It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by Etherignis Originally posted by Obidom Originally posted by Emeraq " is charging a box fee and having a tiered subscription fee really the right way to go? Yoshi-P has said they would rather work with a steady stream of revenue as opposed to dealing with the ups and downs of a microtransaction model." Maybe it's just me but as subscribers drop subscription one month, come back later with additional content drop again for awhile, rinse and repeat, won't they always be dealing with "ups and downs" of revenue stream, no matter what model they use? I'm all for them going with a subscription model but I don't know that their reasoning makes any sense, at least it doesn't to me.
More to do with the fact that with Subscriptions you tend to have people buying that month so you know for that month you have 150k Sub payments, you then know your fixed costs and plan accordingly, surprisingly most people on subs will remain subbed, it is a low cost for most players. Therefore they know their fixed cost for the following month and can plan accordingly, do we do this content and these fixes, assign devs to new content etc
Now look at P2P, you might have 1 million users, you only have 200k spending money on it, that means you need to cover the 800K not paying anything the play (Data storage space, Bandwidth and server capacity.
So before you even start looking at your costs you need to pay from last months income to keep going, now you have a set amount to pay someone to do the work for this month, but you have no way of knowing what impact it will have one the game until the end of the month.
Kinda Kookie but easiest way to look at it is, SE are able to plan ahead, they have no investors to pay off so they can have good and bad months for subs, but they know their fixed costs are month to month as they only need to cater for paying players.
F2P companies are have to subsidise the non-paying people in their game (none Revenue Generating) they then need to keep their Investors happy so will come up with 'Bundles' to try and coax players into spending more money, rather than focusing on long term content.
Personally I found Yoshi P's Interview very enlightening and am glad I stuck through my support of them on 1.0 and am looking forward to ARR
You Nailed it. Some people need too see that sub in ffxiv means everyone have access too content no restriction and also as long SE dont create a cash shop this will keep alot of gamers happy and paying there sub each month. Cash Shop + P2W= FAIL!
Not only that but also I'm so used to playing F2P games that i was caught off guard in the beta, I'm like "whoa i get all this inventory just for me? AND full exp on all quests, and access to all races, classes and zones " not only that but I'm a fan of FF so I'm definitely subbing.
As someone who was formerly excited by the possibilities that the free to play model could introduce to the genre (And still can!)....I am glad XIV is pay to play.
In an ideal world, being given access to the game for free would mean that the content, and the shop would need to be rather compelling to justify spending money. We get free access to a game. We get a game that is good enough to keep us around so that we continue to spend money. Pass on the titles you don't like, no money wasted. Win win!
Unfortunately, people spend money at the drop of a hat. The temptation to pay for advancement, bonuses, buffs, or even actual gear is too great for many to resist. Leading developers down the path of often times focusing on giving players these advantages. It's not necessarily an evil plot. They do need to pay the bills after all. And along with that, there are a number of really good free to play games out there.
But rather than having a game that tempts me to buy extra bag slots, xp bonus's, keys, and mounts - I would like a game that tempts me to play it for a few years.
I admire SE for turning this thing around SO MUCH, that I pre-ordered the PS3 collector's edition even though I had the Digital PC collector's edition and a legacy account.
I will by HAPPY and PROUD to pay the sub and say "Thank you" to SE for the work that has gone into this remake.
".....sometimes... the truth isn't good enough. Sometimes people deserve more. Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded."
Originally posted by BadSpock Originally posted by Ehllfhire I will be playing this game until Archeage (that will be GotY). I enjoy the game thoughly even if its built like Rift/GW2
ArcheAge failed as P2P in the East, it's going to crash and burn even as F2P in the West. Sorry.
It's just the next TSW/GW2/TOR/ESO/Wildstart/WAR etc. over hyped game that can never live up to the expectations.
At least AA is trying to do something different and give people a small amount of freedom. This game is the same no freedom game we have all played since 2004. Hype has nothing to do with features and this game just doesn't have anything mildly thrilling about it (unless you are a FF fan or someone brand new to MMOs).
Edit: Why is everyone making a big deal about the payment model? The game design is 1000x more important.
Thank God this is going to be Subscription based. At first I loved the idea of F2P but the more games i played the more I realized just what a bloated scam F2P was. Neverwinter was the last straw , They must be high with the prices they are charging for junk.
Love going back to a subscription based model and paying a 1 time FLAT MONTHLY fee an having acess to ALL of the content!!!
Is there a clause in every contributor to this website's contract that they have to shill for F2P MMO's at least once in every single article.
Everyone knows this is subscription based, it is not news stop reporting it like it is a huge controversy you are making it out to be. All you have to do is look at the main competing entertainment industry to gaming: television, and you can see that subscription based content delivery WORKS. It will NEVER GO AWAY. And guess what "free network television" is a hell of a lot more free than "f2p" MMO's.
I understand that most of the adverts on this site come from F2P MMO's with cash shops, that the F2P and B2P boom has made the MMO community much more transient and more likely to game hop. This benefits your website I know. People no longer look for in depth information about the game, and impressions from the communities themselves. They now are just looking for excuses/hype to play the next disposable MMO because they require no investment (not worth time to properly educate oneself by reading up on a game on multiple websites devoted to the game like people used to), and catering to that uncertain and quick judging MMO hopper is your specialty.
Still, it gets old and I'm tired of hearing about how you all declared P2P to be dead tagged onto every article about a sub MMO. Even ones like this where the author points out how nice it is to actually have inventory space in an MMO industry where people are nickle and dimed for every single bag slot.
I'm just saying you could disguise your site wide mandatory bias a bit better if you didn't include it in the articles about every sub based MMO. I don't think anyone needed another prediction on the business model, it is in every FFXIV article. Maybe I'm paranoid and this is just easy filler for your articles.
Twitter Facebook TheGameCooler Youtube
Originally posted by Grakulen @Murugan take off the tin foil hat partner. I'm not shilling for anything. I prefer sub based games and said as much. I also refuse to call microtransaction based games F2P. Not once did I use that term. I hope the game does well in the sub model. Due to the fact all these games have real people working on them and depend on them for their livelyhood I wish they could all do well. Even SB. I'll respond to more of the questions tonight and talk about how Square Enix is a publicly traded company and regardless of what he tells you they do have investors to answer too. For tje record so does Activision/Blizzard.
Then why devote nearly half of your article to your speculation on whether it can really justify a subscription in this era of the "the western microtransaction surge".
Did you not read Ryahl's article last week? How about the comments, did you see all the people saying "Wow please more articles about the subscription fee, and the business model's plausability". Nearly every comment supports subscriptions, those that don't are clearly aware this game will have a sub by now.
Maybe devote more of the article to the game next time, you have all covered the topic of the fee enough. I swear if you devoted as much time into analysis of the value of cash shops in the myriad of F2P and B2P MMO's you all report on no one would dare use the term "free to play" any longer.
You are trying to create a controversy here, where there is none. You are told this repeatedly and both you and Ryahl have to resort to defending your article and the fact that you "really do love subscription models!!!". So the next article from you what percentage of that will be about the payment model?
I can't wait to see what new speculations you will have for us based upon your extensive business model testing in phase 3.
Originally posted by VikingGamer Originally posted by Grakulen @frealms. That should say subscription only. Many games have sub options. And yes there are a few fringe sub only games left but at this point, with all due respect to Mythic, do you consider WAR AAA? And in the West is FFXI really a major game any more? I'd say not really. Also games like EvE have plex so you can get around the sub there too. You may not agree with how I qualify that statement but I've done my homework. @QSatu If you have 100 people in the same fate effects are going to add up. I'm comparing it to games like Rift where the particles got so out of control everything just looked like a big ball of sparkle ponies.
I have to disagree with you here. You have at least two major sub mmos, wow and eve. It doesn't matter that eve has plex and so it can be played, eventually, for free. It is still a subscription only game. That is, every account that is active is based off having active sub time left regardless who paid for it. Also, there is no realistic way to get into the game without paying a sub for at least a while. I have never heard of a person being able to produce the 500m isk needed for a plex in the first 21 days of trial time you can get without significant help from existing players.
This is why terms like P2P and F2P don't really adequately describe the situation. Both EVE and WoW are sub-locked, and neither game is pure "P2P" like Lineage, AC, and others where you don't have a cash shop or pay RMT for xpacs or any other dlc. EVE and WoW have RMT in the form of cash shops, plex, etc to pad their subscription revenue. The days of pure "P2P" games are over, outside of niche applications.
It's pretty easy to envision the scenario where someone (or more likely secondary and tertiary accounts) is bankrolled by their corp or through third party rmt.
In any event I think there are enough FFXI players who will enjoy this to keep the game going. If they can thrive on < 750k subs (more reasonably 250 - 500k) then there is no reason to think they'll go "sub-free". As much as I think it would add to their success to adopt a more modern model, I don't think it's required. It would probably be in their best interest to actually raise the sub-fees by $5/mo to account for a potentially smaller playerbase.
Originally posted by ZizouX Originally posted by Emeraq " is charging a box fee and having a tiered subscription fee really the right way to go? Yoshi-P has said they would rather work with a steady stream of revenue as opposed to dealing with the ups and downs of a microtransaction model." Maybe it's just me but as subscribers drop subscription one month, come back later with additional content drop again for awhile, rinse and repeat, won't they always be dealing with "ups and downs" of revenue stream, no matter what model they use? I'm all for them going with a subscription model but I don't know that their reasoning makes any sense, at least it doesn't to me.
There is always fluctuations in the the stream of income. P2P models have far less drastic "economic mood swings" than F2P models. You literally have to come up with cash shop items every three months to get revenue. With P2P if an average person subscribes 7 out of the 12 months, than that's far more stable than the F2P model.
the F2P model is very schizophrenic. Just like YoshiP said, it's inherent design makes it impossible to have long term, stable growth.
Prove it. You made the claim, now support it with more than, "I said so."
Originally posted by DMKano I think that 2-3 months post launch it will be painfully obvious to Square Enix how P2P is not a good model in the western markets anymore. That is where you see significant sub dropoff at the end of there 2nd month, and then due to low influx of new players you are left in a tough position. Decent game, but not strong enough to thrive as a P2P title in F2P market. Just my opinion, it will be interesting to see how this goes.
I welcome the p2p model, im so fucking down with NotsoFreetoplay. this whole pay to win generation makes me sick.
f2p works because to many people are about instant satisfaction, why they think its ok to spend 300 bucks in one month instead of 15 bucks a month is beyond me. p2p is CHEAPER then f2p.
You will pay for f2p, you will be nickled and dimed to death. So unless you enjoy swiping your credit card for bag space and renting mounts and paying large amounts of money to succeed in whater lottery enchanting system is in place, there is no reason to chose f2p over p2p.
Quotations Those Who make peaceful resolutions impossible, make violent resolutions inevitable. John F. Kennedy
Life... is the shit that happens while you wait for moments that never come - Lester Freeman
Lie to no one. If there 's somebody close to you, you'll ruin it with a lie. If they're a stranger, who the fuck are they you gotta lie to them? - Willy Nelson
Originally posted by Murugan Originally posted by Grakulen @Murugan take off the tin foil hat partner. I'm not shilling for anything. I prefer sub based games and said as much. I also refuse to call microtransaction based games F2P. Not once did I use that term. I hope the game does well in the sub model. Due to the fact all these games have real people working on them and depend on them for their livelyhood I wish they could all do well. Even SB. I'll respond to more of the questions tonight and talk about how Square Enix is a publicly traded company and regardless of what he tells you they do have investors to answer too. For tje record so does Activision/Blizzard.
To be fair, my article wasn' t last week, it was yesterday.
It wasn't 50% F2P, it was one paragraph in which I observed it was one issue that would polarize people's opinions.
One paragraph at the end of the article, following four sections which were, I think, very positive about the game and its direction. My F2P paragraph even included the statement "and I respect his decision." I do note that "I wonder if that market segment has come and gone," but that's not a commentary on FFXIV as much as it is based on my 20-Aug, 2012 analysis of the MMO market segment.
The sub-only MMO segment appears to have a relatively fixed population of about 2mm + WoW. Gains to one title's subs seem to come as a loss from another's subs. Other than WoW, the sub market went stagnant in 2004. Is it a niche market that has recently lost some of its over-congestion (which would still justify the FFXIV strategy) or it a segment that can be genuinely grown and cultivated? I don't know that answer, but I am intensely curious to find out.
Robert's article is structurally similar to my feature from yesterday in this regard, one paragraph which focuses entirely on the industry direction and includes the statement "I find it refreshing to play a MMO that requires a subscription."
Regarding the "F2P shill" accusation, I would have to refer you to my Internet defender, Mr. Inigo Montoya.
Granted, that's the paragraph that the comments took off about in my article and it's the paragraph that bothered you quite a bit in this article. Billing models are a contentious topic in the industry right now and any broad discussion of any upcoming MMO probably needs to include some comments about the business model.
That's the thing, it's a thing to talk about. Yoshi's taking a position on this issue, it's a position that's not in-line with where the industry has been migrating. Yoshi's decision to keep FFXIV sub-based is clearly a differentiator for this game. It's a position that won't work for some customers, but will appeal to others. I'm not opposed to the position he's taking, I think it might work and I think there is room for a sub model if your business is built around realistic expectations for the size of a sub model game.
Ryahl - writer of eye-bleedersFFXIV Fansite | TSWGuidesFollow me on Twitter
Ugh... that's right you think that anyone working on an ever evolving product like an MMO deserves to be defended. Even if the product they're producing is garbage. If you make a bad product and don't do anything to improve it. Expect it to fail and expect to be looking for a new job whether that'd be looking for a new company or a new title within your current one. But, you should not defend poorly created products for the sake of, "a persons livelyhood is at risk".
Originally posted by BadSpock Originally posted by tkreep If Final Fantasy 11 hav not gone free to play already after like 10+ years than i dont see how people think ARR will.
SE develops, publishes, and distributes their own games.
They are financially beholden to no one.
And they are going to make so, so much money off of the FF10 HD remakes, FF XV, and Kingdom Hearts 3, along with a probably Tomb Raider sequel (though SE is just the publisher).
Where do you people invent this stuff. Some other dude in the thread said it so now it's true?
These two websites say you're wrong.
I didn't even know if you were right or just making stuff up, but a quick search: http://www.bing.com/search?q=square+enix+stock&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=square+enix+stock&sc=8-13&sp=-1&sk=
shows they're a publicly traded company. So that is exactly who they're beholden to, the same as every other publicly traded company. Do you think just because they don't have to answer to a third party publisher's revenue demands they're off the hook? They answer to board and stockholders of SE and any parent companies. There are beholden just like everyone else. They just don't have to share their profits with an outside publisher.
I have been playing computer/console games since way back in 1974. I have seen the industry from the beginning. All I can say is;
"Thank god for the return of p2p. Microtransaction/DLC model is a gaming consumers' worst nightmare!!! PERIOD!!!"
-------------------------------------------Control is an illusion!
I'm absolutely loving the rebirth of not only FFXIV but SE in general. It warms my heart to see a company that TRULY cares about their franchise. They are working till their hands bleed and that kind of dedication really is showing in the new work they are releasing.
Honestly FFXIV:ARR is the first title released under this rebirth of SE. There's now a new President and they have become more open. This year, up until the launch of FFXV will really give us more insight on if SE has really risen from the ashes like the Phoenix.
Originally posted by Mardukk Originally posted by BadSpock Originally posted by Ehllfhire I will be playing this game until Archeage (that will be GotY). I enjoy the game thoughly even if its built like Rift/GW2
I agree game content means more but look at F2P content to P2P content before asking why people are arguing over the payment type.
F2P has limited content updates P2P have to keep you interested so up-date more often with large expansions.
as always there are exceptions to the rule but few and far between.
I dont think you understand the word overhyped. Nor the words sandbox not themepark.
Any graphical, audio, or gameplay restrictions not seen in other mmos but found in FFXIV can be blamed on one thing.PS3
If this isn't going ftp or is going to have a character wipe then I don't want to see a review or a review in progress until 'release'. Seriously. You can not start reviewing an actual proper open beta, it's not right.
I'm not saying that as a fan or anything, I bloody hated the disgusting game they released the first time.