It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by Robokapp warhammer didn't... it depends if the game's good or not. good games work under any payment model. bad games don't work under any payment model.
Warhammer was not an IP that they owned. similar to SWG. They both had to be closed down at a certain point, because they cost extra money for licenses.
Zeni owns Elder Scrolls IP.
It wouldn't surprise me if they do.
Companies have learned to be flexible over the last few years.
My guess would be B2P if they ever switch.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
Feel free to send me a message if you want a guest pass to try Black Desert Online as well!
Originally posted by Bigdaddyx Originally posted by Tondagon I honestly can't be bothered, it is clear that you are just looking for an argument, and I don't feel inclined to give you the pleasure. So yay! you win, go you.
Yeah sure. By the way if you just want to post something random and feel special then FB is that way. There nobody would even ask you to explain your point.
This is a discussion board so ofcourse i expect people to not just make claims but also back it up with some information and provide links etc to atleast give some idea of what you are trying to say.
Passing off personal opinions as facts isn't what gets you a good discussion but then again that is not why you are here..to have discussions.
Actually I was, unfortunately I did not realize that I would be giving a dissertation and require references and source material. I will in the future preface everything with "IMHO" to prevent such confusion.
By the way let me tell you "IMHO" of course, that I don't give a flying monkey what you want, need, or desire. I do not have to justify anything to you, you pompous, arrogant, little self appointed guardian of nothing. Your posts are abrasive, toxic, and solely designed to boost your ego at the expense of all.
Originally posted by Kattycake Just gonna keep this short; A lot of people, so I've seen/heard from, believe that ESO will turn into what SWTOR once did. TERA switched, The Secret World switched, Rift...etc. Do you think dishing $15/mo will be a bit much to some players? I mean even ArcheAge in RU Beta is $9/mo for premium.
Serious what is wrong with you why are you whine about sub price and ask if ESO should go F2P if you think $15/month is about same price as WoW and you dont see whine about and Wildstar is go to P2P as well do see people whine about and beside a F2P mmorpg cost you more per month and P2P mmorpg do. Do i think ESO is go to F2P i hope not for honest every game that have been P2P that have turn in to F2P have become worst in every aspect of that game poorly custom support, months between patchs, no fix on bugs "just look at SWTOR the still have bugs from there release" and you end up spend more money just get some what playable.
The would be stupid to turn ESO into F2P beside i dont think fans of ES series would be happy to see ESO turn in to F2P.
It will go free to play by 2016.
Originally posted by Blazer6992 It will go free to play by 2016.
Fire is hot. Water is wet.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Originally posted by Tondagon Originally posted by Bigdaddyx Originally posted by Tondagon I honestly can't be bothered, it is clear that you are just looking for an argument, and I don't feel inclined to give you the pleasure. So yay! you win, go you.
I see that i hit a nerve by asking you to explain your claims. Good.
Weren"t you just complaining in last post that i attacked you ? hahaha!!!! talk about being ironic!
Originally posted by Bigdaddyx Originally posted by Tondagon Originally posted by Bigdaddyx Originally posted by Tondagon I honestly can't be bothered, it is clear that you are just looking for an argument, and I don't feel inclined to give you the pleasure. So yay! you win, go you.
So, what exactly are YOU up to? What point are you trying to sell? Would you repeat it? And be clear and short.
Originally posted by kkarrabbass
The claim that 'F2P is self destructing itself' and in future there will only be P2P MMOS. Clear and short enough?
I just asked him to explain this claim rather then just replying with 'its true because i said so'.
Originally posted by Bigdaddyx Originally posted by kkarrabbass
Rather than P2P games dominating, i can see the 'Freemium' model gaining more ground, its worked pretty well in SW;TOR, so much so that the cash shop side of the game seems to be making quite a bit of money, have to wonder, since Cryptic was taken over by PWI, how is STO doing, since it also uses the 'freemium' model, the game is still churning out content from what i can make out, and recently'ish' released an additional race, with the ability to choose Romulans, something that was sadly missing from the games launch.
Freemium does seem to encompass P2P and F2P pretty well, the only problem is where to put the pay walls, i don't know how they would do it in ESO, but im guessing it will probably be along the same lines as SW;TOR's, would players accept having to pay a weekly 'pass' to access cyrodiil? not to mention racial unlocks, equipment packs, cosmetic gear, which for anyone who doesn't want to look excactly the same as every other person of their race/class, can be fairly important.
Players do seem to be willing to pay a couple of $/£ to do so. It could work, the only question is, at what point could they make it work, while causing the least amount of disturbance to the game?
Originally posted by Phry Originally posted by Bigdaddyx Originally posted by kkarrabbass
Indeed, I think all of the former subscription MMO's that went "F2P" kept their sub options. Except that the "freemium subscription" never gives total access to everything offered via the Cash Shop.
Except, I get the feeling that the longer they run as "Freemium" models, the more they try to dilute the subscription benefits to "encourage" subbers to take advantage of all the conveniences offered for sale in the Cash Shop...
So, it is not your point, it is your response to someone else point. What is YOUR point?
For Phry, SpottyGekko and some other interested sides.
I think it is clear for almost everyone who actually looked at game history, that so-called F2P model of charging players for playing was introduced not spontaneously, or according to grand plan of financial geniuses, but to save some games from financial fiasco, when they start to lose their players base.
It is much later some new games start to adopt this model from very beginning not even pretending that they might survive with P2P even for short period of time.
It is all very much forgotten now especially by players who never really were interested in looking in things roots. So, now you are telling me that F2P (or how some people like to call it P2W) model of charging people is something new and progressive.
It is quite clear, that subscription model will allow company to make a more or less reliable plans of maintenance and further development, besides job securities, which are also important for above mentioned plans.
Subscription model will attract players who want to stay with game for a long time. They want stability and game content progression (which require long time planning).
In free to play models of all sorts incoming money could be predicted only statistically at best.
No reliable plans, or job securities could be provided for serious consideration.
Besides, because there will be quite a large crowd of paying nothing players, who still require and will be exhausting hardware resources (additional servers cost, maintenance cost), efficiency of that model might not be able to compete with subscription model in any case.
However free to play models besides attracting players who will never pay, also attract people who do not have either playing time planned, or do not have specific interest to play game, and they do that for pure relaxation/entertaining purposes and very occasionally. They do not like subscription, because it requires steady interest and planning of activities.
There is however some positive impute of players who will never pay. They provide population for game which would have only a few paying players in opposite case. They also provide an environment in which paying players can bloom by buying all that stuff in cash shops.
F2P games have less reliable players base. Getting into F2P actually kills the game. Some say that adopting F2P model has nothing to do with game financial degradation (not failure, because game still could receive a lot of money). And that transition from P2P to F2P is not a matter of financial necessity. So, why it took sometime years for some game to do that transition, if it so preferable.
Free to play models in its any configurations can never be more efficient than subscription models, just because subscription models can always include any option free to play models have, if players would still pay for them. All thing that are implemented in F2P model can be implemented in P2P model + specific things like subscription price and box price. There is no legal restriction on that.
It is a market, and F2P is reasonable only when P2P is too much to ask.
To question this conclusion is like to say that accepting ONLY donations is better way to do business.
You are mistaken if you think most popular on your opinion financial model is most profitable one. It is most profitable just for not very successful games.
Another thing will it be still fair money for the product, or not? This is another question, and company has all rights to set their own price. You as a consumer, have all rights to buy it or not. You cannot dictate company what price product should have, or what financial model should company adopt. Don’t like it, move on to another product.
Originally posted by Tondagon Originally posted by Bigdaddyx Originally posted by Tondagon
I didn't say to believe me, I said to keep you own eyes open and watch what happens. Or not, your choice.
So you cant not even back up your claim rather than 'just watch and see'. Here is a little suggestion. if you want to engage in discussion try to atleast make an informed post with some tangible information.
If you are here just to update status then FB is what you need or maybe a twitter.
Oh and anyone who doesn't agree with your 'i know the future' posts is a hipster..i see.
Here is a little suggestion for you, try and actually talk about the issues at hand instead of resorting immediately to personal and ad hominem attacks. At least keep it interesting.
Well you conveniently dodged my post so idk who's talking about the issues at hand and who isn't It's on page 18 if you are wondering
Originally posted by MrG8 No. And 15$ a month will keep out all the children, and thats fine by me !
Are you implying that there are no children in WoW? Or Call of Duty? Again, a 15$ paywall does not do any community service. Especially today when people get more and more selfish and egoistic. Keep up the wishful thinking though. Maybe in the end you'll start a private server for "old" guys to play games together
Originally posted by Sk1ppeR Originally posted by MrG8 No. And 15$ a month will keep out all the children, and thats fine by me !
hehehhe funny but sadly true ...
me bet is it will turn into b2p, it has too much content and its pvp it kinda good, so no its far away from a f2p turn ...
Originally posted by kkarrabbass It is a market, and F2P is reasonable only when P2P is too much to ask.
It is a market. Which is why every time a quality game adds a free option, the bar for what a new game needs to do in order to "deserve" a subscription gets raised higher. What deserved a subscription when all MMOs required one, and what deserves a subscription when almost all MMOs do not require one, are hugely different standards.
I do not think the future will be P2P at all. There will be a variety, B2P, maybe one or two niche P2P and of course F2P with microtransactions. P2P is the past, not the future. I say this because of the many game engines out there already and why do companies have to make their own. For example TERA uses the Unreal 3 engine.
"In 50 years, when I talk to my grandchildren about these days, I'll make sure to mention what an accomplished MMO player I was. They are going to be so proud ..."by Naqaj - 7/17/2013 MMORPG.com forum
Originally posted by CazNeerg Originally posted by kkarrabbass It is a market, and F2P is reasonable only when P2P is too much to ask.
You do not understand whole market thing very well, do you?
“Market” is not a magical word, which works miracles. Prices go up and down. And it all depends on concurrency. Quality games do not add free options, only failing ones do. And they present very little concurrency to games, which are not failing yet. I do not want to repeat whole my thread again.
You need to read it all, not a little piece of it. And maybe, just maybe you will see whole picture. If you do have open mind and appropriate education of course.
Originally posted by botrytis Originally posted by Bigdaddyx Originally posted by kkarrabbass
What is it about game engines again?
And what it has to do with question at hands?