeing posts likes these (no offense to you). However, the quality of the product lies with the companies willingness to create something great and continue it's developement post production. Not the payment model they use to obtain money from their customers.

    There's a reason why companies who make games such as Tera Online, AoC, and DCUO which start out with a subscription model end up forced to convert to a different payment method. It's because of the amount of content they're producing post release isn't sufficient enough to keep a customer coming back for more. These games still have great combat systems and incredible graphics for MMO's. They are truly good products for what they are.

     However, I don't see how you think that a P2P model makes the quality of a product better. Please explain how you're coming to this conclusion?

    You basically provided the evidence yourself. If the quality of content provided is sub par or a steady flow of content becomes a problem people quit or unsub forcing the game to go F2P. Even if the game play is fun it can't offset lack or quality of content. I don't see this being a problem with CU mainly because the content will come in the form of new areas, classes, races, etc. The hook of the game will be the game play itself (RvR) and not the content because you will have multitudes more of unique encounters by having the main interaction being between Players and not having to deal with an excessive amount of scripted NPCs who actions at some point become predictable.

      If you've read my mosts in this thread before. You'll easily understand that I have no issue with the P2P model. There's also more to the issue then people just quitting before a company can get it's footing. The game needs to be able to last long enough for the customer and sorry but there haven't been many titles that have been able to hold their customers attention in recent years.

     If game developers want to chase the "content locust" that's their choice. However you can't please the crowds who seek instant gratification. Those who want the easy life in a video game such as, quick teleportation, auction houses for fast or instant trade, quick and easy content so they don't have to work hard to obtain better gear, automatic quest routes and pin-point QPS, and easy class repec's. These things make MMO's live for short periods of time and if companies want a product to last long (especially MMO's) they need to stop holding these consumers hands.

     When I hear/read about someone complaining on how they, "don't have the time for the long haul and work that goes through a classic MMO". I have to simply say to them, "It's about time you start thinking of quitting the MMO genre". Because MMO's are about getting the customer invested in their character and the world around them. 

    F2P titles are going to produce quality updates regardless:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=UDCnBmgw-CY - Aion 3.0

    Aion is p2p in korea.

    We're not in korea are we?

    The game is developed in korea and intended for the korean market. If you are going to argue about f2p producing quality updates, at least pick one that is f2p in its main market.

  • Mtibbs1989Mtibbs1989 Fredericksburg, VAPosts: 2,920Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Shaigh
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by Shaigh
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by Ncrediblebulk
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by jesteralways
    even though i have no interest in camelot unchained, i agree with Mark Jacobs. i hope more developers and publishers come to realize this. pay2play is where the quality is.

     I hate to come back into a forum that has already been discussed to the death. Unfortunately I hate seeing posts likes these (no offense to you). However, the quality of the product lies with the companies willingness to create something great and continue it's developement post production. Not the payment model they use to obtain money from their customers.

    There's a reason why companies who make games such as Tera Online, AoC, and DCUO which start out with a subscription model end up forced to convert to a different payment method. It's because of the amount of content they're producing post release isn't sufficient enough to keep a customer coming back for more. These games still have great combat systems and incredible graphics for MMO's. They are truly good products for what they are.

     However, I don't see how you think that a P2P model makes the quality of a product better. Please explain how you're coming to this conclusion?

    You basically provided the evidence yourself. If the quality of content provided is sub par or a steady flow of content becomes a problem people quit or unsub forcing the game to go F2P. Even if the game play is fun it can't offset lack or quality of content. I don't see this being a problem with CU mainly because the content will come in the form of new areas, classes, races, etc. The hook of the game will be the game play itself (RvR) and not the content because you will have multitudes more of unique encounters by having the main interaction being between Players and not having to deal with an excessive amount of scripted NPCs who actions at some point become predictable.

      If you've read my mosts in this thread before. You'll easily understand that I have no issue with the P2P model. There's also more to the issue then people just quitting before a company can get it's footing. The game needs to be able to last long enough for the customer and sorry but there haven't been many titles that have been able to hold their customers attention in recent years.

     If game developers want to chase the "content locust" that's their choice. However you can't please the crowds who seek instant gratification. Those who want the easy life in a video game such as, quick teleportation, auction houses for fast or instant trade, quick and easy content so they don't have to work hard to obtain better gear, automatic quest routes and pin-point QPS, and easy class repec's. These things make MMO's live for short periods of time and if companies want a product to last long (especially MMO's) they need to stop holding these consumers hands.

     When I hear/read about someone complaining on how they, "don't have the time for the long haul and work that goes through a classic MMO". I have to simply say to them, "It's about time you start thinking of quitting the MMO genre". Because MMO's are about getting the customer invested in their character and the world around them. 

    F2P titles are going to produce quality updates regardless:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=UDCnBmgw-CY - Aion 3.0

    Aion is p2p in korea.

    We're not in korea are we?

    The game is developed in korea and intended for the korean market. If you are going to argue about f2p producing quality updates, at least pick one that is f2p in its main market.

     I'm talking about a F2P in the U.S. market. Which I'm sorry if you don't understand is our main 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.
  • XthosXthos Columbus, OHPosts: 2,628Member

    I do not think using a mmo that was designed to be made p2p, regardless of market, is a good example of f2p producing quality.  A much better example would be one that is designed to be f2p, and not b2p, from concept.

     

    I am sure their are some good ones, but regardless of the pay model, I think their has been a lot of trash flooding the market, people play them 1-2 weeks/months (if that), and then jump to the next game.

     

    Also, some f2p cash shops are not bad, but some give me the creeps, it is like someone is always trying to grab my wallet, and you are reminded constantly, while you play...It is annoying, I would rather pay a sub, than deal with the over zealous money grab that some games have.  P2P has not been doing themselves a lot of favors either, a lot of them are trying to double dip, they tend to stay more cosmetic on average, but it is still kind of slimey.

     

  • ShaighShaigh Posts: 542Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by Shaigh
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by Shaigh
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by Ncrediblebulk
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by jesteralways
    even though i have no interest in camelot unchained, i agree with Mark Jacobs. i hope more developers and publishers come to realize this. pay2play is where the quality is.

     I hate to come back into a forum that has already been discussed to the death. Unfortunately I hate seeing posts likes these (no offense to you). However, the quality of the product lies with the companies willingness to create something great and continue it's developement post production. Not the payment model they use to obtain money from their customers.

    There's a reason why companies who make games such as Tera Online, AoC, and DCUO which start out with a subscription model end up forced to convert to a different payment method. It's because of the amount of content they're producing post release isn't sufficient enough to keep a customer coming back for more. These games still have great combat systems and incredible graphics for MMO's. They are truly good products for what they are.

     However, I don't see how you think that a P2P model makes the quality of a product better. Please explain how you're coming to this conclusion?

    You basically provided the evidence yourself. If the quality of content provided is sub par or a steady flow of content becomes a problem people quit or unsub forcing the game to go F2P. Even if the game play is fun it can't offset lack or quality of content. I don't see this being a problem with CU mainly because the content will come in the form of new areas, classes, races, etc. The hook of the game will be the game play itself (RvR) and not the content because you will have multitudes more of unique encounters by having the main interaction being between Players and not having to deal with an excessive amount of scripted NPCs who actions at some point become predictable.

      If you've read my mosts in this thread before. You'll easily understand that I have no issue with the P2P model. There's also more to the issue then people just quitting before a company can get it's footing. The game needs to be able to last long enough for the customer and sorry but there haven't been many titles that have been able to hold their customers attention in recent years.

     If game developers want to chase the "content locust" that's their choice. However you can't please the crowds who seek instant gratification. Those who want the easy life in a video game such as, quick teleportation, auction houses for fast or instant trade, quick and easy content so they don't have to work hard to obtain better gear, automatic quest routes and pin-point QPS, and easy class repec's. These things make MMO's live for short periods of time and if companies want a product to last long (especially MMO's) they need to stop holding these consumers hands.

     When I hear/read about someone complaining on how they, "don't have the time for the long haul and work that goes through a classic MMO". I have to simply say to them, "It's about time you start thinking of quitting the MMO genre". Because MMO's are about getting the customer invested in their character and the world around them. 

    F2P titles are going to produce quality updates regardless:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=UDCnBmgw-CY - Aion 3.0

    Aion is p2p in korea.

    We're not in korea are we?

    The game is developed in korea and intended for the korean market. If you are going to argue about f2p producing quality updates, at least pick one that is f2p in its main market.

     I'm talking about a F2P in the U.S. market. Which I'm sorry if you don't understand is our main market.

    The profits in korea is what pays the for updates, the money from f2p only pays for the translation costs and keeping up the servers in the west. The game is a giant in korea and had 2-3 million payers during its peak and the western market is irrelevant for the games future.

  • TaldierTaldier Camp Hill, PAPosts: 235Member
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by Shaigh
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by Shaigh
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by Ncrediblebulk
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by jesteralways
    even though i have no interest in camelot unchained, i agree with Mark Jacobs. i hope more developers and publishers come to realize this. pay2play is where the quality is.

     I hate to come back into a forum that has already been discussed to the death. Unfortunately I hate seeing posts likes these (no offense to you). However, the quality of the product lies with the companies willingness to create something great and continue it's developement post production. Not the payment model they use to obtain money from their customers.

    There's a reason why companies who make games such as Tera Online, AoC, and DCUO which start out with a subscription model end up forced to convert to a different payment method. It's because of the amount of content they're producing post release isn't sufficient enough to keep a customer coming back for more. These games still have great combat systems and incredible graphics for MMO's. They are truly good products for what they are.

     However, I don't see how you think that a P2P model makes the quality of a product better. Please explain how you're coming to this conclusion?

    You basically provided the evidence yourself. If the quality of content provided is sub par or a steady flow of content becomes a problem people quit or unsub forcing the game to go F2P. Even if the game play is fun it can't offset lack or quality of content. I don't see this being a problem with CU mainly because the content will come in the form of new areas, classes, races, etc. The hook of the game will be the game play itself (RvR) and not the content because you will have multitudes more of unique encounters by having the main interaction being between Players and not having to deal with an excessive amount of scripted NPCs who actions at some point become predictable.

      If you've read my mosts in this thread before. You'll easily understand that I have no issue with the P2P model. There's also more to the issue then people just quitting before a company can get it's footing. The game needs to be able to last long enough for the customer and sorry but there haven't been many titles that have been able to hold their customers attention in recent years.

     If game developers want to chase the "content locust" that's their choice. However you can't please the crowds who seek instant gratification. Those who want the easy life in a video game such as, quick teleportation, auction houses for fast or instant trade, quick and easy content so they don't have to work hard to obtain better gear, automatic quest routes and pin-point QPS, and easy class repec's. These things make MMO's live for short periods of time and if companies want a product to last long (especially MMO's) they need to stop holding these consumers hands.

     When I hear/read about someone complaining on how they, "don't have the time for the long haul and work that goes through a classic MMO". I have to simply say to them, "It's about time you start thinking of quitting the MMO genre". Because MMO's are about getting the customer invested in their character and the world around them. 

    F2P titles are going to produce quality updates regardless:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=UDCnBmgw-CY - Aion 3.0

    Aion is p2p in korea.

    We're not in korea are we?

    The game is developed in korea and intended for the korean market. If you are going to argue about f2p producing quality updates, at least pick one that is f2p in its main market.

     I'm talking about a F2P in the U.S. market. Which I'm sorry if you don't understand is our main market.

    /facepalm

    But its not Aion's primary market.  If you are proving that F2P games provide great content, you need to pick an example where that content isnt primarily being produced for a P2P playerbase.

Sign In or Register to comment.