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!

[Preview] Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn: First Impressions of ARR

12345679»

Comments

  • darkrain21darkrain21 philadelphia, PAPosts: 274Member
    Originally posted by wowclones
    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.

     

    Couldn't have said it better. If people are able to max level before the 30 days of free play, this game is doomed. Going to be interesting to see a AAA title try subscription again. I am sure they already have the future plan laid out to go F2P when subs get low and box sales dry up.

     

    I couldnt disagree more, P2P is still the best way IMO due to the fact that there is no price gouging and when they say new content they mean new content not shit they just added to the Item Mall. I hate F2P and seeing as how there still isnt a f2p game doing better than wow and the fact that since we share these servers with Japan and Europe there is no way of saying which is better 11 is still P2P and still making them money so dont expect F2P with 14 ever.

  • ElandrialElandrial atlanta, GAPosts: 162Member Uncommon
    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.

     just ask wow how the p2p goes,yes a lot of games have gone f2p.depends on how they do it. if they become  p2w than they die out,ie atlantica online,very good game,but it is p2w,teh econmy is so wrecked you have to pay to even compete.

    loto on the other hand,is about cosmetics buys  and new maps,you do not need to buy much,it sells the new maps and give bonuses.if the game does well it may well stay p2p.but that willbe the market that dictates not your belief.i may give it a try,i am in the beta and it looks very good.

     

  • Snowdon_CloudripperSnowdon_Cloudripper Chickasha, OKPosts: 584Member
    Originally posted by Ryahl
    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.

    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.

    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.

     

    Way to quote me :p

    http://absoluteretribution.enjin.com/ Guild Website and Recruitment link

  • lifesbrinklifesbrink Sayre, PAPosts: 553Member
    What the hell is wrong with everyone and their crazy support of Subscription models?  So what if a lot of F2P games suck.  So do a lot of subscription games (WoW especially, comes to mind).  I have played Lord of the Rings online for ages, and I have noticed a huge drop in price for playing the game.  Before, the game cost you $150 a year.  Now, you can pay $150 and buy the entire game without worrying about paying for anything until an expansion comes out.  How is that more expensive than subscription?

    My blog is a continuing story of what MMO's should be like.

  • ArthasmArthasm LoznicaPosts: 754Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by lifesbrink
    What the hell is wrong with everyone and their crazy support of Subscription models?  So what if a lot of F2P games suck.  So do a lot of subscription games (WoW especially, comes to mind).  I have played Lord of the Rings online for ages, and I have noticed a huge drop in price for playing the game.  Before, the game cost you $150 a year.  Now, you can pay $150 and buy the entire game without worrying about paying for anything until an expansion comes out.  How is that more expensive than subscription?

    Then go stick with your F2P games. Why bother if 1 game goes P2P, when you poor F2P players have fucking 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 F2P crap games out there. 

  • lifesbrinklifesbrink Sayre, PAPosts: 553Member

    Because in the end, I am about gameplay, and not a single MMO satisfies that for me.  Everything has endless repetition, and until MMO's can start providing game worlds that have emergent and dynamic gameplay, like EVE, for example (though ship combat does not appeal to me), then I am always on the look out for new games.  

    But the F2P model is the best way to do it.  You all sit there and argue that it is a bad system, but then you quote all the games that do shove the system on you at every moment, and forget that other games do it right.  Kingsisle, Turbine, Sony, they all have gameplay that is not hindered by the F2P system.  So what if there are crap models out there?  It was the same way with subscription games when there was nothing but those to choose from.

    You can't argue a system and use the worthless games as evidence of it not working.  You can only refute it if EVERY game is the same way.  Which in this case, it is not.

    My blog is a continuing story of what MMO's should be like.

  • ZizouXZizouX Burbank, CAPosts: 670Member
    Originally posted by lifesbrink

    Because in the end, I am about gameplay, and not a single MMO satisfies that for me.  Everything has endless repetition, and until MMO's can start providing game worlds that have emergent and dynamic gameplay, like EVE, for example (though ship combat does not appeal to me), then I am always on the look out for new games.  

    But the F2P model is the best way to do it.  You all sit there and argue that it is a bad system, but then you quote all the games that do shove the system on you at every moment, and forget that other games do it right.  Kingsisle, Turbine, Sony, they all have gameplay that is not hindered by the F2P system.  So what if there are crap models out there?  It was the same way with subscription games when there was nothing but those to choose from.

    You can't argue a system and use the worthless games as evidence of it not working.  You can only refute it if EVERY game is the same way.  Which in this case, it is not.

    F2P is fastfood.

     

    FFXIV P2P is fine dining well worth the price.

  • MuruganMurugan D, COPosts: 1,494Member
    Originally posted by lifesbrink

    Because in the end, I am about gameplay, and not a single MMO satisfies that for me.  Everything has endless repetition, and until MMO's can start providing game worlds that have emergent and dynamic gameplay, like EVE, for example (though ship combat does not appeal to me), then I am always on the look out for new games.  

    But the F2P model is the best way to do it.  You all sit there and argue that it is a bad system, but then you quote all the games that do shove the system on you at every moment, and forget that other games do it right.  Kingsisle, Turbine, Sony, they all have gameplay that is not hindered by the F2P system.  So what if there are crap models out there?  It was the same way with subscription games when there was nothing but those to choose from.

    You can't argue a system and use the worthless games as evidence of it not working.  You can only refute it if EVERY game is the same way.  Which in this case, it is not.

    So your argument is that games aren't worth a subscription.

     

    That's fine, they are to me.

     

    Question though, they aren't worth your subscription but the virtual items you buy in a cash shop are?  Oh but wait you play only "good" f2p options and probably don't spend a dime ever.

     

    So let me ask, is the inflated grind worth your time just so you don't have to buy items etc. in a cash shop?

     

    The answer to these questions for me is no.  If an MMO isn't worth a subscription, it isn't really an MMO and it likely isn't worth my time since I have MMO's I could be playing instead.  I don't accept crap just because someone gives it away, and I'm not a game hopper so no it really isn't "the better system" for me at least.

  • TehutiTehuti houston, TXPosts: 8Member
    Originally posted by tkreep
    Originally posted by Sxecutioner
    I dont really care if its p2p or f2p tho i tend to like the F2p with optional sub the best. My issue is that i have a $1k nvidia GTX 690 and the game does not support SLI and does not run on my computer. The original FFXIV broke my old video card and i fear history repeating itself. With a $1k card i really just dont want to take that chance. They just really dont seem to know what their doing when it comes to working with computers i may just get it for the PS3 so i dont have to worry about it breaking my card. All over the internet i see people complaining about it not running properly on my card and huge lists of like 20 things you need to do to get it to run semi ok on high graphics when every other game it can run max graphics and not break a sweat.

    It works perfectly with my GTX 660, I even use sweetfx.

    I'm running on a laptop with a 560M and the game runs awesome for me as well.

    I'm also one of those that agrees that SquareEnix made the right choice in having a sub-based model. If i feel you have a good product, then I will happily pay for it. If not, I'll move on to something else.

  • SchnizitSchnizit Calgary, ABPosts: 25Member

    Here is my first impression: Waited over 20 mins while watching an opening It wouldn't let me close.

    Then walked to one person and waited an additional 5 minutes for junk it wouldn't let me close...

     

    Finally managed to try combat but the controls were all wrong. It would say up when it should be down etc.. I can't believe how broken the control scheme was.

    Then quit.

     

    The graphics were nice.... the rest was junk. Try again in a few months maybe they will get it sorted.

     

     

  • GeekieDaveGeekieDave Blackduck, MNPosts: 41Member

    My main concern with the game is going to be burn out. I played from level 0 to 12 in about a 10 hour span. It was around hour two or three that I realized this was going to be a game for hardcore players. While there is a ton of content just in the questing side, I wasn't able to fully experience neither PvP or PvE. To get back on topic, I fear that people are going to get frustrated when they can't pick up any other quests before completing one quest chain.

    When it comes time to paying for this game or getting it for free, They really need to step up the game of how often content/patches will be released. With the only other P2P MMO out there as of right now, ARR does have quite a bit of a challenge. Like Grakulen said, The game is pretty generic if you were to remove the FATE system. With this weekend having us test out the Duty Finder, I'm really hoping they have another piece of the puzzle that could really make this MMO stand apart from others

    Be sure to subscribe to Worlds Edge Gaming:
    www.youtube.com/worldsedgegaming

  • angerbeaverangerbeaver Dorval, QCPosts: 871Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Schnizit

    Here is my first impression: Waited over 20 mins while watching an opening It wouldn't let me close.

    Then walked to one person and waited an additional 5 minutes for junk it wouldn't let me close...

     

    Finally managed to try combat but the controls were all wrong. It would say up when it should be down etc.. I can't believe how broken the control scheme was.

    Then quit.

     

    The graphics were nice.... the rest was junk. Try again in a few months maybe they will get it sorted.

     

     

    You should be able to hit escape twice and choose to Skip the cinematics. 

  • sado2020sado2020 elizabethtown, KYPosts: 112Member

    Now can someone enlighten me on the one character per server rule? Im not too clear on it but that's what I heard from others and if Im not mistaken my wife said something about it when she played 1.0 

     

    If that is the case Im not too keen on the game.  I know you can level all the classes on one character but I just like having multiples for the sake of variety and RP purposes.

    Playing: TSW, D&D NW, Defiance (more the tv show than game >.> ) LotRO, DCUO

    image
  • angerbeaverangerbeaver Dorval, QCPosts: 871Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by sado2020

    Now can someone enlighten me on the one character per server rule? Im not too clear on it but that's what I heard from others and if Im not mistaken my wife said something about it when she played 1.0 

     

    If that is the case Im not too keen on the game.  I know you can level all the classes on one character but I just like having multiples for the sake of variety and RP purposes.

    Well in 1.0 you could buy new characters for $1.00 or something. I haven't actually read anything about this before though so I can't be certain it is the same.

  • lifesbrinklifesbrink Sayre, PAPosts: 553Member
    Originally posted by Murugan
    Originally posted by lifesbrink

    Because in the end, I am about gameplay, and not a single MMO satisfies that for me.  Everything has endless repetition, and until MMO's can start providing game worlds that have emergent and dynamic gameplay, like EVE, for example (though ship combat does not appeal to me), then I am always on the look out for new games.  

    But the F2P model is the best way to do it.  You all sit there and argue that it is a bad system, but then you quote all the games that do shove the system on you at every moment, and forget that other games do it right.  Kingsisle, Turbine, Sony, they all have gameplay that is not hindered by the F2P system.  So what if there are crap models out there?  It was the same way with subscription games when there was nothing but those to choose from.

    You can't argue a system and use the worthless games as evidence of it not working.  You can only refute it if EVERY game is the same way.  Which in this case, it is not.

    So your argument is that games aren't worth a subscription.

     

    That's fine, they are to me.

     

    Question though, they aren't worth your subscription but the virtual items you buy in a cash shop are?  Oh but wait you play only "good" f2p options and probably don't spend a dime ever.

     

    So let me ask, is the inflated grind worth your time just so you don't have to buy items etc. in a cash shop?

     

    The answer to these questions for me is no.  If an MMO isn't worth a subscription, it isn't really an MMO and it likely isn't worth my time since I have MMO's I could be playing instead.  I don't accept crap just because someone gives it away, and I'm not a game hopper so no it really isn't "the better system" for me at least.

    That is rather pointless to say as any of the F2P games I have played I have spent a couple hundred on.  So your argument is lost.

    My blog is a continuing story of what MMO's should be like.

Sign In or Register to comment.