Originally posted by korndog22 From a business point of view , it is unlogical for them to go F2P.That would be the equivalent of throwing the dice at a crap game.Just to explain in layman terms.They currently sit at about 10 million monthly subs at 15 bucks a month.That is a guarenteed 150 million dollars a month.The sub numbers will grow again with the release of the next expac.To sustain the game they have to employ 5000 people every day just to keep it up.If they go free to play they would probably have to open more servers to sustain the influx of flavor of the monthers who are gonna play it just because it is free.But what if only say 2 million of the current subscribers decide to buy anything from the cash shop .Even if they spend 30 bucks a month the company takes a massive loss.As of now they can keep reaping the 150 million guarenteed a month, and throw a fluff item out every couple months and net even more.Just think without ever even blinking they threw out a mount that made 2 million dollars in 4 hours.How much do you think they made at this point off that mount? Probably more than any f2p game has made in a month ,EVER.Yet they still sustained there subscription money.:) Eh think about it.This is a business and these guys arn't about to give up the biggest share of the money at a roll of the dice.
You're assumin all things remain static. As someone pointed out before, it is a fairly dated game and there's a constant influx of new MMORPG's coming in on a fairly regular basis it seems. Sure, currently they might sit on 10+ million subs, but what should/would they do if they start losing subscribers. What if they drop to 2 million subscribers? Now having that F2P with only 2 million purchasing at a rate of 30/month doesn't sound so bad after all.
What was mentioned previouls is that the game has seemed to peak. With the cost of entry being fairly high on a dated game, the likeliness of getting brand new players to sub into their game aka new subbers, decreases especially as the cost will increase again in Cataclysm.
Could other payment options be explored? Wouldn't it be in Blizz's best interest to keep as many subscribers and be able to attract newer ones by making their game more accessible as a business? How long can players pay $15 for as the game ages?I don't think the OP's suggestion is as ridiculous as most are making it out to be.
You're missing the point, OP. Blizzard has no incentive to removed the current model of subscriptions plus cosmetic items in the cash shop for one that relies solely on the cash shop.
You cannot assume that the profits from every released mount or companion pet will equal the success of the recent celestial steed and the first few available pets. Furthermore, if they can get those kind of profits while also charging for monthly subscriptions (which yields the vast majority of their revenue in the long run), then they will do that to maximize profits.
Just to make a fully cash-shop model really viable, chances are you'd have to include items that are more than just cosmetic - ones that effect the performance of player characters, which would destroy the game quickly. Even if they didn't do that and relied solely on cosmetic items, the profits would not be steady and predictable enough to ensure that they could continue releasing new content as quickly as planned. Lose the ability to regularly generate new content and you lose players in droves.
I can't show you the exact math, but believe me - in the long run, a sub + cash shop model is far more profitable than a purely cash shop model.
Why wouldn't they make things that were vital to the game? Or at least made it easier for some people?
Because that would fundamentally change the game to the point where a huge portion of the audience that currently plays would likely quit. Other F2P games with game-changing items in their cash shops become unbalanced quickly. Players feel they require those items to be the best, and once more people have them, to be competitive. It becomes unfair for the players that don't have that extra money to spare on items, and gives unnecessary advantages to those that do. In a linear game such as WoW where character performance is the dominant factor in most aspects of the game, the incentive would be undeniable.
In other words: You make the cash shop vital, you lose a lot of players. Lose a lot of players and your profits from the cash shop will diminish (which would equal total revenue in the model you propose).
You're missing the point, OP. Blizzard has no incentive to removed the current model of subscriptions plus cosmetic items in the cash shop for one that relies solely on the cash shop.
You cannot assume that the profits from every released mount or companion pet will equal the success of the recent celestial steed and the first few available pets. Furthermore, if they can get those kind of profits while also charging for monthly subscriptions (which yields the vast majority of their revenue in the long run), then they will do that to maximize profits.
Just to make a fully cash-shop model really viable, chances are you'd have to include items that are more than just cosmetic - ones that effect the performance of player characters, which would destroy the game quickly. Even if they didn't do that and relied solely on cosmetic items, the profits would not be steady and predictable enough to ensure that they could continue releasing new content as quickly as planned. Lose the ability to regularly generate new content and you lose players in droves.
I can't show you the exact math, but believe me - in the long run, a sub + cash shop model is far more profitable than a purely cash shop model.
Why wouldn't they make things that were vital to the game? Or at least made it easier for some people?
Because that would fundamentally change the game to the point where a huge portion of the audience that currently plays would likely quit. Other F2P games with game-changing items in their cash shops become unbalanced quickly. Players feel they require those items to be the best, and once more people have them, to be competitive. It becomes unfair for the players that don't have that extra money to spare on items, and gives unnecessary advantages to those that do. In a linear game such as WoW where character performance is the dominant factor in most aspects of the game, the incentive would be undeniable.
In other words: You make the cash shop vital, you lose a lot of players. Lose a lot of players and your profits from the cash shop will diminish (which would equal total revenue in the model you propose).
Lol, you haven't been playing WoW for the last few years then :P
And they would probably offer items that would be good for stretches of level (like the best weapon from 20-30 or something) and leave the endgame alone.
I just don't see them going F2P. Why would they when they can have both? After making 2 million in a couple of hours you can bet your ass off they will be doing it more often.
The first is the two pets (monk & Little LT). The second is the two stuff animals with in-game pets. This round, they have a pet and a mount.
Obviously this business model is highly successful for them and I don't see them NOT to do it more.
In fact, more power to them to make stuff that players want on TOP of their subscription.
Wrong, this is stuff that would have been in their game via their subscriptions. Now it is sold on the side instead. I quit playing MMOs all together to the current greed in the industry. No thanks. There is no way to say for sure, but I would bet that the artist that created that skin for the mount that sold in the auction house was on the current team that produces content for the game. They could have been making a mount for a new quest in game but instead it went to the item shop. What is sad is a game is meant to be played for fun .. not buying stuff with a credit card for fun. That isn't gaming.
Real gamers will wait for games about the gameplay.
You're missing the point, OP. Blizzard has no incentive to removed the current model of subscriptions plus cosmetic items in the cash shop for one that relies solely on the cash shop.
You cannot assume that the profits from every released mount or companion pet will equal the success of the recent celestial steed and the first few available pets. Furthermore, if they can get those kind of profits while also charging for monthly subscriptions (which yields the vast majority of their revenue in the long run), then they will do that to maximize profits.
Just to make a fully cash-shop model really viable, chances are you'd have to include items that are more than just cosmetic - ones that effect the performance of player characters, which would destroy the game quickly. Even if they didn't do that and relied solely on cosmetic items, the profits would not be steady and predictable enough to ensure that they could continue releasing new content as quickly as planned. Lose the ability to regularly generate new content and you lose players in droves.
I can't show you the exact math, but believe me - in the long run, a sub + cash shop model is far more profitable than a purely cash shop model.
Why wouldn't they make things that were vital to the game? Or at least made it easier for some people?
Because that would fundamentally change the game to the point where a huge portion of the audience that currently plays would likely quit. Other F2P games with game-changing items in their cash shops become unbalanced quickly. Players feel they require those items to be the best, and once more people have them, to be competitive. It becomes unfair for the players that don't have that extra money to spare on items, and gives unnecessary advantages to those that do. In a linear game such as WoW where character performance is the dominant factor in most aspects of the game, the incentive would be undeniable.
In other words: You make the cash shop vital, you lose a lot of players. Lose a lot of players and your profits from the cash shop will diminish (which would equal total revenue in the model you propose).
Lol, you haven't been playing WoW for the last few years then :P
And they would probably offer items that would be good for stretches of level (like the best weapon from 20-30 or something) and leave the endgame alone.
I have been playing WoW for the past few years actually. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there.
Let's say they did what you mentioned: not enough people would bother purchasing items because it's already easy enough to level as is - the cost of buying the best items for every level would not be worth it, and the twinking crowd is relatively small.
In order to make it worthwhile to the consumer, they would have to balance the game around having those items, which then is an unfair gesture towards those who don't buy, and encourages/enables those who do buy to skip content that the devs are pouring money into. They could then respond either by artificially stretching out the game's level grind, or focusing all their resources into keeping players busy at the endgame and spending minimal time making sure the leveling process is worthwhile. If people then, as a result, want to spend all their time at endgame - fewer people will level alts, and that means less cash shop revenue for the devs, which means a reduced ability to generate new content and therefore retain their playerbase. Either option makes the game less fun and accessible overall, which means fewer new players being retained and less revenue once again for Blizzard.
I cannot see any way they could do what you propose without shooting themselves in the foot.
You're missing the point, OP. Blizzard has no incentive to removed the current model of subscriptions plus cosmetic items in the cash shop for one that relies solely on the cash shop.
You cannot assume that the profits from every released mount or companion pet will equal the success of the recent celestial steed and the first few available pets. Furthermore, if they can get those kind of profits while also charging for monthly subscriptions (which yields the vast majority of their revenue in the long run), then they will do that to maximize profits.
Just to make a fully cash-shop model really viable, chances are you'd have to include items that are more than just cosmetic - ones that effect the performance of player characters, which would destroy the game quickly. Even if they didn't do that and relied solely on cosmetic items, the profits would not be steady and predictable enough to ensure that they could continue releasing new content as quickly as planned. Lose the ability to regularly generate new content and you lose players in droves.
I can't show you the exact math, but believe me - in the long run, a sub + cash shop model is far more profitable than a purely cash shop model.
Why wouldn't they make things that were vital to the game? Or at least made it easier for some people?
Because that would fundamentally change the game to the point where a huge portion of the audience that currently plays would likely quit. Other F2P games with game-changing items in their cash shops become unbalanced quickly. Players feel they require those items to be the best, and once more people have them, to be competitive. It becomes unfair for the players that don't have that extra money to spare on items, and gives unnecessary advantages to those that do. In a linear game such as WoW where character performance is the dominant factor in most aspects of the game, the incentive would be undeniable.
In other words: You make the cash shop vital, you lose a lot of players. Lose a lot of players and your profits from the cash shop will diminish (which would equal total revenue in the model you propose).
Lol, you haven't been playing WoW for the last few years then :P
And they would probably offer items that would be good for stretches of level (like the best weapon from 20-30 or something) and leave the endgame alone.
I have been playing WoW for the past few years actually. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there.
Let's say they did what you mentioned: not enough people would bother purchasing items because it's already easy enough to level as is - the cost of buying the best items for every level would not be worth it, and the twinking crowd is relatively small.
In order to make it worthwhile to the consumer, they would have to balance the game around having those items, which then is an unfair gesture towards those who don't buy, and encourages/enables those who do buy to skip content that the devs are pouring money into. They could then respond either by artificially stretching out the game's level grind, or focusing all their resources into keeping players busy at the endgame and spending minimal time making sure the leveling process is worthwhile. If people then, as a result, want to spend all their time at endgame - fewer people will level alts, and that means less cash shop revenue for the devs, which means a reduced ability to generate new content and therefore retain their playerbase. Either option makes the game less fun and accessible overall, which means fewer new players being retained and less revenue once again for Blizzard.
I cannot see any way they could do what you propose without shooting themselves in the foot.
Well I wasn't reffering to now. I meant in the future. :
But I can see what you're getting at. I mean It wouldn't be too logical right now, sure. That would be kinda stupid. But they are losing subscribers.
And my comment before was on how the game has changed since launch to make it easier to do things like level at the expense of the more hardcore early players who enjoyed the challenge.
Well I wasn't reffering to now. I meant in the future. :
What I said applies just as well to the future as it does if they made that change now.
huh. Even if they continue to lose subscribers?
Perhaps we aren't on the same page here. Would you mind clarifying what situation the devs are supposedly in that you are talking about? Losing subscribers?
from the business standpoint a f2p wow makes no sense.
Why?
They'd lose the $14.99 each month from the subscription base they currently have and hope and pray that when they made the switch to go F2P that:
A) They retained the numbers, that the F2P switch didn't influence people to leave.
That those people who stayed are going to spend at least $14.99 a month in a cash shop.
Some people spend loads on cash shop items on various F2P games, but it's only a percentage of the people who play. There's others who take the route that's least costly on their wallet as long as they get to see some content, and at the point they can't see content while playing for free, they move on.
There's no way they could switch and have the player retention to make up for the loss in profit. Pretty easy to understand.
Except that, from what I understand, that's exactly what happened. They were hemorraghing players, they switched to a F2P model and *TONS* of people came to play. Sure, not many of them actually buy things in the item mall, but there are probably enough where they make at least as much, if not more money now than they did before they made the switch. Plus, there are lots of people still subscribing even though they don't have to.
DDO made a smart move financially and it's working out for them. If they hadn't made it, the game would have been shut down and they'd be making *NO* money at all.
Safest bet for Blizzard is to not rock the boat with WOW. They have a market stranglehold, and while I think F2P could make them some good money it's not as rock-solid as continuing forward with their current scheme.
Their new MMO might try out F2P. Honestly they'd attain huge success with either method, given their reputation, but I think that F2P done right would make them slightly more money because their current 11.5m highpoint would appear like nothing compared to the potential userbase they could draw upon with a well-crafted F2P system.
Basically I'd have faith that Blizzard would would create a system of lateral item shop purchases for a new MMO. The good type of item shop setup, rather than the bad.
Still, I think that because of aforementioned reputation they're in the best situation of anyone to continue forward with the P2P system (with their new MMO). They're assured it's a system that works, and I think P2P is the system they're most likely to use.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
from the business standpoint a f2p wow makes no sense.
Why?
They'd lose the $14.99 each month from the subscription base they currently have and hope and pray that when they made the switch to go F2P that:
A) They retained the numbers, that the F2P switch didn't influence people to leave.
That those people who stayed are going to spend at least $14.99 a month in a cash shop.
Some people spend loads on cash shop items on various F2P games, but it's only a percentage of the people who play. There's others who take the route that's least costly on their wallet as long as they get to see some content, and at the point they can't see content while playing for free, they move on.
There's no way they could switch and have the player retention to make up for the loss in profit. Pretty easy to understand.
Except that, from what I understand, that's exactly what happened. They were hemorraghing players, they switched to a F2P model and *TONS* of people came to play. Sure, not many of them actually buy things in the item mall, but there are probably enough where they make at least as much, if not more money now than they did before they made the switch. Plus, there are lots of people still subscribing even though they don't have to.
DDO made a smart move financially and it's working out for them. If they hadn't made it, the game would have been shut down and they'd be making *NO* money at all.
I may be mistaken or have missed something, but would I be correct in saying that you are arguing that going F2P would be a wise move for Blizzard with WoW? If you are taking that side, you used a weak analogy here. DDO and WoW were and are in very different situations with different companies. You said it yourself but may not have realized it. I italicized the part that warrants emphasis. What worked for DDO in that game's situation may or may not work for all mmos, particularly WoW which is in almost the polar opposite situation.
I may be mistaken or have missed something, but would I be correct in saying that you are arguing that going F2P would be a wise move for Blizzard with WoW? If you are taking that side, you used a weak analogy here. DDO and WoW were and are in very different situations with different companies. You said it yourself but may not have realized it. I italicized the part that warrants emphasis. What worked for DDO in that game's situation may or may not work for all mmos, particularly WoW which is in almost the polar opposite situation.
Agreed. Turning Wow into a F2P game might be a good idea but not now. Maybe in 2-3 years if the subs really start to drop but Blizzard are still making tons of cash from their monthly fees.
Monthly fees have worked well for a long time with Wow, no use to risk everything like this right now.
Blizzard are sneaking in some stuff slowly into their cash shops so they both can eat the cake and keep it at the same time.... And it seems to be working fine, the protest here is a lot less than when SOE did it to EQ2 last year.
Maybe I'm out of the loop here, but I haven't seen any data talking about an abnormally significant downturn in WoW's average sub numbers recently. Can you show me some kind of data on that? If that's so, what's that got to do with their payment model? If you are implying that WoW is approaching the point where a F2P model would be more profitable than the current one, I expect you to show me some serious figures to back that up.
Comments
You're assumin all things remain static. As someone pointed out before, it is a fairly dated game and there's a constant influx of new MMORPG's coming in on a fairly regular basis it seems. Sure, currently they might sit on 10+ million subs, but what should/would they do if they start losing subscribers. What if they drop to 2 million subscribers? Now having that F2P with only 2 million purchasing at a rate of 30/month doesn't sound so bad after all.
What was mentioned previouls is that the game has seemed to peak. With the cost of entry being fairly high on a dated game, the likeliness of getting brand new players to sub into their game aka new subbers, decreases especially as the cost will increase again in Cataclysm.
Could other payment options be explored? Wouldn't it be in Blizz's best interest to keep as many subscribers and be able to attract newer ones by making their game more accessible as a business? How long can players pay $15 for as the game ages?I don't think the OP's suggestion is as ridiculous as most are making it out to be.
Because that would fundamentally change the game to the point where a huge portion of the audience that currently plays would likely quit. Other F2P games with game-changing items in their cash shops become unbalanced quickly. Players feel they require those items to be the best, and once more people have them, to be competitive. It becomes unfair for the players that don't have that extra money to spare on items, and gives unnecessary advantages to those that do. In a linear game such as WoW where character performance is the dominant factor in most aspects of the game, the incentive would be undeniable.
In other words: You make the cash shop vital, you lose a lot of players. Lose a lot of players and your profits from the cash shop will diminish (which would equal total revenue in the model you propose).
Lol, you haven't been playing WoW for the last few years then :P
And they would probably offer items that would be good for stretches of level (like the best weapon from 20-30 or something) and leave the endgame alone.
I just don't see them going F2P. Why would they when they can have both? After making 2 million in a couple of hours you can bet your ass off they will be doing it more often.
Wrong, this is stuff that would have been in their game via their subscriptions. Now it is sold on the side instead. I quit playing MMOs all together to the current greed in the industry. No thanks. There is no way to say for sure, but I would bet that the artist that created that skin for the mount that sold in the auction house was on the current team that produces content for the game. They could have been making a mount for a new quest in game but instead it went to the item shop. What is sad is a game is meant to be played for fun .. not buying stuff with a credit card for fun. That isn't gaming.
Real gamers will wait for games about the gameplay.
I have been playing WoW for the past few years actually. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there.
Let's say they did what you mentioned: not enough people would bother purchasing items because it's already easy enough to level as is - the cost of buying the best items for every level would not be worth it, and the twinking crowd is relatively small.
In order to make it worthwhile to the consumer, they would have to balance the game around having those items, which then is an unfair gesture towards those who don't buy, and encourages/enables those who do buy to skip content that the devs are pouring money into. They could then respond either by artificially stretching out the game's level grind, or focusing all their resources into keeping players busy at the endgame and spending minimal time making sure the leveling process is worthwhile. If people then, as a result, want to spend all their time at endgame - fewer people will level alts, and that means less cash shop revenue for the devs, which means a reduced ability to generate new content and therefore retain their playerbase. Either option makes the game less fun and accessible overall, which means fewer new players being retained and less revenue once again for Blizzard.
I cannot see any way they could do what you propose without shooting themselves in the foot.
Well I wasn't reffering to now. I meant in the future. :
But I can see what you're getting at. I mean It wouldn't be too logical right now, sure. That would be kinda stupid. But they are losing subscribers.
And my comment before was on how the game has changed since launch to make it easier to do things like level at the expense of the more hardcore early players who enjoyed the challenge.
What I said applies just as well to the future as it does if they made that change now.
huh. Even if they continue to lose subscribers?
Perhaps we aren't on the same page here. Would you mind clarifying what situation the devs are supposedly in that you are talking about? Losing subscribers?
Except that, from what I understand, that's exactly what happened. They were hemorraghing players, they switched to a F2P model and *TONS* of people came to play. Sure, not many of them actually buy things in the item mall, but there are probably enough where they make at least as much, if not more money now than they did before they made the switch. Plus, there are lots of people still subscribing even though they don't have to.
DDO made a smart move financially and it's working out for them. If they hadn't made it, the game would have been shut down and they'd be making *NO* money at all.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Maybe 10 years from now WoW will be F2P. But they aren't going to do away with such a staggering subscription base now.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Safest bet for Blizzard is to not rock the boat with WOW. They have a market stranglehold, and while I think F2P could make them some good money it's not as rock-solid as continuing forward with their current scheme.
Their new MMO might try out F2P. Honestly they'd attain huge success with either method, given their reputation, but I think that F2P done right would make them slightly more money because their current 11.5m highpoint would appear like nothing compared to the potential userbase they could draw upon with a well-crafted F2P system.
Basically I'd have faith that Blizzard would would create a system of lateral item shop purchases for a new MMO. The good type of item shop setup, rather than the bad.
Still, I think that because of aforementioned reputation they're in the best situation of anyone to continue forward with the P2P system (with their new MMO). They're assured it's a system that works, and I think P2P is the system they're most likely to use.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I may be mistaken or have missed something, but would I be correct in saying that you are arguing that going F2P would be a wise move for Blizzard with WoW? If you are taking that side, you used a weak analogy here. DDO and WoW were and are in very different situations with different companies. You said it yourself but may not have realized it. I italicized the part that warrants emphasis. What worked for DDO in that game's situation may or may not work for all mmos, particularly WoW which is in almost the polar opposite situation.
Agreed. Turning Wow into a F2P game might be a good idea but not now. Maybe in 2-3 years if the subs really start to drop but Blizzard are still making tons of cash from their monthly fees.
Monthly fees have worked well for a long time with Wow, no use to risk everything like this right now.
Blizzard are sneaking in some stuff slowly into their cash shops so they both can eat the cake and keep it at the same time.... And it seems to be working fine, the protest here is a lot less than when SOE did it to EQ2 last year.
Maybe I'm out of the loop here, but I haven't seen any data talking about an abnormally significant downturn in WoW's average sub numbers recently. Can you show me some kind of data on that? If that's so, what's that got to do with their payment model? If you are implying that WoW is approaching the point where a F2P model would be more profitable than the current one, I expect you to show me some serious figures to back that up.