Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

P2P, F2P, Hybrid? What are the impacts on potential player base?

I have a question, coming from the perspective of someone attempting to start a new indie SciFi based MMO. We are currently working on a title (very early in development) that we are planning to release as "F2P" with the option to pay a subscription. There will be an item shop; but, probably 75% of the items will be obtainable in game for free, it would only cost the player's time (and probably a lot of it) to get them. The rest would be vanity items, XP boosts, and conveniences... nothing necessary to compete. Subscribers would be given certain privileges, such as early access to new content, items available (at no extra cost) only to subscribers, and they would also get some points to spend in the shop each month (likely totaling half the value of the subscription price).

The idea of paid early access to new content has been brought up. Subscribers would still have access first, for one month before anyone else included in the cost of subscription, then everyone else could pay a content pack fee to access the new content for the next two months, after that, the content would be available free to all players. This feels like a fair enough deal to me, since the packs would eventually be available for free. The free release date would be posted on the purchase page, so players would know exactly what they are paying for, and likely the cost of early access would decrease the closer to the free release date it was.

There would, obviously, be no purchase cost of the game;  and, expansions, in the form of content packs, would eventually be released for free as well. There would also be no need for a free trial as the game is already F2P. What do you all think?  Should we stick with only one way or the other?  Would offering F2P give too much of a bad perception of the game before players even gave it a chance?  Does paid early access seem like a Nickel-and-Dime strategy?  Everything is open for suggestions, so please, give opinions and be harsh, we need all the help we can get.

Thanks!

I am not a nerd, I have graduated to geek; so, it is slightly above social suicide to be seen with me in public.

Comments

  • Gabby-airGabby-air Member UncommonPosts: 3,440

    As it's an indie game then this seems a fairly good idea but subscription bonuses don't seem that much since everyone can have access to them later on but things like customer support, more character slots, server priorities and other things like those that would make it worth awhile seems good. Also if you have a fairly high budget more in terms of games like fallen earth/earthrise/ global agenda then i believe people would prefer a sub fee only assuming you make a innovative game.

  • AdolenAdolen Member Posts: 13

     Thanks for the reply.  Extra character slots is certainly doable, perhaps 2 slots for F2P players with option to purchase 2 more and 8 for subscribers.  I want to have 6 races in the game and 3 factions; so, this would allow subscription players to have characters from each race.  The game will be "classless," character improvements will be determined by how you play.

    We hope to be able to offer good customer support to everyone; but, some sort of priority queue might be a good option for that.  

    As far as server priority goes, while we could definitely implement that, and probably will; however, I hope that it will be one of those bonuses that just goes unnoticed.  I always hate having to wait to login.  The current plan is to have the game on only one or maybe two server clusters, similar to EVE's single universe.  The first being a full "free-for-all" PvP and the second, if enough players request it, would still be open PvP but with consequences.   These consequences would be along the lines of 10% defence and 5% health reductions per kill up to 50% and would recover at 10% per hour while logged in.  I want PvP to be a central aspect of the game; but, I do understand that some players are turned off by PvP only games. This would allow for PvP to still play a significant role in the world but, at the same time, make it easier for players to get revenge on PK'ers.  And no, in case anyone was wondering, by "central aspect" I do not mean that the game will be lacking content outside PvP.  I still intend to have ample PvE content as well.

    Now, on to budget.  At the moment, our budget is zero.  Hopefully, after we have made some progress on the game and have something I can show to investors, we'll get some capitol.  Even if we don't, however, I will not put out the game if I feel that it is poor quality, we will jut spend more time to develop it.  Right now it is only a part time project, most of us have full time jobs.  If all goes as planned, some time next year we will have enough money to leave our current jobs and work on this full time.  As for making the game subscription only, if enough people request that it be subscription only, we will go that route.  Personally, I would like to bring a F2P game to the market.  I have never liked the idea of being forced to continue to pay for something I already bought; and, always appreciated the concept behind F2P, pay only what you want or feel that the game is worth to you.  I often find myself playing F2P games, generally because I'm broke; but, I typically keep playing them for quite a while if they are of decent quality and even put a little money into them, probably equivalent to what I would spend on a retail box.

    Good suggestions so far, please keep them coming!

    I am not a nerd, I have graduated to geek; so, it is slightly above social suicide to be seen with me in public.

  • Superman0XSuperman0X Member RarePosts: 2,292

    If you are working on a new Indy Game, I would suggest that work with an established publisher for at least on major region. Develop the game yourself (on your dime) so that you can maintain control, but work with an established publisher to ensure that you get good CCU numbers, and they will help you monetize well.

     

    As for payment options.

     

    F2P will get your game out there the fastest and cheapest. Don't waste your time/money with P2P. This will just lower the visibility of your game, and you will not get a decent cut anyways.

    Microtransactions are a good way to monetize. Anything balance related should be 100% obtainable in game, with an option to get it faster/easier via, or variations of the same thing (but better looking). The only exclusives should be vanity items.

    Monthly/timed fees are a great option and should be included as well. This should provide an expanded/improved experience for the customer, but should not affect gameplay. Things that work well are character slots, storage, travel options, etc.

    The bottom line is that you need to cater to the CUSTOMER, and provide multiple options so that they can pay in the method that they want. If you give the customer what they want, they will beat a path to your door.

  • AdolenAdolen Member Posts: 13

     I certainly want to give the players what they want, that's one thing I want to put a lot of effort into as we start to move beyond simple mechanics of the game.  I want to find out what you, as a player, want to see in this game, not just what I want.  What features have you always wished were in other games, but never were, what did you feel really made a game good, what made it bad, I'm not the only one with good ideas... I need to get a website and forum put together; but, we don't have a name for the game or our company yet, lol!

    Now it's time for my newbie question of the day... What's CCU numbers?

    I am not a nerd, I have graduated to geek; so, it is slightly above social suicide to be seen with me in public.

  • Gabby-airGabby-air Member UncommonPosts: 3,440
    Originally posted by Adolen
    Now it's time for my newbie question of the day... What's CCU numbers?

     

    I think he means "concurrent users" as in a high player base or higher sales in the beginning due to a publisher.

    Also just a piece of advise, and its totally personal opinion from my experience...Never listen to the players alone to make a game. Gamers really have no idea what they want and they will take your game down because of this, the best thing to do is put your own idea out there and THEN ask them how to improve it or have a better alternative. Your own vision of what the game should be is very important.

  • AdolenAdolen Member Posts: 13

    Ahh, thank you, that makes sense.

     Yes, I have seen a lot of um... bad... ideas posted on game forums.  I would certainly not implement something that I didn't feel fit with the overall tone and flow of the game; however, I have also seen a lot of good ideas too.  I want the players to have some input on what goes into the game, there will be a lot more of them playing than there are of me, or at least I hope there will be!  

    I already have a lot that I want to implement, so much so that I'm not sure that we'll even be able to get it all in there by initial release, some of it might have to be prioritized.  The major aspects of it have already been pretty thoroughly hammered out.  What I'm interested in hearing from the community about would be more for minor aspects of the game such as alternative play styles, variants on how things could have been handled better in other games they liked, and features that would make this game more immersive, intuitive, and unique.  We would still have final say on what actually made it into the game; but, my thought is that these features would be easier to integrate while the game is still in early development and we can design based on them rather than redo things after it's already released or slap something in that feels like an afterthought in game.

    I am not a nerd, I have graduated to geek; so, it is slightly above social suicide to be seen with me in public.

  • Gabby-airGabby-air Member UncommonPosts: 3,440

    Ye your on the right path then, also i would look at dawntide as in they seem to be doing what your trying to accomplish aswell in terms of community suggestions through early development but yeh please don't keep the game in beta for too long for example some games have had beta for 2 years at which point its just tedious not only for the players but the game too.

  • AdolenAdolen Member Posts: 13

     Ok, I'll be sure to check them out, thanks!

    Yeah, I've always thought that was silly to have a game in "beta" for years.  If we do our jobs right, beta should only last 1-2 months.

    I am not a nerd, I have graduated to geek; so, it is slightly above social suicide to be seen with me in public.

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 22,824

    Anything other than P2P is dubious, nothing wrong with a paid for expansion though. The more play and revenue gimmicks you have the more people will view the game as a gimmick. For an Indie game a short free trial might be an idea, but I cant see reason to give someone more than a couple of days.

  • AysonoAysono Member Posts: 164
    Originally posted by Scot


    Anything other than P2P is dubious, nothing wrong with a paid for expansion though. The more play and revenue gimmicks you have the more people will view the game as a gimmick. For an Indie game a short free trial might be an idea, but I cant see reason to give someone more than a couple of days.



     

    Actually f2p mmo with pure subscription option but no cash shop such as Dofus and Runescape have long been well respected by their player community. If I were to make a new mmo I will build on the f2p and a cheap monthly option subscription of a few bucks and a cash shop with very general and well defined pricing items 100% obtainable in the game with relatively little efforts doing daily tasks. I like the cash shop of Runes of Magic the most. Dungeons and Dragons online's cash shop model is another option.

  • majimaji Member UncommonPosts: 2,091

    The idea of yours with the payment might be ok, but to the users it sounds incredibly greedy. I mean it's F2P, but got an item mall AND a possible subscription? Do the people who subscribe then have access to the stuff in the item mall for free? Or is it like... someone subscribes, and then sees someone who does not subscribe level three times as fast, because that person bought an xp potion?

    And how would the stuff with PvP and delayed expansions work? During the time in which only subscribers have access to expansion content, would only subscribers level up (if the max level got increased) and totally annihilation everyone who ain't a subscriber? Or can the non-subscribers level up too but not access the new content? But what is the new content after some months then good for, if it's too low for their level anyway? It's all kinda confusing.

    You should keep it to one method: either P2P or F2P.

    Let's play Fallen Earth (blind, 300 episodes)

    Let's play Guild Wars 2 (blind, 45 episodes)

  • AysonoAysono Member Posts: 164

    The best and fairest f2p model is f2p with only monthly subscription but I wonder if it has enough appeal to motivate developers to make them nowadays. Runescape, Dofus, Anarchy, Tibia and a few lesser known mmorpg with this model are still running and having different success level ranging from ok to massively succesful but they were make year ago when there was not many mmorpg to compete with. Now there are like 1,000 mmorpg to pick from new comers may need to be a little more greedy to make some decent profits.

    If you are worry about cash shops making things inbalance maybe you can make some servers PVE only or simply not selling xp potions and such in your cash shops.

  • AdolenAdolen Member Posts: 13

    I've seen a lot of posts expressing a similar opinion to Scot's.  This does worry me a little, I don't want players to dismiss the game without giving it a chance; however, as SupermanOX pointed out earlier, F2P option does bring a little more attention for a little less money, albeit typically from people with less money to spend, but word of mouth is priceless.  

    Aysono, if all the items in you CS were easily obtainable in game, why would anyone use the CS?  I do plan on making the vast majority of the items in the CS available in game; but, they would be time consuming to obtain, thus the draw to use the CS would be to save that time.  Also, what incentives would you offer to subscribers?  So far, your thoughts seem to closely resemble mine, I'm interested to hear more details!

    I am not a nerd, I have graduated to geek; so, it is slightly above social suicide to be seen with me in public.

  • AysonoAysono Member Posts: 164
    Originally posted by Adolen


    Aysono, if all the items in you CS were easily obtainable in game, why would anyone use the CS?  I do plan on making the vast majority of the items in the CS available in game; but, they would be time consuming to obtain, thus the draw to use the CS would be to save that time.  Also, what incentives would you offer to subscribers?  So far, your thoughts seem to closely resemble mine, I'm interested to hear more details!



     

    I think you just gave yourself an answer. Make all the items easy to obtain but it takes the plaeyrs a month to get them. Like in Runes of Magics you can get 100 tokens by doing daily tasks ranging from incredibly easy but almost no xp/gold reward to hard but huge xp rewards, but the catch is if you need to get that pair of wings for free you need to do these daily for 2 months. If the same pair of wings go for a regular $20 in your shop and a daily promotional sales of specail items for 50% discounts a lot of players will be happy to pay $10 to save the tokens from their 2 months effort of farming daily for something else.

  • AdolenAdolen Member Posts: 13
    Originally posted by maji

    The idea of yours with the payment might be ok, but to the users it sounds incredibly greedy. I mean it's F2P, but got an item mall AND a possible subscription? Do the people who subscribe then have access to the stuff in the item mall for free? Or is it like... someone subscribes, and then sees someone who does not subscribe level three times as fast, because that person bought an xp potion?

    Subscribers would, among other benefits, get points to use in the shop equal to half the cost of their subscription, i.e. $10/mo subscription would get equivalent of $5 worth of shop points.  If a subscriber wanted to use more points per month, they would be able to purchase points also, likely at a discount.  Also, I plan to have something similar to WoW's rest XP implemented for subscribers only.  XP potions sold in the shop would be intended more to allow F2P players to keep up with subscribers.

    And how would the stuff with PvP and delayed expansions work? During the time in which only subscribers have access to expansion content, would only subscribers level up (if the max level got increased) and totally annihilation everyone who ain't a subscriber? Or can the non-subscribers level up too but not access the new content? But what is the new content after some months then good for, if it's too low for their level anyway? It's all kinda confusing.

    Well, early access is still something that may or may not get implemented, we're just considering it and I wanted opinions on it.  The early access is meant as an incentive to subscribe, so yes, it would give subscribers a certain advantage.  It is not my intention, however, to allow them to become so overpowered in this time that they would be invincible.  Also, all players would have an option to purchase access to the new content after one month.  Three months would be the time that it was completely free to all players.  The character levels do not, currently, play a major role in the game, they are simply indicators of the player's total stats, rather it is the player's gear and play style that has more of an effect.  It is my intention for the content updates to be just that, content.  They will have new stories to unfold, new areas to explore, new enemies to fight, and new materials with which to craft.  There, of course, will be new, stronger, equipment; but, I am trying to keep all increases to a more subtle advantage so that a player's skill can outshine their armor.

    You should keep it to one method: either P2P or F2P.

    What would your preference be? P2P or F2P?

     

    I am not a nerd, I have graduated to geek; so, it is slightly above social suicide to be seen with me in public.

  • AdolenAdolen Member Posts: 13
    Originally posted by Aysono 


    I think you just gave yourself an answer. Make all the items easy to obtain but it takes the plaeyrs a month to get them. Like in Runes of Magics you can get 100 tokens by doing daily tasks ranging from incredibly easy but almost no xp/gold reward to hard but huge xp rewards, but the catch is if you need to get that pair of wings for free you need to do these daily for 2 months. If the same pair of wings go for a regular $20 in your shop and a daily promotional sales of specail items for 50% discounts a lot of players will be happy to pay $10 to save the tokens from their 2 months effort of farming daily for something else.

     

    Oh, ok, I gotcha, easy but time consuming, yes that is basically what I was thinking.

    I am not a nerd, I have graduated to geek; so, it is slightly above social suicide to be seen with me in public.

  • majimaji Member UncommonPosts: 2,091
    Originally posted by Adolen


     What would your preference be? P2P or F2P?

     

    In general I do prefer P2P. Everyone has the same chances, you know how much you're going to spend each month. In F2P it's often "he who spends most is the strongest", and many people spend more than they'd spend on a P2P game with a fixed fee.

    That doesn't mean though that P2P would be better for you. In F2P you would probably have a higher userbase and people would be more lenient compared to what they'd expect from a P2P game. On the other hand a really successful game can also make tons of money by P2P. They can attract new users or call back those who unsubscribed by free trials, buddy keys, "reactivate your account for free for two weeks to check the changes out" and all that stuff that doesn't make sense on a F2P game.

    Let's play Fallen Earth (blind, 300 episodes)

    Let's play Guild Wars 2 (blind, 45 episodes)

  • ste2000ste2000 Member EpicPosts: 6,194

    F2P+P2P hybrid is the worst idea for a MMO

    SoE does it with EQ2 and EQ and as far as I know SoE isn't doing great, but at least SoE has already an established player base (although I suspect not for long)

    For a new developer it would be a disaster.



    People are not stupid, you as a developer need to decide if you want a F2P or a P2P revenue system...............you can't have both, sorry.



    I will add that generally people who like a P2P game will never play a game with a cash shop, fluff or not.

    Personally the only thing I will pay for are character transfer, race or gender changes and this sort of thing.

    I will never play for an item even if it is just cosmetic, I expect everything included with my subscription.



    But F2P do work to some extent so, I will go for it if you are an Indie.

    Just leave the Hybrids to SoE, they are pushing the self destruct button, do not follow them.

  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 19,332
    Originally posted by ste2000


    F2P+P2P hybrid is the worst idea for a MMO

    SoE does it with EQ2 and EQ and as far as I know SoE isn't doing great, but at least SoE has already an established player base (although I suspect not for long)

    For a new developer it would be a disaster.



    People are not stupid, you as a developer need to decide if you want a F2P or a P2P revenue system...............you can't have both, sorry.



    I will add that generally people who like a P2P game will never play a game with a cash shop, fluff or not.

    Personally the only thing I will pay for are character transfer, race or gender changes and this sort of thing.

    I will never play for an item even if it is just cosmetic, I expect everything included with my subscription.



    But F2P do work to some extent so, I will go for it if you are an Indie.

    Just leave the Hybrids to SoE, they are pushing the self destruct button, do not follow them.

    It is not really a hybrid ,i play EQ2 and the cash shop has zero impact on the game,as a matter of fact i doubt there is really anything there the average user would want even for free.

    REAL item mall games are extremely corrupt and outright lie to the users,that in itself is wrong.They will blatantly tell you how their game is free,then close off most of the game to users,unless you pay.Examples.......Wiz 101 claims to be free,but in fact you can only play less than half of only the first wold.MIR II a game that again blatantly lies,it CLEARLY states in it's definition of free to play that it makes money from selling shirts and stuff,but the game is entirely free.Well they have dungeons that can ONLY be entered by purchasing a pass from the item mall,so no it is NOT completely free as they claim.

    So if these developers are willing to outright lie to you,how could you trust them at all?They have a much bigger scheme up their sleeves,they hope to reel you or your child in,to the point you feel compelled to pay a little,then it snowballs into more and more.

    Another valid point when comparing SOE a legit operation ,to these f2p operations,is that they use sneaky ideas ,by loading software onto your machine that allows them to utilize your bandwidth,sort of like the way Torrents operate.One such program is Pando.I never heard of them and wondered how the heck the program got onto my HD,then it struck me.These cheap F2p games also utilize low bandwidth because their games are really that cheap,that they require little bandwidth to play.

    SOE does not withhold any game content to item mall users,there is a huge difference here.SOE still operates as a legit operation,not to be confused with the real F2p developers.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • ste2000ste2000 Member EpicPosts: 6,194

    Wizardy, EQ2 has fluff items and XP potions (which are no fluff).

    Also am I wrong or do you still pay a monthly fee?



    It is as Hybrid system as you can get, the fact that there are no uber items on sale, doesn't change the fact that you have to pay a monthly fee and if you fancy some help with your leveling you can buy some potion on the shop.

    If you pay monthly, everything has to be free, fluff included.

  • AdolenAdolen Member Posts: 13

     Attempting to balance the game between the two models has been a serious challenge for me; and, I still can't be sure that I've even come close to succeeding until it's released.  I'm trying to give the advantage to subscribers and eliminate as much possibility for a "buy win" situation as I can, but yes, this could possibly still happen.  Personally I have never paid more on a F2P game than a P2P; but, I do know plenty who have.  

    P2P does offer an enticing idea to me as a developer, the promise of a regular income based on number of players.  Looking at games like WoW and crunching some numbers make it more tempting still; but, who am I kidding, the odds of getting that large of a player base is pretty low, even though my game will be amazing beyond all belief... ok, that may have been a little biased.  As far as attracting players to come back, maji is very right, P2P offers far more options to grab attention; but, if I do my job well, I shouldn't need to employ such "tricks," don't you agree?

    Ste2000, let me make sure I have your opinion right.  Hybrid would be ok, but, only if the subscription side was all inclusive?  I suppose permanently increasing the base rate of gain for subscribers would be a possibility, then I could expand rest XP to also apply to F2P players as well.  In this case, an XP pot would be completely unnecessary for a subscriber.  Free fluff items would be fine too.  Immediate access to new content was already included for subscribers.  What about items freely obtainable in game?  I plan to have many of them available in the item shop for players who do not wish to invest the time necessary to obtain them, would the monthly allotment of shop points for subscribers be enough to make a level playing field?

    Wizardry, you seem to have some pretty strong thoughts about REAL F2P developers.  I'm trying very hard not to take anything you said personally as I am considering a F2P release myself.  REAL F2P developers do not block off content, at least not indefinitely.  REAL F2P developers make games that can actually be enjoyed without any investment from the player, though they may offer fluff items to further that enjoyment.  REAL F2P developers are not the money grubbing parasites you make them out to be; so, please choose your words a little more carefully.  That being said, I agree that several games which claim to be F2P really aren't so free.  I would like to be given the chance to restore a little of your faith in REAL F2P; but, I need your help and opinions on my ideas, please keep it objective.

    I am not a nerd, I have graduated to geek; so, it is slightly above social suicide to be seen with me in public.

  • RPGOmenRPGOmen Member Posts: 38

    Previous Suggestions and realistic problems:

    More character slots for subscription.

    While this is indeed an obvious choice, you also have to think of the reprocussions and overall mindset/playability of the function. A lot of people like F2P games because they know that, as long as the game is online, their characters are safe and they have access to all of them.

    Implementing extra characters so long as you only have a subscription might counteract this and make the player feel like they're wasting their time on these new slots as when they stop the sub. payments and stick with cash shop they lost half of their time and thus their possible will to continue playing or to even start in the first place.

    Personally I wouldn't go the sub. route if I knew I would lose four-six of my characters once I suddenly quite for whatever reason. All in all it would be a feature that would keep me from any subscription plan and I would just pay the flat fee for the two extra slots and leave it at that.

    Priority Login:

    This would be a feature that would make me interested in a sub. based fee if the game was genuinely fun to play and the above didn't apply. Though if you are giving points to subscribers, as well as early access and the like, then people who use the cash shop may be turned off entirely as their money wouldn't be as good as others.

    Though a way to assist with that could be a bonus gift for buying cash shop points in the term of priority login for a set time; it would benefit those who help support your game via the cash shop and subscriptions with access to the servers their money keeps up and only make the freebies wait if the server has a capacity load.

    I understand that such would liked to be overlooked, but when it comes to people who will be affected with a wait time it will always be brought up. In that light I would emphasize that it is your way to thank those who help keep the game running by giving the ability to access the server their dollar is maintaining; place it with your thanks on the front purchase page and the subscription page so that every one is able to see it. "Our thanks for... blah blah... Helps keep the servers online... blah blah... In appreciation you have priority access to the servers your money keeps up in the event that server capacity maxes... yadda yadda. We hope that all of our players enjoy playing and, as always, will work our best to ensure that access won't be a continued issue... etc. etc. etc." Though probably in less words or some other thing.

    That or simply avoid the head ache altogether and just make it first come first serve, or separate subs from non-subs server wise -- though that might split the community up too much and leave one side feeling too single player-like.



    "F2P will get your game out there the fastest and cheapest. Don't waste your time/money with P2P. This will just lower the visibility of your game, and you will not get a decent cut anyways.":

    Essentially this is true. Though with the upcoming released of supposedly hit 2010-2011 titles coming up -- most of which are P2P and being builts as such -- it is likely that many of them will go either the way of Dungeons and Dragons or Tabula Rasa. I've a theory that the F2P market will be flooded with high quality games sooner or later that follow the Guild Wars marketing in some way (Including Guild Wars 2).

    While your game is still a few years off from even seeing a possible alpha, a major thing to consider at such early stages is the beyond future of your product. That is, the adaptability of the tool of which you will make the game with. The ability to smoothly add new and innovative things to expansions and patches that won't require you to totally rewrite some core values. Take for instance Cryptic studios... The past few games have thus been... thought within certain parameters; a recent post I read referred to them never going "out of the box" in their beginning development and thus they had to stay within it on crafting their world and well into retail development.

    An odd example I will give besides this is Final Fantasy XI. This is a game that the developers said they would "<never have to make another FF MMO because they could just add more expansions onto the current one.>" Yet, here we are on the horizon of FFXIV and their improved system/tool which they showcased way back in 2005. Their Playonline system, which they boasted would have several online games available on it, has been scrapped and their payment system shunned (which was really, really bad in that it always charged the first of the month for a full month even if you activated on the 29th).

    "There would, obviously, be no purchase cost of the game; and, expansions, in the form of content packs, would eventually be released for free as well. There would also be no need for a free trial as the game is already F2P. What do you all think? Should we stick with only one way or the other? Would offering F2P give too much of a bad perception of the game before players even gave it a chance? Does paid early access seem like a Nickel-and-Dime strategy? Everything is open for suggestions, so please, give opinions and be harsh, we need all the help we can get.":

    You will never be able to make every one happy. You need to target certain audiences and go from there -- Think up witty and interesting things that would attract the bewildered P2P crowd and their plight in deciding what games they want to play or give a try. If the game is of good quality P2P players may flock to it wanting F2P entertainment and use a cash shop for convienance whereas they're used to paying monthly and grinding their asses off for certain items while keeping their other favorite MMORPG active. F2P people may see the options available in the game and opt to go P2P for once if they have fun. All mere speculation and can not be demographed accurately what with the game still in the conceptual stages.

    I have advocated in the past the use of Subscriber Only servers and the ability of subscribers to freely move their characters to any server they want while F2P users are stuck in their starting realm with all the features available to them otherwise (with the ability to move with minor transfer fees). But in that I have been called too radical. I'll leave such radical ideas for the end of my post.

    The more you appear to be a friendly company the more people will tear at you, the trolls will hound you, and people will claim you not to care. Blizzard went from a very open and friendly company to one that became somewhat quiet about everything as everything they said was torn at by the people. In essence, the more you care the more people will think you don't at all. There will be people who thank you for constant forum updates, and others that criticize for it being on stuff they already know or not important enough.

    Early access with subscribers:

    Early access with subscribers may have their own problems as well. For one, the sense of community; who will have access? Will people be split from one place to the other during such? Will friends be split? Common meeting places split among the populace, will P2P players be seen as elitists? Will people only want to party with P2P players (or will P2P players only want to party with other P2P players so they don't have to worry about content issues?).

    Limited access can really hurt the player community a lot. Take for instance Global Agenda and it's free/sub style of play. There are guilds, and even a specific button for guilds to do such, that only accept players that subscribe into their agency. Ultima Online was ripped to shreds when they started to sell advanced characters and introduced way too many continents that split the community up; Britain was once full of people walking around and selling stuff. There was a nice market of players, taverns, tamers, real estate people, etc just hanging around the bank alone. Then these new places opened and it is a virtual ghost town and people are scattered all over the place. Things simply don't recover once people who have different access to places get used to their favorite spots.

    Also, will this content give said players the ability to equip and use new items and spells? This would make them more sought after in general, which would probably increase sales of subs for a bit no doubt, but will have a backlash of soon only sub. people will be allowed into groups and the like. Let's look at the first EQ for now and their dragon kill that gave priests a special ability that then became a requirement for them to even find a raiding guild. The Dragon took months to kill at times. Then another game introduced something similar (I forget the name of this specifc one) after years of being a good game, and then tanked as players left EQ in the first place to get away from that -- They left for the next game that didn't have such a feature.

    Then again, if such things don't give apparent edges or special features to said subscribers to enjoy, then it would simply feel like they are paying just to beta test your product of a future patch that will be released to other people.

    "Also just a piece of advise, and its totally personal opinion from my experience...Never listen to the players alone to make a game. Gamers really have no idea what they want and they will take your game down because of this, the best thing to do is put your own idea out there and THEN ask them how to improve it or have a better alternative. Your own vision of what the game should be is very important.":

    Pretty much this. People don't know what they want. Your vision and those of your co-founders are the only ones able to decide what you want to achieve, and when you have something to offer, ask what you can add or improve on while making sure your tool is capable of being flexible when such a point arrives.

    I've seen many a game fail because they listened to people too much. They don't know crap, and when they say something it may change in the years to come due to technology, other games, their own tastes, or unforeseen happenings. If you think it's fun, then it probably is; listen to yourself and if you have a nagging feeling seek it out until it's gone to a degree that you're happy with, not so much others unless they are some kind've unbias testers.

    "I already have a lot that I want to implement, so much so that I'm not sure that we'll even be able to get it all in there by initial release, some of it might have to be prioritized. The major aspects of it have already been pretty thoroughly hammered out.":

    You seem to have this down... Prioritizing and such. Planning what you can do and what you want to do afterwards and making sure early development will allow for it and other things that come to mind even mid-way into development of the land and systems for the first release or an expansion down the road.

    "F2P+P2P hybrid is the worst idea for a MMO":

    This is a poorly thought out point.

    F2P+P2P could be a great thing if thought out.

    For instance, it would mean that players won't lose their hard work on their characters simply because they don't want to go P2P anymore. I don't know how many times people have felt the sting of leaving a game and their precious characters and the time they spent on them disappearing along with it.

    In fact, that could be a special point to make out to players who are worried about such -- that they don't have to worry about access to their characters so long as the game itself is active and online.

    When it comes to my personal preferance between F2P and P2P I prefer one time fees of $200 + $50 for the game. I've done that on every MMO that has offered it, even if I didn't plan on playing it. It ensures a P2P experience and that my characters will always be safe so long as the game is online and that I will have access to them.



    "P2P does offer an enticing idea to me as a developer, the promise of a regular income based on number of players. Looking at games like WoW and crunching some numbers make it more tempting still; but, who am I kidding, the odds of getting that large of a player base is pretty low, even though my game will be amazing beyond all belief...":

    WoW spends a lot of it's resources on the massive amount of bandwidth it uses as well. I've a feeling that it's next expansion on updating the graphics of the old world is in part due to bandwidth issues and replacing old stuff is almost like keeping the same levels as opposed to adding another continent. People assume that 12,000,000 X 15/mo = All profit. Though, if the articles I've read are true (lawl everything on the internet is, right?), then Blizzard barely makes a million a year in profit from WoW (Last reported profit gain in total for Activision Blizzard for the year was what, ten million? That's for both companies combined). The rest goes to parent companies, partnerships, workers, servers, upkeep, development, repairs, replacements, bandwidth, etc.



    Radical Ideas: Ideas that most likely won't do you any good, but might spur some ideas.

    I have advocated in the past the use of Subscriber Only servers and the ability of subscribers to freely move their characters to any server they want while F2P users are stuck in their starting realm with all the features available to them otherwise (with the ability to move with minor transfer fees). But in that I have been called too radical. Those who stop their payments will be left on the server they stayed on until activated again.

    Crafting: While the following idea is a bad idea in general for a sci fi game... In the past I had the idea where F2P players could be gatherers and workers and P2P players be the crafters in the game to keep the player community a player driven economy. While this is probably way too radical, it could spur some other interesting ideas. In it, though F2P players would be like miners and such and sell stuff to P2P crafters; though there are some problems with this in letting P2Pers to also gather as some might just create F2P accounts to do such anyway.

    Another alternative I had to this was a higher level or different style of crafting; P2Pers being able to craft aesthetically different armor with the same stats and even be able to sell them. This was, of course though, tailored more so for a medieval like game.

    Titles: Another radical aesthetic again tailored for a medieval game, wherein noble titles could be given based on subs; if someone wanted to become a Baron/Count/Earl/Marquis/Duke etc... They had to be a subscriber and then donate in game gold to their kingdom to maintain a noble title such as "Duke Player Name"; subscription giving them Taxed Citizen status (perhaps discounts at stores with reduced/free placement of auctioned items and the like with such status) and the ability to be recognized by the royal ministry for donations.

    Royal Storyline: Special short quests for subs that lead to aesthetically different armors that have no special stats and are BoP.

    Edit: Typos.

     

  • AdolenAdolen Member Posts: 13

     

    @ RPGOmen

    Wow, that's a lot to think about!

    Character Slots:

    Yes, I would definitely need to lay out the character guidelines in case someone swapped from Sub to F2P. How about this:

    If you choose to move from Sub to F2P, all characters will still be saved on the server, you will not lose your characters. You will, however, need to choose which characters you wish to use, if you do not have enough slots to contain all your characters. At the first of each month you will be given the option to swap out which characters are available for use. You will not, however, be permitted to create any new characters until you have a free character slot.

    Priority Login:

    I do plan to implement a priority login. This shouldn't be very hard to do, just add an extra boolean check at login to see if account is Sub or F2P and have two separate login queues based on result of that check. Sub queue is checked first, and if empty, the next F2P queue entry is processed. As for the special gifts, I'll think about it. It is rather intentional to show a small amount of favor to subscribers because while a F2P player might spend $15 one month, they could also spend $0 the next three. Sub players would be given incentive to remain on the Sub, offering continued support. If I make too many compromises, then I might as well not have a Sub model at all (which is still in consideration). I don't particularly enjoy using what feels like little more than a trick; but, it's either something like this or start doing similar to other Allegedly F2P games and flat out forcing players to pay for significant portions of the game or start offering "buy win," both of which I refuse to do if I can possibly avoid them.



    Core Structure and Development Tools:

    Very good point here and I will be working hard to leave the game open for expansions down the road, both feature wise and content. I would be a fool... no, a broke fool... to forget that MMO games, especially, are a living entity, evolving as they progress through their life.

    Too Friendly?

    I had not thought about this quite the way you put it. I want to keep the community involved and interested in how we are progressing as we go through this project; and, I may just have to be aware that not all community members will appreciate this. Ideally this project would become something of a "how to" for small, low budget groups to break into the market; but, I'm not going to hold my breath. I do see your point, though, and have seen several complaints myself from community members upset about the small percentage of updates that contain new information on a game in development.

    Early Access:

    This is probably the best argument against early access I've seen so far. If population numbers are low and especially if Sub numbers are low, relative to the size of the game's universe, then I will probably need to rethink the whole early access idea, at the very least allow immediate ability for F2P players to purchase access and possibly remove the purchase model entirely. On the other had, it would possibly push players to form new alliances with others that they may have otherwise not noticed. I don't feel that this alone would be worth the split, but it is something to consider. This may be an issue that just needs to be shelved until the game's actual release, and see what the players (mainly Sub players, since F2P will obviously want it free) think about it.

    Listening too much:

    Yes, I do have my own opinions on what should be done, and I certainly wont change everything base around only one or two suggestions. At the same time, I just thought it would be cool to allow the community to suggest new features, not necessarily dictate every aspect of the game.

    Prioritize:

    Thanks!

    Hybrid is the worst:

    At the moment, I'm still on the fence about this, it feels like the right thing to do; but, it is probably the most controversial decision so far. Thankfully, I have plenty of time to consider the benefits and consequences of this decision and how to handle each facet of it. I still think that offering players the option of how they want to pay is a good idea and most of the people I have spoken with have agreed.

    P2P Profits:

    While I had never done any research on how much Blizzard actually spent on WoW, I had figured that it was a "massive" amount, if you'll pardon my pun. But, despite that, $1 million in profit is still good, since this is money made beyond all expenses, and anything past self sustaining I would consider a degree of success, and 7 figures past, would exceed all my dreams!

    Radical Ideas:

    I am only planning for one universe, similar to Eve; but, I am staying open minded to having a second, slightly more PvE friendly universe if it is strongly requested. Server swaps is certainly something to consider if I have both.

    Crafting is going to play a much more central part of my game as compared to many other titles I've played; and, the economy is definitely going to be player driven. I certainly would not want to restrict a paying player, weather Sub or F2P, from any professions, though restricting true Free players would be a possibility. As far as F2P crafting items that are less visually stunning, this will not work in the crafting model I have designed, as it is going to be much more custom and less cookie cutter than all other incarnations of crafting I have seen.

    Titles are going to play a part in my game but will be mainly military in nature. The ones I have planned out so far will be quest based and very difficult to obtain; however, all players will be able to attempt to gain titles. Said quests will have a major impact on the game, but that is all I will say on them for now!

    Royal story lines are a possibility; but, I would prefer not to limit the players ability to play the game... professions maybe, but probably not quests.

    Thank you RPGOmen for your post!

     

    I am not a nerd, I have graduated to geek; so, it is slightly above social suicide to be seen with me in public.

Sign In or Register to comment.