It needs to be buy to play with paid dlc, Free to play with cash shop is really something I am not interested in, and I really don't want to pay a sub.
Could the answer be.... both? Offer different tiers, including a sub model with access to most (if not all) content and then F2P models where you buy content packs, extra bag space, mounts etc?
I think hybrid with multiple options is the way of the future.
Oh for sure. I was referring to them possibly just going straight subscription at launch and having to retrofit the game to handle an F2P (or Freemium, in your example, and as I noted in the article) post-launch.
The f2p options we have are terrible. The reason wow can keep a sub based game going is because thier game is diverse enough to keep your attention. We have games releasing now that are so broken its laughable. The old man in the room ( wow ) just looks around and says haven't I taught you anything? Cant you see the forest through the trees? If your a game dev, dont come on these forums and listen to the 20 or so people begging you not to make a wow clone. They are off thier rocker. Make a wow clone only make it better than wow. Rift and Swtorfall short of the better part. Ifs 2013 technology changes at this ppoint in time are significant enough to make up for the lack of imagination, and lack of smooth gameplay. Eos I dont think so, I do think Wildstar is going to pull it off though.
If information that are avaiable paint correct general picture of TESO - then this game have no chance as P2P game. Not because of quality (budget seem very high) or numerical amount of content (seem high, althrough with fast progression), but because that kind of game design is not suited for P2P business model. So it would be a mistake to use P2P model for TESO imho, because business model and game design has to match to have chance to really be succesful.
SWTOR should not be used as a good example, because it was designed as a single player centric game with cut scenes all over the place, with 90% of the missions shared with all classes. If each class had 100% their own missions, SWTOR could have lasted a lot longer.
If there is plenty to do to keep you playing, then a sub fee will work. SWTOR had very little to do, and EA/BW were shocked by the players getting through it so quick. EA/BW did not have a clue for MMO design and they excel at single player games. SWTOR failed because it lacked too much, and are really really slow at adding content, plus the worlds were all copied and pasted, and static, which Dallas Dickinson exlained to PC Gamer they had to cut loads out just to get the game released. Plus it cost a bomb to make and maintain, according to EA, as needs 500K subs, which most MMOs would be glad of those numbers, and if SWTOR did not cost a bomb to make, it would not have gone F2P with those numbers, not so quick anyway.
Originally posted by Quizzical Why would anyone pay a subscription for a game they like when there are a lot of games that you can play for free if you're willing to be crippled enough that you won't like them? The question nearly answers itself.
QFT!
I rather pay 15 dollars a month and have unlimited access to the game and enjoy a game that is not deliberately crippled to force people into the Cash Shop!
F2P games are the plague! Litterly! Nothing is FREE! People really need to get over that idea and that in the end you end up spending more money in F2P games, then in Subscription based games. Period!
There is no such thing as free to play you idiots... If you enjoy the game you end up paying anyways and if you don't, well why are you playing it then !? The best they could do is make the game a free trial up to half level then you have to buy a copy and sub to continue on to max level.
Who cares if this game is B2P or F2P. If this thing goes F2P, chances are you will be so crippled in game that you will have to go to the cash shop and purchase things in order not to feel this way. At this point, you might as well pay the sub fee and have complete access to everything instead of trying to play a game not on the same level as everyone else.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
Originally posted by Quizzical Why would anyone pay a subscription for a game they like when there are a lot of games that you can play for free if you're willing to be crippled enough that you won't like them? The question nearly answers itself.
QFT!
I rather pay 15 dollars a month and have unlimited access to the game and enjoy a game that is not deliberately crippled to force people into the Cash Shop!
F2P games are the plague! Litterly! Nothing is FREE! People really need to get over that idea and that in the end you end up spending more money in F2P games, then in Subscription based games. Period!
I've never spent more money in sub-free games. I've spent over $300 on Rift over the last 2 years. I've spent $30 on STO, $30 on TSW, $60 or $70 on GW2. In sub games you spend a minimum of approximately $150 - $230 per year for rented access. Even if I spent $300 per year on a F2P game I would at least be able to play it anytime without have to fork over more cash.
And please, P2P games are just as crippled with time sinks to keep you subbing for longer - raid locks, dungeon locks, daily reward caps, etc.
But P2P games are way more significantly better quality. F2P games is your cheap budgeted B movies that went straight to DVD while P2P games are the movies you would go see at the theateres.
F2P games I have enjoyed: AOC, TERA, DDO, COH, EQ2, AO, Vindictus, Second Life, Vanguard, probably a couple more around that I'm not remembering.
My personal guess would be B2P, anything subscription in this economy with this competition will die before it releases. Even if it was amazing I doubt most people would even look at it. Personally I would be ok with a sub for a super amazing game.
Except the argument there would be that most of those games started a p2p.
I think he's referring to games that started as f2p.
And if he isn't then his argument isn't valid based on your examples.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Originally posted by Quizzical Why would anyone pay a subscription for a game they like when there are a lot of games that you can play for free if you're willing to be crippled enough that you won't like them? The question nearly answers itself.
F2P is some really saving any money tbh. If you pay $15.00 a month for a game you get everything you want, you log on and play. in F2P you log on and get restricked and temped to buy silly in game items, most people end up paying $40-100 on average. The ones that dont end up paying are also those they buy the game for $59.99 and quit in a few weeks, so money is even made off them but they are not using server space.
For all those that say I never spend any money on F2P models games you are straight up lieing about that period or you are a very casual player and might play 2 hours every other day.
I don't get this article.... Basing your opinion off the "next genre" of games is a pretty lame idea when its not working (SWTOR sucked and didn't deserve a paid subscription). If you really want to see how those Microtransaction F2P games are going, actually go and play them. Most suck and have terrible extended content that is boring after a few days of playing them (Guild Wars 2).
Most subscription based MMO's I have played, I play for years.
Because F2P games suck and get little development when they are F2P. Look at DDO and LOTRO, it takes them forever to get expansions and fixes because they do not have the money to pay developers.
Lol, right... maybe you should hop over to the LotRO forum and tell your thoughts above in the "New expansion already?!" thread where they complaining that expansions are coming so fast that they don't have enough time to finish everything on T2
I'm sorry Michael, but this article isn't very well written in certain areas. It's very obvious from the get-go that you're biased against subscription games so this is an "opinionated" article right from the start and I've said this before and I'll say it again, I really wish you guys would label your opinion pieces instead of having them out like they're factual information. Your comment "Subscriptions, even in their heyday, were always a losing proposition" made me cringe just because there is no proof behind that statement whatsoever. Another way you could have tried to make this article as unbiased as possible was to mention the fact of how badly SW:TOR was doing because that's honestly the reason why they went to the F2P model.
You're a very good writer otherwise, it's just clear that you let your bias sort of overtake the article. Keep up the good work!
I couldn't care less what payment model any game uses. If a game is good I'll play it, if it isn't I won't.
And it's definitely a double edged sword because with a F2P game, I'm much more likely to give it a try even if I'm unsure if I'll like it because there's no cost for entry, however P2P games I usually end up spending less in the long run. Although with P2P games once I stop I'm less likely to start back up again because the need to pay $15 when I'm not even sure how long I'll be back for is a bit of a deterrent. I think a P2P game with a good free trial for both new and returning players would be a good way to go. Make it free up to level 20 for 7 days for new players and free for 7 days at any level for returning players. I'd be happy to pay for any game that gave me that flexibility.
I don't really buy into the "it started p2p" argument. What does that have to do with the quality? The production budget and the team make it quality. You could probably make an argument that publishers were only willing to fund a AAA budget for the established revenue model due to comfort with what it can deliver. That was shortsighted on their part because it hasn't panned out well for them.
As I mentioned, I believe that was his argument.
If you compare f2p games up to the point that p2p games started going f2p there is clearly a difference. p2p games were better.
Obviously, now that publishers/developers have seen that they can make more money f2p, developers/publishers don't necessarily have issues with putting more money into a quality game.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Comments
It needs to be buy to play with paid dlc, Free to play with cash shop is really something I am not interested in, and I really don't want to pay a sub.
Oh for sure. I was referring to them possibly just going straight subscription at launch and having to retrofit the game to handle an F2P (or Freemium, in your example, and as I noted in the article) post-launch.
Why TESO should be F2P or B2P at best?
Because "When you reach lvl 50 and do all the quests, you can always level up skills with other weapons" " Hurrr Durrr".
This is why
They don't have content after lvl 50.
People will stop playing after that. And it will take them a year to have something new.
Ps. No I don't want to play my Wizard with Bow and Arrows _!_
SWTOR should not be used as a good example, because it was designed as a single player centric game with cut scenes all over the place, with 90% of the missions shared with all classes. If each class had 100% their own missions, SWTOR could have lasted a lot longer.
If there is plenty to do to keep you playing, then a sub fee will work. SWTOR had very little to do, and EA/BW were shocked by the players getting through it so quick. EA/BW did not have a clue for MMO design and they excel at single player games. SWTOR failed because it lacked too much, and are really really slow at adding content, plus the worlds were all copied and pasted, and static, which Dallas Dickinson exlained to PC Gamer they had to cut loads out just to get the game released. Plus it cost a bomb to make and maintain, according to EA, as needs 500K subs, which most MMOs would be glad of those numbers, and if SWTOR did not cost a bomb to make, it would not have gone F2P with those numbers, not so quick anyway.
Star Trek Online - Best Free MMORPG of 2012
QFT!
I rather pay 15 dollars a month and have unlimited access to the game and enjoy a game that is not deliberately crippled to force people into the Cash Shop!
F2P games are the plague! Litterly! Nothing is FREE! People really need to get over that idea and that in the end you end up spending more money in F2P games, then in Subscription based games. Period!
I would prefer to pay a subscription if it's a great game.
I don't like wasting time with micro-transactions, just send me a monthly bill.
But P2P games are way more significantly better quality. F2P games is your cheap budgeted B movies that went straight to DVD while P2P games are the movies you would go see at the theateres.
Here is a list of P2P MMOs that released after 2004 and were successful:
1: -
DAoC - Excalibur & Camlann
Except the argument there would be that most of those games started a p2p.
I think he's referring to games that started as f2p.
And if he isn't then his argument isn't valid based on your examples.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
F2P is some really saving any money tbh. If you pay $15.00 a month for a game you get everything you want, you log on and play. in F2P you log on and get restricked and temped to buy silly in game items, most people end up paying $40-100 on average. The ones that dont end up paying are also those they buy the game for $59.99 and quit in a few weeks, so money is even made off them but they are not using server space.
For all those that say I never spend any money on F2P models games you are straight up lieing about that period or you are a very casual player and might play 2 hours every other day.
I don't get this article.... Basing your opinion off the "next genre" of games is a pretty lame idea when its not working (SWTOR sucked and didn't deserve a paid subscription). If you really want to see how those Microtransaction F2P games are going, actually go and play them. Most suck and have terrible extended content that is boring after a few days of playing them (Guild Wars 2).
Most subscription based MMO's I have played, I play for years.
honestly, i dont care.
The only good f2p game i know is aoc because you almost have no restrictions to lv 80.
so f2p == f2p
you cant just put all f2p in on hat. swtor f2p is the best or worst example. compare aoc with swtor f2p.
Lol, right... maybe you should hop over to the LotRO forum and tell your thoughts above in the "New expansion already?!" thread where they complaining that expansions are coming so fast that they don't have enough time to finish everything on T2
I'm sorry Michael, but this article isn't very well written in certain areas. It's very obvious from the get-go that you're biased against subscription games so this is an "opinionated" article right from the start and I've said this before and I'll say it again, I really wish you guys would label your opinion pieces instead of having them out like they're factual information. Your comment "Subscriptions, even in their heyday, were always a losing proposition" made me cringe just because there is no proof behind that statement whatsoever. Another way you could have tried to make this article as unbiased as possible was to mention the fact of how badly SW:TOR was doing because that's honestly the reason why they went to the F2P model.
You're a very good writer otherwise, it's just clear that you let your bias sort of overtake the article. Keep up the good work!
Smile
I couldn't care less what payment model any game uses. If a game is good I'll play it, if it isn't I won't.
And it's definitely a double edged sword because with a F2P game, I'm much more likely to give it a try even if I'm unsure if I'll like it because there's no cost for entry, however P2P games I usually end up spending less in the long run. Although with P2P games once I stop I'm less likely to start back up again because the need to pay $15 when I'm not even sure how long I'll be back for is a bit of a deterrent. I think a P2P game with a good free trial for both new and returning players would be a good way to go. Make it free up to level 20 for 7 days for new players and free for 7 days at any level for returning players. I'd be happy to pay for any game that gave me that flexibility.
As I mentioned, I believe that was his argument.
If you compare f2p games up to the point that p2p games started going f2p there is clearly a difference. p2p games were better.
Obviously, now that publishers/developers have seen that they can make more money f2p, developers/publishers don't necessarily have issues with putting more money into a quality game.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
There must be something wrong with me.
I have enjoyed a lot of F2P MMO's without spending any mony. This should not be posible.
Should I go visit a doctor?