It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Here's an idea for a cash shop / sub hybrid model that I'd like to see.
Cash shop has items like exp boosts (only to the max allowed) / additional bag/bank slot (only to the max allowed) / access to dye vendor / item customization.
The Sub gives you everything offered in the shop (so obviously the shop isn't built for whaling, it's built to encourage people to sub, but allows F2P).
But here's the kicker, if you have a sub, the cash shop disappear from your game and all ads for it. So playing as a sub player gives you the benefit of having everything and no ads directing you to the shop, and if you don't want to sub, you can play for free and buy things at your leisure.
That might be the problem players have with cash shops, it's that they're built to get players to spend far more than a sub would and therefore encourages devs to make more things available via cash shop. What if the cash shop was designed to get people closer to subbing rather than spending a ton?
It might be a good model.
P2P is starting to be hard to justify each year.
Especially when 15 dollars is not needed, like why can't it be at least 5 dollars a month least that'd make it easier for people who don't have that much time to play or even not enough time to play an hour that month...stay subscribed.
My signature really. Now p2p can exist but 15 dollars alone doesn't make sense any more, hell even if 10 at least or something. But Wildstar can last longer than Tera and SWTOR maybe, if they have free expansions, least then they can say your 15 dollars a month is going towards expansions.
Most niche games who are going for niche numbers can be P2P because they are going for niche numbers. I mean just calling it how I see and experience it, until I see more mainstream MMORPGs that aren't going for niche numbers(post WoW it made it in time) do something they I may lean on the side of Wildstar and other upcoming p2p games being viable but as of now no game is nor has unless niche and not mainstream...is viable.
I think what also makes me really against P2P is simply put in my profile, and the OP went on a rant that really was needed IMO, because stuff you said goes through my mind and has went through my mind for awhile even before my constant posts on why P2P really isn't any better than F2P and B2P games in reality. So many false claims and bashing the player base that doesn't like p2p games.
I just saw someone say but not word for word that people who don't play p2p games are stupid and don't know any better...it's earlier in this thread. Maybe my fault is even with my sig I'm implying that people who say that have no common sense, but honestly I believe they just don't have any sense at that moment and aren't stupid but more so ignorant for making such claims.
Though unfortunately this website has the most active posters who are [Pro] P2P, they outnumber vocally on this website but I know those who agree and understand that P2P is honestly no better than F2P and B2P and hardly as justifiable these days, are out there.
Tldr: To answer the question, no not really, not convinced but i could be wrong which is fine but history and just overall what happens all the time lead me to "Nope."
The rest of my post is towards the issues I see in this thread.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
It's funny because so many kids QQ about WOW graphic style cartoon-nish I mean but at the same timeWildStar is even more cartoon nish one
Also It don't have epic WOW Story books one reason WOW was so good is because LORE it had war death love friend ship hope hate respect wise characters which where kinda real this is what was so great about it.
What is Wild star for me well LAME funny quite childish game for kids
Not sure that I will play it even it releases as an F2p
NO offence to fan boy
Originally posted by MadDemon64 So unless you've been living under a rock, you've probably noticed how many games are being relased as free to play and how many that used to be subscription based are going free to play with a subscription option. There are probably all of two MMOs out right now that maintain a subscription model and nothing else. Do you think that Wildstar will be the third, or will it eventually switch to a buy to play option similar to Guild Wars 2 or The Secret World or go fully free to play like Rift or TERA? What's everyones predictions?
Hope it doesn't switch from sub to F2P.
The problem with the switch is games go from focused on improving the game and adding great new content so you want to keep your sub going, to making the gates to content painful enough that you will pay to avoid them.
Originally posted by DamonVile Originally posted by Destai Originally posted by Searias Originally posted by DamonVile Originally posted by Destai Originally posted by MadDemon64 Originally posted by Destai Originally posted by CIB3 I will not play it as B2P or P2P. I only play it as F2P with possibility to buy things with sms codes. But those things must be not mandatory to enjoy playing the game. I think that this is the best, if not the only way to have a successful MMO game with a large player base.
You are the problem with this genre.
No, that would be you, accusing people of being "the problem with this genre".
Oh yeah, because, I want people to actually pay for the shit they use. Get real. You code a game and then read a post like this. Spend millions of dollars and thousands of hours just to have someone free load. That's sensible. I stand by my words. And if you agree with him, you're part of the problem too.
But your argument only makes a stronger case for what maddemon is saying. It's no secret f2p games are making more than they were as p2p....so obviously they're not all just freeloaders that don't pay for the "shit" they use. They just choose to pay for different things.
One of the biggest problems this whole genre has is the out of control sterotypeing people seem to NEED to put on anyone that doesn't agree with their narrow view of what a game should be.
If your view of the genre isn't constantly evolving you're stuck in the past..and that is this genres biggest problem.
I think what he is getting at is that the more developers focus on making money off the F2P population, the less time they focus on improving game mechanics and more time finding new ways of making money from the F2P user base.
In my opinion, I would rather have the developers just focus on making games better than wasting time on all these nonsense micro-transactions.
Thank you, that is exactly my point.
In my experience, free games reinvest in profit making strategies, finding new commodities to limit and sell. They have to. It's their lifeblood.
Guild Wars 2 has a good model and I supported it while I played the game. Unfortunately, they decided they went a different route than I liked. Support ended and I don't log in.
There's certainly a case to be made for the failure of subscriptions in the post-WoW generation. Yet, I don't think it's inherent to that model. I think it's because those games made the wrong design decisions and consumers will not hesitate to leave a game. However, that's a vulnerability to any game.
While your last post is something I agree with...it sure wasn't your "point" when you attacked him in your first post. Other than the mmo parasites that pay for nothing, I think most people will pay for any game they love to play. The last 5 or so years has just made many gamers gun shy about buying into a game though. That isn't the fault of the player imo but the games being made.
It is the fault of the players when they keep buying it. He's expecting his cake and to eat it too. It's that sort of market demand that's turning MMOs into barbie doll competitions rather than stories and explorations. Sure it's profitable - but compare the RPGs of the early 2000s to the ones out now and you'll understand why I said what I did. A game that survives off of selling gimmicks - bags, character slots, etc - rather than the core gameplay isn't a game worth playing to me. Others are free to feel different - but don't expect every game to be free especially when they can actually benefit from a more traditional model.
Originally posted by Maelzrael I'll sub to it as long as it's fun.
Bingo. I'm all for a subscription as long as there's gameplay to justify its existence.
Too many allegations and exaggerations brought up as points as usual.
For the OP, the simple matter is that business is business; they will release as Box + Sub and try to milk as much money from the crowd that wants that. Then they will switch to F2P or Box Purchase and milk the cash cows that support that type. This has already been stated by them to be the case in on of their MMO Interviews ( 28:31 ) in a very optimistic sort of way. They basically state that doing such is great for pretty much everyone as it pays for development costs (servers and such) at the start and has a definite amount of income they can work off of to get things situated for the long haul of things. Though the problem there is that you have much less players than you would normally and over time it will inevitable degenerate and going F2P will revitalize it by filling up the servers and giving your players more people to play with and potential friends and a feeling that they want to stay subscribed or peruse the shop to set yourself apart while also encouraging your friends to come give it a try since there are fewer barriers.
He also touches up on how some people view it as a commercial failure when it doesn't have to be the case as a company if they prepare for such at the start and still have quality content and systems that can be built on.
On the point of F2P Vs. P2P that this forum (which I'm sure we pretty much all expected before clicking the thread):
No. It does not cost people more to play F2P games than it does P2P. This is a neutral ground depending on the individual. I've spent -- as an example -- maybe 10,000 (give or take a few thousand) on WoW by having some 12 accounts (all fully upgraded box wise) that I've been paying for since it launched. These were for family members, significant other and multiboxing entertainment when I got bored with the game. Not to mention multiple character transfers and R.A.F involvements. For me games that are B2P or have no renting fee are best simply because I pay for other people's accounts, or I'd like to just say to a friend "Hey, come here and play with me!" without worrying about barriers. Having to pay for multiple accounts monthly across several games I find entertaining racks up the bill whereas B2P or F2P does not due to self-control when it comes to micro-transactions.
In that same time period I've played a lot of F2P games. Perhaps almost just as long hour wise than all the time I spent in WoW. The grand total that I've spent on all of them is probably $30 (superfluous spending; I may spend if I enjoyed my time just to support them, even if I quit the game thereafter). If there is a game I enjoy that has a subscription plus the ability to play without renting the game, I usually subscribe because my friends can jump in at any time they want. This is a positive feature for both the game and community in many ways if the game itself didn't fail spectacularly and go to what is called "maintenance mode" by some. It's that point they only focus on item shop things and not content updates. Guild Wars 2 is a title that prepared for the non-sub fees and still has a large group working on the game. I may not appreciate the way they release content and the limited function it servers, but it's still working for them and their players.
The video above showcases Wildstar's intentions and preparations. In addition they also mentioned wanting to provide more "Elder game" content than any other game, as well as patches that provide for updates on systems and new systems entirely. With the videos I've seen, the interviews I've watched and the dev streams that have been showcased, I believe they have the ability to do such and understand what it means to both have and deploy it to their playerbase as a whole.
If a game provides ample upkeep, people will support it. If it's a quality game, people will stay to play it. The more friends you can get in to play with you -- or the more friends you could possibly make -- is a much needed addition and benefit for both parties. Even SWTOR has been doing better for itself lately despite an initial hatred.
"Do you think that a game that has no restrictions on it's F2P goes too far?"
35:00 on the video linked above.
"Not only did they end up making more money... from having all these people come from free to play. But their subscribers jumped. ...I think to succeed in this you have to do something really cool or compelling to draw those guys in. Either start as Free to Play or have something that really draws their eyes in for their game when you market the switch."
Mentioned Champions Online having a slight bump: I think this is an invalid mention as their model is / was borderline P2W what with their free form champions at that point (they've since made Free form characters purchasable, though have lock boxes in spades now). Plus not a lot of people enjoyed the game to start with.
"I think our business will be a lot about recapturing people's interest"
"Patches and expansions bring people back with great content, providing you didn't piss off your playerbase to the point they won't touch your stuff."
This is something of interest where he talks of developers paying players for their work; how it may come to the next few generations of games. This was brought up when speaking of player mods and sometimes how they are put into the game by the actual developers (just a passing thought and nothing confirmed that they're planning on doing anything of the such).
As a whole a game that keeps on charging you more money is taking you for a fool. MMO is a genre where this is true, and we're all fools. No one is more the fool than other. It even went to single player games with DLC and microtransactions. We're all dollar signs in some way, even if we don't spend money. Our presence adds value to the game. Seeing another player in an area or making a friend that you end up staying in game just to play with.
They will eventually go F2P, as all AAA games that have come out within the last five years. They ones that didn't, like Final Fantasy, Warhammer and Darkfall seen a fate I am sure most developers do not want to see. Two of those 3 rebooted, one died. SWTOR, Aion, TERA, LOTRO, Conan, Vanguard, Rift, DDO, DC Universe, the list goes on.
Originally posted by Tibernicuspa The games that are successful/stable do not generally go FTP. DAoC, AC, Eve, all still subs.
Add final fantasy 11 to that too
Originally posted by ElRenmazuo Originally posted by Tibernicuspa The games that are successful/stable do not generally go FTP. DAoC, AC, Eve, all still subs.
Remember FF11 already failed and rebooted. WOW, DAOC, AC and EVE are not recent titles, I have discussed age playing a part in other threads (can click on my name to look up the post). Anything that comes out current day, SWTOR, Aion, TERA, LOTRO, Conan, Vanguard, Rift, DDO, DC Universe, will not last on subscription forever and eventually go F2P.
In response to Tibernicuspa,
As you know, the times have changed greatly for various reasons and games and community explosions. Most of those games pretty much predate WoW or have niche communities. Niche communities and the games that made them niche have less of a chance of making money each month if subscriptions aren't required. Being Niche, less people will stay with it and your guaranteed revenue is gone due to the niche title the community gave it (most likely for good reason).
Old school games like UO, DAoC and AC are before the time of modern day themeparks that pretty much defined a genre that was vastly different from each other (in terms of each game being unique in their own way). Few would look at UO or AC and say "That game is gorgeous and has awesome systems!". To be honest, I'm surprised that EQ and Ragnarok went F2P. Though I guess a dedicated playerbase is a dedicate playerbase no matter the system used. I'd expect EQ to still make a profit due to it being the top dog of the day and a lot of people having fond memories. It probably attracted the old school crowd to come back and play it again, especially with it's consistent updates and how it still pops out expansions (which probably makes it in a league of it's own and thus an exception).
I'd be interested in knowing how Ragnarok is doing, especially since they just brought it on Steam.
FFXI also fits into this as it is a very slow paced game with a lot of systems you have to learn. Most people couldn't get past level 10 back in the day before WoW, much less have to learn everything on their own without the tutorials people are used to in games nowadays. The fact that it is on console systems as well makes it an option for a crowd that has less MMO options at present.
Originally posted by Retired Originally posted by ElRenmazuo Originally posted by Tibernicuspa The games that are successful/stable do not generally go FTP. DAoC, AC, Eve, all still subs.
FFXI did not fail and reboot. You're thinking of FFXIV. ;3
OK... let's explain why F2P is better than P2P or B2P (or both like Wildstar)
-100k players somewhat interested, but with no money or with money but with no intention to pay a subscription or to buy the game and
-5000 players with money who wish to buy the game and pay the subscription.
If the game is B2P or P2P will be played by those 5000. The in game AH will be almost empty, the game economy will be broken, the game world will be empty, grouping and dungeons will be difficult to be done. To resume the entire gaming experience will be bad for those paying players. A lot of those 5000 players will leave the game too. At the end we have 100k potential players + 5000 players unhappy.
If the game is F2P we have +100k players, a lot of realms, a good economy, because those free players make the grind job for players with money and put the materials in AH.
On the other hand we have a lot of microtransactions for xp boosts for players with money but no time to play, vanity items, costumes, pets, mounts, housing items, etc. If the transactions are easy to be made, like buying sms codes, as I said in a previous post, here will be a lot of transactions, with condition that the prices to be reasonable / acceptable.
So here can be a B2P or P2P dead game or a great F2P game with a live and huge population.
The quality of players is not a problem, just join to a good guild and you don't need to interact with the rest to much. Gold sellers can be muted or banned. Or better, the game could offer the possibility to buy gold with real money. I don't see any cons for a F2P model.
Just the game need a real F2P model, with not buying something mandatory to enjoy the game, like SWTOR.
There is a reason why so many P2P games changed their model to F2P!
Originally posted by Nitth Originally posted by MasterZedX Lol they wanna make as much money as they can before going f2p, derr
What ever their intentions pretty much this. It makes sense business wise.
Well, most mmo's that used to be p2p started making MUCH MUCH more money/profit once it went f2p. Think of it this way, where the game client is free and there are no bars for entry alot more potental customers will try the game out, compared to the game being buy the client then a sub fee, peoples these days won't take risks on mmorpgs anymore. Tera is doing much better since it went f2p, and so are alot of other previous p2p mmo's. Though if you wanna do well you cannot restrict the game so much that its nearly unplayable (SWTOR is a prime example of this, I haven't checked in a while but the restrictions were insanly limiting to the point back then I'd not even try it.) I suspect wildstar will start p2p, then within a year or less end up going f2p due to dwindling sub numbers that get so low its not really viable to remain a sub mmo. How the hell WoW is still a sub mmorpg to this day blows my mind, its not that great of a mmo, its dated as hell, yet it still manages to somehow survive as a sub based mmo.
Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:
A. Proven right (if something bad happens)
B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)
Either way, you can't lose! Try it out sometime!
Originally posted by Torvaldr Those 1 year sub deals are sort of risky. I did that with Rift and really regretted it. An xpac update comes out that you don't like and you've screwed yourself out of several months of game play. When I do subs I typically choose the 3 month deal. I know at the end of every quarter if I plan on signing up for another stint, and it's a reasonable compromise between savings and control over how much is going out for what I get back. The pre-order packs in every f2p game I've played have been completely optional. I bought the Neverwinter pack and it was one of the best deals for the money. I just went back after their latest update and started a ranger and he's got a companion, mount, and a great starter weapon, all for no extra charge. Comparing different deals in isolation is sort of silly. I look at the total cost of a game per year, or even over a couple years, and decide if what they charge for it is something I think is really worth it. Required subs usually fall outside of that for me because I just don't see being restricted from playing unless I pony up more cash as a good deal, for me. I do factor the cost of a sub, along with any dlc/xpacs, and cash shop purchases in the total annual cost of the game though. For example, EQ2 can be one of the more expensive games for me. I usually buy $50 - $100 worth of SC, the xpac (at $40 - $60), and 6 months of subscription time (at around $75), so I'm spending about $200 per year on EQ2. Most of my other games are about half to 2/3 of that per year. I've spent $110 in Neverwinter since it was released; $70 with GW2; $20 with Aeria; $100 with City of Steam; and around $100 with Trion this year between Defiance and Rift. I like being able to divvy up my gaming funds between different games how I feel like rather than the $13.80/mo for a sub.
I usually go month to month since a mmorpg rarely keeps me interested for even the first included month with the package. They just don't draw me in anymore mostly because they are too easy and too much is just handed to you and your hand gets held thru too much. Last MMO I played where I subbed for more than 2-3 months straight was FF11, its pretty much been the only mmorpg that managed to hold my interest. Just the right diffculty of getting stuff done, and its not a mostly solo rush to level cap mmo like most that are around today end up being. We need mmo's that force grouping again across all levels.
All I can say is that I will happily pay my bucks every month as long as the game is good and delivers good content. Did so for many years in World of Warcraft, did so in Aion, SWTOR, Rift, LoTRO and sveral others. Never regretted a single cent I payed for subs. Was amazed and happy when I learned about Wildstar's business model.
Those dudes over at Carbine are actually daring to go against the current trends in MMOs. Nobody doing 40 mans anymore? We bring them on. Everybody casualizing everything? We DO care for the hardcore community. Everybody going F2P? We do monthly sub with the alternative to grind for your sub ingame. Excellent job I say. Hope you will be successful, because, frankly speaking, each and every MMO that came out after WoW TBC, including all later WoW addons, sucked in a way (some of them big time), at least in my humble opion. Eveybody else is entitled to have her/his own.
And I'd rather pay my sub and have an equal chance for all aspects of gameplay - based on a combination of time investment and skill - than have a system such as in GW 2 where people with shitloads of money can just buy their precursors or legendaries from the auction hose. Despite all its remendous and hilarious fails in recent years, even WoW has not got that low. Ever.
And, sorry to break the news to you, this is what you eventually get in F2P or B2P titles. There is no exception. It is always and will always be P2Win at least at a certain level of gameplay, and you end off paying much more for the game if you want to be competetive and high-end then if you pay for a monthly sub. F2P is the biggest delusion of the current MMO community. It may generate more money for the company, but for me, as a gamer, the sub is always the better alternative.
I think Wildstar could really make their C.R.E.D.D. system work. I played WoW and earned like 15k gold in my first month of payment and I'm a very slow MMO player. I had an item lvl of 486 or something like that from random raids and I didn't even know what to buy in the AH. The only things I really needed were enchantments, which were really cheap. I didn't bother with professions/crafting, at all.
If it's gonna be the same with Wildstar and people can actually afford the C.R.E.D.D. then it might keep the hybrid payment model.
Furthermore, this game is really different compared to others. The atmosphere is amazing and it might steal a lot of players who don't enjoy the usual medieval style, anymore. Fantasy + Funny Sci-Fi style is awesome hahaha.
I don't remember FF11 being rebooted, FF14 was but 11 no.
Sw:tor was doomed to fail from the beginning, because the people who made it did not even remotely understand what an MMO is and delivered what was a sorry excuse for an MMO. It was my saddest experience in 10 years MMO playing. I was so looking forward to that game, and it was just such a gigantic mess. Dunno if it has improved. I played it for half a year until I finally gave up on it and have not touched it since.
The people at Carbine seem to be a different bunch, I have the feeling they know damn well what they are doing. Of course that has nothing to do with the eventual success of the game, and it MAY end up as a F2P game. Even WoW may when the end finally comes in 10 or so years. But, just to reiterate it: games never really go F2P, they only go P2Win, and the truly dedicated gamers are the ones who pay that prize, not the casual crowd, therefore the sub system is - for an ambitious gamer who keeps an eye on his bucks - always the better solution.
There is no general rule, it depends on product.
Currently, if you have highly anticipated product it seems you make most money if you charge for box and sub at release - high anticipation as well as curiosty makes for good initial sales. With time tho, the entry fees become a burden and F2P model is much more viable.
I think this is what we see most today and will see for some time.
NO game is going to be viable as a sub game unless theyre really small and didnt spend a lot of money in development and only need a handful of paying customers to make money. Or they deliver something completely different (that is still good) that will appeal to a wide variety of players.
ESO had the best chance of that, huge budget, MMO crowd, IP crowd, well established world with lots of history. But they didnt deliver anything close to being new.
From what I have seen and read about Wildstar its the same. Nothing new to see. Just a new game.
Originally posted by rodarin NO game is going to be viable as a sub game unless theyre really small and didnt spend a lot of money in development and only need a handful of paying customers to make money. Or they deliver something completely different (that is still good) that will appeal to a wide variety of players. ESO had the best chance of that, huge budget, MMO crowd, IP crowd, well established world with lots of history. But they didnt deliver anything close to being new. From what I have seen and read about Wildstar its the same. Nothing new to see. Just a new game.
Yeah - just like WoW......
What small low population low budget sub-based game are you thinking of exactly?
I think you've got it backwards - the biggest sub-holders have lasted the longest, it is when their population drops off that f2p becomes necessary to maintain their profit margin - or to keep it afloat.
But that being said, I think the aim is to deliver something completely different that will appeal to a wide variety of players.
I think it can remain viable as a sub game - if they deliver.