Correct me if i'm wrong on this one, but since when you buy a ps3 you get the online subscription deal thing they have paid for in the purchase price, wouldn't sony have to do some kind of f2p set up if they can do cross platform?
I'm not sure what subscription deal thing you are talking about.
As long as you provide your own internet access, going online, access to the PS store and some of the other online content is free. Items in the store may or may not cost you cash (some are freebies, such as Pulse, demos, some videos, etc). There is no "standard vs. premium" membership like the Xbox, where the extra money for online access unlocks more content (that you have to pay for).
Example here would be Netflix. (At my last check), you could stream Netflix watch instantly content on Xbox, provided that you had the 5$ a month sub to the premium membership. PS3 recently added this feature to the PS3 (requires a free DVD shipped to you via Netflix upon request, no cost for shipping), and since there is no membership fees, it's free.
Since you are already paying a monthly fee for internet, and a montly fee for Netflix, seems kinda like nickle and diming your customers to charge for the privilage to do something on their system that you can do for free on a rival system (PS3) or on your Windows PC.
As for "having" to setup f2p, no they wouldn't. You would have to purchase your sub from the SOE to allow you access to the servers used for DCUO. With no confirmed paid subscription attached to your username, or email, or PSN nickname (or however they plan on doing it), no access to the server. It's no different then using a PC: you buy the PC(PS3), you setup your own connection to the internet, and start surfing. Anything "free" on the web is available, but you need to pay money for access to game servers and such.
I know im necro-ing but i have this real gut feeling that DCUO will not be free to play, but a P2P with a cash shop like in CO Even the president of the company said they are not ruling out subs for it tentonhammer.com/node/62571 [quote]The question is still open about how we’ll handle subscription in DCUO and The Agency. We’re going to see how FreeRealms goes and see how that business model works for us. We may very well end up with subs in DCUO and The Agency. If we can make enough revenue, though, we may consider going goods only.[/quote]
Yes i was right lol (I knew i was going to quote myself) , i knew they weren't going to give this game a F2P chance considering they are using one of comic's biggest license's and the money people are going to shell out just to get a taste.
Wow that surprises me no sub. Maybe they realize they cannot compete with sub numbers anymore, with WoW having the most and competition from CoX and Champions.
I doubt this is the reason at all, it's just that I think more and more companies are trying this out anyway and for SOE this is the game I think they decided long before they would try that pricing model with. DC is by far the most marketable of either of the games you named both Champions or COX, I've played champions long before there were mmo's ir even mud's I'd say but I still felt a twinge of disappointment playing both of those games simply because neither was the DC or Marvel universe I am so familiar with and I'm sure there will be more sentiments like that once the game releases.
On the topic of the subject this for me is pretty exciting news, I've never really felt pressured to spend money in cash shops so I don't think that would be a problem here either especially as others mentioned there not being a monthly sub, if you are an mmo player anyway that pretty much leaves you fifteen bucks a month to spend if you chose to which is much better than as som e people have pointed out Cryptics decision to have both a cash shop and a monthly sub fee.
I had basically written SOE off after the entire SWG fiasco and playing and being unimpressed by EQ2 but with Jim Lee having a hand in the games stylings coupled with the ps3 release and no sub fee I'm eagerly anticipating playing this game, though I'm not too sure on how good of a long term mmo it could be.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
As this is a console release as well, thats probably one reason to cut the sub price out. People are willing to pay bits an pieces off consoles.. XBOX Live has proven that with their avatar shop. This could be a potential gold mine for SOE and the worst part is, I'm totally going to play it on my PS3. No monthly sub really seals the deal for me.. I'm very happy with this decision.
The game will probably follow the Free Realms/DDO F2P model. They'll give us acces to 70% of the content for free after purchase of main game but hold off the best raids, items and extra zones outside main story for those who wish to sub or buy them a-la-carte. This works out in favor of the developer if they create the game right...I'm sure Cryptic wishes they could get $40 in items sales from 50% of the people that purchased their game instead of the meager cash they are pulling in from the monthly subs.
The monthly sub model is dying slowly. It works for older games because of the massive amounts of content. But no one wants to drop $15 a month anymore. I like EQ2 but I'm not going to pay $15 anymore and wait a year and a half for the game to develop. The money just isn't there.
The game will probably follow the Free Realms/DDO F2P model. They'll give us acces to 70% of the content for free after purchase of main game but hold off the best raids, items and extra zones outside main story for those who wish to sub or buy them a-la-carte. This works out in favor of the developer if they create the game right...I'm sure Cryptic wishes they could get $40 in items sales from 50% of the people that purchased their game instead of the meager cash they are pulling in from the monthly subs.
The monthly sub model is dying slowly. It works for older games because of the massive amounts of content. But no one wants to drop $15 a month anymore. I like EQ2 but I'm not going to pay $15 anymore and wait a year and a half for the game to develop. The money just isn't there.
I think the model still lives, but not as it once did. Now people are equating 15 dollars a month with content.. and the games that lack content don't deserve the sub. I think this will create a more competitive market in terms of how developers will be pricing and focusing their games in the future. I think a game like SWTOR that relies on a vast amount of content that could literally take months to complete would do well with a monthly subscription, whereas games like champions and STO should never have launched with a monthly subscription model.
DCUO will trump CO without batting an eyelash, and it will have little to do with the gameplay and everything to do with the accessibility and competence of the development team and publisher.
I agree, they don't spend $ not to make $. The model is not to make cash one time by selling the software, and only making future cash with expansions. That does not justify the maintenance and ongoing development.
What I wish these companies would do is offer options. I have yet to see a F2P model that appeals to me, including what Allods was boasting would be "a F2P model that would put paying and non-paying customers on the same bar without any advantage in PvP for those who choose to spend $".
How about a dual choice model? Make it F2P, with a cash shop for optional add ons (additional content, etc.). This would appeal to people who do not want to commit to a sub model until they play the game for a while, as well as those who have very limited play time and cannot justify the monthly $.
The 2nd choice would of course be a monthly sub option. This is for those players who have more time to spend in-game, have decided they want to play for at least a while, and have the financial means.
Benefits of the monthly sub would include: access to the stuff that they offer to the F2P people as cash-ship or pay options, but include it for free to those with monthly subs (ex: DDO's expansion content).
One or the other is not going to appeal to all, ever, period. A game where the more $ you spend = an advantage is not going to make for long-term happy players, ever, period. Offering a selection of fair options will however increase your potential player base, as well as satisfy a range of player types.
That was at least 3 cents.
Good hunting,
Malikye Now Playing: WaW2 Played: EQ - 5.5 yrs, WoW - 4.5 yrs, Diablo, Myth2, Tried: AoC (played it about 3 times that month), WAR (fun for a month), RoM (sorta, Aion (for 2 months), Allods (bored at lvl 13). Waiting for: DC Universe, Diablo 3 Own: Atari 2600, NES, Game Boy, GBA SP, Dreamcast, PS2, Xbox, Modded Xbox, Wii, PS3, PSP, gaming PCs Sold like a dumb@$$: SNES Broke: PS1 Melted in a fire: Turbograhpx 16 w/ a ton of games Gave Away to a child: Nintendo 64
I agree, they don't spend $ not to make $. The model is not to make cash one time by selling the software, and only making future cash with expansions. That does not justify the maintenance and ongoing development.
What I wish these companies would do is offer options. I have yet to see a F2P model that appeals to me, including what Allods was boasting would be "a F2P model that would put paying and non-paying customers on the same bar without any advantage in PvP for those who choose to spend $".
How about a dual choice model? Make it F2P, with a cash shop for optional add ons (additional content, etc.). This would appeal to people who do not want to commit to a sub model until they play the game for a while, as well as those who have very limited play time and cannot justify the monthly $.
The 2nd choice would of course be a monthly sub option. This is for those players who have more time to spend in-game, have decided they want to play for at least a while, and have the financial means.
Benefits of the monthly sub would include: access to the stuff that they offer to the F2P people as cash-ship or pay options, but include it for free to those with monthly subs (ex: DDO's expansion content).
One or the other is not going to appeal to all, ever, period. A game where the more $ you spend = an advantage is not going to make for long-term happy players, ever, period. Offering a selection of fair options will however increase your potential player base, as well as satisfy a range of player types.
That was at least 3 cents.
You just described DDOs model....which is why DDO is taking off and making Turbine tons of money.
Ugh...at some point Devs will look outside the box.
Well, thats the kiss of death for this game as far as i'm concerned. Incoming cash shop items such as "power ups" or "power perfumes" that cost 3-4$ + each to be competitive, by the time its all said and done anyone who wants to raid or pvp with any frequency will end up paying WAY over 15 bucks a month on cash shop ripoff items.
Way to go SOE, it takes a special kind of greed to screw up an mmo featuring Superman.
As long as it isn't like CO where there's a monthly fee and a cash shop I will be ok with it. DCUO being a f2p after the CO debacle was about the best move SOE could have made.
Most importantly, we made sure to check in and see whether or not the title will be subscription-based or free to play like so many seem to be doing lately. In his response we were given a very strong impression that they are leaning towards the expansion-pack business model, as opposed to the traditional subscription fee although such matters hadn’t been solidified at that point over at Sony Online Entertainment.
It's "unconfirmed" and only an indication of what they're "leaning towards" but it sounds like the GW model. The big question is will they also have an MT shopping mall? Previously they've indicated they most likely would but they also very specifically said they'd be watching how that worked for CO.
massively.com recently took some concept art showing a free trial as an indication of a subscription model but I don't think it necessarily is. A no-subscription GW model could still have a free trial - and if you want to keep playing you need to cough up money to buy the "box".
If there's an MT shopping mall I'm not interested. I'm happy to pay a subscription but also don't mind the GW model, depending on how frequently they release expansion packs.
Most importantly, we made sure to check in and see whether or not the title will be subscription-based or free to play like so many seem to be doing lately. In his response we were given a very strong impression that they are leaning towards the expansion-pack business model, as opposed to the traditional subscription fee although such matters hadn’t been solidified at that point over at Sony Online Entertainment.
It's "unconfirmed" and only an indication of what they're "leaning towards" but it sounds like the GW model. The big question is will they also have an MT shopping mall? Previously they've indicated they most likely would but they also very specifically said they'd be watching how that worked for CO.
massively.com recently took some concept art showing a free trial as an indication of a subscription model but I don't think it necessarily is. A no-subscription GW model could still have a free trial - and if you want to keep playing you need to cough up money to buy the "box".
If there's an MT shopping mall I'm not interested. I'm happy to pay a subscription but also don't mind the GW model, depending on how frequently they release expansion packs.
I think the GW model would be the most ideal but if the MT shop simply had esthetics like more costume options, different forms of already existing travel powers (Like adding in something like a board similar to silver surfer or something to use in place of flight) etc. etc. etc. fluff stuff that had no impact on the game then having a GW business model with an item mall wouldn't bother me at all.
Mainly what I do not want to see on an item mall are retcon's, power sets, content etc. Hopefully SOE saw how well things went over in CO when they tried to charge for vibra bay and how loved the retcons are. Anything that has an impact on game play needs to be in game and not on an item mall. Fluff and inconsequential items can be in any abundance they desire on an item mall.
I think the GW model would be the most ideal but if the MT shop simply had esthetics like more costume options, different forms of already existing travel powers (Like adding in something like a board similar to silver surfer or something to use in place of flight) etc. etc. etc. fluff stuff that had no impact on the game then having a GW business model with an item mall wouldn't bother me at all.
Mainly what I do not want to see on an item mall are retcon's, power sets, content etc. Hopefully SOE saw how well things went over in CO when they tried to charge for vibra bay and how loved the retcons are. Anything that has an impact on game play needs to be in game and not on an item mall. Fluff and inconsequential items can be in any abundance they desire on an item mall.
SOE aren't MT virgins. They dropped MT shopping malls into several of their subscription mmos without any announcement or discussion.
They weren't just fluff items either.
And there's a real and justified (from experience) fear amongst players who don't care for MTs that once you stick a shopping mall in a game, even with just a few fluff MTs, the door is open for non-fluff MTs.
CO is the obvious example. Bill Roper tried to tell us the MTs would only be fluff, and that their inherent awesomeness would just about cure cancer and bring about world peace but.... in execution, as you say, they weren't just fluff. Some of the things that ended up in the MT store were nothing short of outrageous.
CoH is the only game I've played with inoffensive MTs - there aren't many, they are all fluff and their combined total cost is far less than what you'd have payed for expansion packs playing any other MMO.
I think hybrid payment models (like CO attempted) are inherently problematic. Players who like (or even will tolerate) one payment model might not like or tolerate the other, so a hybrid model of any combination will always have less appeal.
SOE potentially have a really interesting game - but they do need to be careful with the payment model.
i would like F2P i don't want to keep paying every months just to play this game, i have work to do and pay bills too i deon't have time this game every day or anytime and i need money too to pay my bills too or else i can't live or eat infact there other games i want too so if is f2p is sound better then p2p or else u can't live
I find it funny that people are sweating the issue of which subscription model SOE an DC Comics is going to implement for the DCUO, as much as I would like SOE to use ANets Guild Wars model for DCUO I know it will never happen Why? you say, because DCUO is a licensed product that SOE has to pay royalties to DC Comics and thats why I really dont see them or any company other than ANet to use this f2p model, it dosent bring in enough profits to pay for DC Comics an SOE. ANet is the only company that will use this f2p model no one else will tough it not even NCSoft will use the Guild Wars f2p model for CoH, Aion, or for Lineage I & II. DC Comics will want the most cash profit possible, I for one would not be surpise to see a p2p+item shop model, DC Comics is in someway just like EA in term of making profits for their products and dont be surpised if the monthly fee is $20 a month like SWTOR will be, considering EA is spending I think I read around $150 million on SWTOR lol yeah thats real cool EA dorks. But I for one will be playing DCUO regardless what they agree to use because if SOE fucks it up DC will no doubt be on SOE's ass to fix it or lose their license and that'll be the end of SOE's involvement, thats how DC Comics is, I've seen them do this type of business with other companies with varies types of products bearing the DC trademark.
This is an older topic but there is no proof of that in the article you provided, all he stated was
"In his response we were given a very strong impression that they are leaning towards the expansion-pack business model, as opposed to the traditional subscription fee although such matters hadn’t been solidified"
I think the GW model would be the most ideal but if the MT shop simply had esthetics like more costume options, different forms of already existing travel powers (Like adding in something like a board similar to silver surfer or something to use in place of flight) etc. etc. etc. fluff stuff that had no impact on the game then having a GW business model with an item mall wouldn't bother me at all.
Mainly what I do not want to see on an item mall are retcon's, power sets, content etc. Hopefully SOE saw how well things went over in CO when they tried to charge for vibra bay and how loved the retcons are. Anything that has an impact on game play needs to be in game and not on an item mall. Fluff and inconsequential items can be in any abundance they desire on an item mall.
SOE aren't MT virgins. They dropped MT shopping malls into several of their subscription mmos without any announcement or discussion.
They weren't just fluff items either.
And there's a real and justified (from experience) fear amongst players who don't care for MTs that once you stick a shopping mall in a game, even with just a few fluff MTs, the door is open for non-fluff MTs.
CO is the obvious example. Bill Roper tried to tell us the MTs would only be fluff, and that their inherent awesomeness would just about cure cancer and bring about world peace but.... in execution, as you say, they weren't just fluff. Some of the things that ended up in the MT store were nothing short of outrageous.
CoH is the only game I've played with inoffensive MTs - there aren't many, they are all fluff and their combined total cost is far less than what you'd have payed for expansion packs playing any other MMO.
I think hybrid payment models (like CO attempted) are inherently problematic. Players who like (or even will tolerate) one payment model might not like or tolerate the other, so a hybrid model of any combination will always have less appeal.
SOE potentially have a really interesting game - but they do need to be careful with the payment model.
Which stuff ended up in CO MT store, that was outrageous? If you are talking about full respecs, you can get them in game, you get one free at cap level, everytime major changes are done they gives free respecs. Moreover, you get one every 6 onths from veteran rewards. Furthermore, you can get those by paying money in a game where you need a lot of ingame money for only 2 things, respecs or crafted travel powers. Keep in mind that respecs in this game is like a rebirth in other games, you can basically change the whole character, while in CoH you cannot change archtype or even powerset selections.
So apart respecs that are debatable, what other outrageous stuff ended in CO store?
I usually don't like the F2P model as it invariably means that there will be a cash shop, but hey, no sub + cash shop is better than a monthly sub + cash shop.
What a hopeless atitude.
This industry is heading into the dumper.
Just wait for the ET-like faliure of some future AAA (SWTOR maybe?). It's the only way the suits will be taught that there is a limit to the greed and incompetence the consumers will tolerate.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Will be great if it goes the Guild Wars way - pay for the game and no monthly fee or cash shop.
No cash shop, but lots of WoW-style 'service' charges.
ArenaNet isn't pure.
Is there any official announcement about DCUO model? Most people is assuming that is going to be a form of f2p but I haven't seen any official information
Will be great if it goes the Guild Wars way - pay for the game and no monthly fee or cash shop.
No cash shop, but lots of WoW-style 'service' charges.
ArenaNet isn't pure.
yeah but none of their services is pay to win.
now: GW2 (11 80s). Dark Souls 2. future: Mount&Blade 2 BannerLord. "Bro, do your even fractal?" Recommends: Guild Wars 2, Dark Souls, Mount&Blade: Warband, Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning.
I read that this was a misunderstanding. I can't find the link to where I read it, though.
I'm hoping this will be f2p but I'm not holding my breath. Everyone assumed APB would be going f2p because of the wording in their FAQ, and it turned out to be subscription based. It seems that Sony isn't sure what they're going to do just yet. It would be nice if they saw what Turbine or Arena Net is doing and decided to go for the f2p or b2p model.
I have never been a fan of a f2p game, yet. I still think this is the way MMOs need to be made from now on (preferably b2p over f2p). I'm sure players, like me, are tired of buying a MMO and paying for a few months, only to decide they're just not that into it. I would be much happier if I could buy the game and come back to it anytime I want without paying monthly.
I'm sure many people will be more patient with a good f2p game that has some kinks to work out, as opposed to a p2p. You won't feel you are getting ripped off (or not as much at least) since there are no sub fees.
That link that was given has no proof, they say they were given an impression that SOE was leaning towards the F2P model, but that hasnt been confirmed and I dont think it will be F2P because all past SOE MMO's have been subscription based, EQ I&II, Star Wars Galaxies, and any superhero MMOs that have come out, Champions Online, City of Heroes/Villains, have also been Subscription, so if they go F2P it will be a shock to me. Honestly I prefer P2P games with no items that give anyone the upper hand in the item mall. I hate games where you can buy your gear or anything that gives you leverage over the other players. I dont want some daddy's boy to be better than me because I work for a living and cant spend hundreds of dollars on a game.
Comments
I'm not sure what subscription deal thing you are talking about.
As long as you provide your own internet access, going online, access to the PS store and some of the other online content is free. Items in the store may or may not cost you cash (some are freebies, such as Pulse, demos, some videos, etc). There is no "standard vs. premium" membership like the Xbox, where the extra money for online access unlocks more content (that you have to pay for).
Example here would be Netflix. (At my last check), you could stream Netflix watch instantly content on Xbox, provided that you had the 5$ a month sub to the premium membership. PS3 recently added this feature to the PS3 (requires a free DVD shipped to you via Netflix upon request, no cost for shipping), and since there is no membership fees, it's free.
Since you are already paying a monthly fee for internet, and a montly fee for Netflix, seems kinda like nickle and diming your customers to charge for the privilage to do something on their system that you can do for free on a rival system (PS3) or on your Windows PC.
As for "having" to setup f2p, no they wouldn't. You would have to purchase your sub from the SOE to allow you access to the servers used for DCUO. With no confirmed paid subscription attached to your username, or email, or PSN nickname (or however they plan on doing it), no access to the server. It's no different then using a PC: you buy the PC(PS3), you setup your own connection to the internet, and start surfing. Anything "free" on the web is available, but you need to pay money for access to game servers and such.
Nah the games going to be Pay 2 Play.
as the Op said...
no subscription fee
www.sonyinsider.com/2009/09/08/dc-universe-online-no-subscription-fee/
EQ2 fan sites
Yes i was right lol (I knew i was going to quote myself) , i knew they weren't going to give this game a F2P chance considering they are using one of comic's biggest license's and the money people are going to shell out just to get a taste.
http://dcuosource.com/index.php/component/content/article/1-latest-news/397-dcuocom
I doubt this is the reason at all, it's just that I think more and more companies are trying this out anyway and for SOE this is the game I think they decided long before they would try that pricing model with. DC is by far the most marketable of either of the games you named both Champions or COX, I've played champions long before there were mmo's ir even mud's I'd say but I still felt a twinge of disappointment playing both of those games simply because neither was the DC or Marvel universe I am so familiar with and I'm sure there will be more sentiments like that once the game releases.
On the topic of the subject this for me is pretty exciting news, I've never really felt pressured to spend money in cash shops so I don't think that would be a problem here either especially as others mentioned there not being a monthly sub, if you are an mmo player anyway that pretty much leaves you fifteen bucks a month to spend if you chose to which is much better than as som e people have pointed out Cryptics decision to have both a cash shop and a monthly sub fee.
I had basically written SOE off after the entire SWG fiasco and playing and being unimpressed by EQ2 but with Jim Lee having a hand in the games stylings coupled with the ps3 release and no sub fee I'm eagerly anticipating playing this game, though I'm not too sure on how good of a long term mmo it could be.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
As this is a console release as well, thats probably one reason to cut the sub price out. People are willing to pay bits an pieces off consoles.. XBOX Live has proven that with their avatar shop. This could be a potential gold mine for SOE and the worst part is, I'm totally going to play it on my PS3. No monthly sub really seals the deal for me.. I'm very happy with this decision.
The game will probably follow the Free Realms/DDO F2P model. They'll give us acces to 70% of the content for free after purchase of main game but hold off the best raids, items and extra zones outside main story for those who wish to sub or buy them a-la-carte. This works out in favor of the developer if they create the game right...I'm sure Cryptic wishes they could get $40 in items sales from 50% of the people that purchased their game instead of the meager cash they are pulling in from the monthly subs.
The monthly sub model is dying slowly. It works for older games because of the massive amounts of content. But no one wants to drop $15 a month anymore. I like EQ2 but I'm not going to pay $15 anymore and wait a year and a half for the game to develop. The money just isn't there.
I think the model still lives, but not as it once did. Now people are equating 15 dollars a month with content.. and the games that lack content don't deserve the sub. I think this will create a more competitive market in terms of how developers will be pricing and focusing their games in the future. I think a game like SWTOR that relies on a vast amount of content that could literally take months to complete would do well with a monthly subscription, whereas games like champions and STO should never have launched with a monthly subscription model.
DCUO will trump CO without batting an eyelash, and it will have little to do with the gameplay and everything to do with the accessibility and competence of the development team and publisher.
I agree, they don't spend $ not to make $. The model is not to make cash one time by selling the software, and only making future cash with expansions. That does not justify the maintenance and ongoing development.
What I wish these companies would do is offer options. I have yet to see a F2P model that appeals to me, including what Allods was boasting would be "a F2P model that would put paying and non-paying customers on the same bar without any advantage in PvP for those who choose to spend $".
How about a dual choice model? Make it F2P, with a cash shop for optional add ons (additional content, etc.). This would appeal to people who do not want to commit to a sub model until they play the game for a while, as well as those who have very limited play time and cannot justify the monthly $.
The 2nd choice would of course be a monthly sub option. This is for those players who have more time to spend in-game, have decided they want to play for at least a while, and have the financial means.
Benefits of the monthly sub would include: access to the stuff that they offer to the F2P people as cash-ship or pay options, but include it for free to those with monthly subs (ex: DDO's expansion content).
One or the other is not going to appeal to all, ever, period. A game where the more $ you spend = an advantage is not going to make for long-term happy players, ever, period. Offering a selection of fair options will however increase your potential player base, as well as satisfy a range of player types.
That was at least 3 cents.
Good hunting,
Malikye
Now Playing: WaW2
Played: EQ - 5.5 yrs, WoW - 4.5 yrs, Diablo, Myth2,
Tried: AoC (played it about 3 times that month), WAR (fun for a month), RoM (sorta, Aion (for 2 months), Allods (bored at lvl 13).
Waiting for: DC Universe, Diablo 3
Own: Atari 2600, NES, Game Boy, GBA SP, Dreamcast, PS2, Xbox, Modded Xbox, Wii, PS3, PSP, gaming PCs
Sold like a dumb@$$: SNES
Broke: PS1
Melted in a fire: Turbograhpx 16 w/ a ton of games
Gave Away to a child: Nintendo 64
You just described DDOs model....which is why DDO is taking off and making Turbine tons of money.
Ugh...at some point Devs will look outside the box.
As long as it isn't like CO where there's a monthly fee and a cash shop I will be ok with it. DCUO being a f2p after the CO debacle was about the best move SOE could have made.
Most importantly, we made sure to check in and see whether or not the title will be subscription-based or free to play like so many seem to be doing lately. In his response we were given a very strong impression that they are leaning towards the expansion-pack business model, as opposed to the traditional subscription fee although such matters hadn’t been solidified at that point over at Sony Online Entertainment.
It's "unconfirmed" and only an indication of what they're "leaning towards" but it sounds like the GW model. The big question is will they also have an MT shopping mall? Previously they've indicated they most likely would but they also very specifically said they'd be watching how that worked for CO.
massively.com recently took some concept art showing a free trial as an indication of a subscription model but I don't think it necessarily is. A no-subscription GW model could still have a free trial - and if you want to keep playing you need to cough up money to buy the "box".
If there's an MT shopping mall I'm not interested. I'm happy to pay a subscription but also don't mind the GW model, depending on how frequently they release expansion packs.
I think the GW model would be the most ideal but if the MT shop simply had esthetics like more costume options, different forms of already existing travel powers (Like adding in something like a board similar to silver surfer or something to use in place of flight) etc. etc. etc. fluff stuff that had no impact on the game then having a GW business model with an item mall wouldn't bother me at all.
Mainly what I do not want to see on an item mall are retcon's, power sets, content etc. Hopefully SOE saw how well things went over in CO when they tried to charge for vibra bay and how loved the retcons are. Anything that has an impact on game play needs to be in game and not on an item mall. Fluff and inconsequential items can be in any abundance they desire on an item mall.
SOE aren't MT virgins. They dropped MT shopping malls into several of their subscription mmos without any announcement or discussion.
They weren't just fluff items either.
And there's a real and justified (from experience) fear amongst players who don't care for MTs that once you stick a shopping mall in a game, even with just a few fluff MTs, the door is open for non-fluff MTs.
CO is the obvious example. Bill Roper tried to tell us the MTs would only be fluff, and that their inherent awesomeness would just about cure cancer and bring about world peace but.... in execution, as you say, they weren't just fluff. Some of the things that ended up in the MT store were nothing short of outrageous.
CoH is the only game I've played with inoffensive MTs - there aren't many, they are all fluff and their combined total cost is far less than what you'd have payed for expansion packs playing any other MMO.
I think hybrid payment models (like CO attempted) are inherently problematic. Players who like (or even will tolerate) one payment model might not like or tolerate the other, so a hybrid model of any combination will always have less appeal.
SOE potentially have a really interesting game - but they do need to be careful with the payment model.
i would like F2P i don't want to keep paying every months just to play this game, i have work to do and pay bills too i deon't have time this game every day or anytime and i need money too to pay my bills too or else i can't live or eat infact there other games i want too so if is f2p is sound better then p2p or else u can't live
PSN:Yakushi_X
I find it funny that people are sweating the issue of which subscription model SOE an DC Comics is going to implement for the DCUO, as much as I would like SOE to use ANets Guild Wars model for DCUO I know it will never happen Why? you say, because DCUO is a licensed product that SOE has to pay royalties to DC Comics and thats why I really dont see them or any company other than ANet to use this f2p model, it dosent bring in enough profits to pay for DC Comics an SOE. ANet is the only company that will use this f2p model no one else will tough it not even NCSoft will use the Guild Wars f2p model for CoH, Aion, or for Lineage I & II. DC Comics will want the most cash profit possible, I for one would not be surpise to see a p2p+item shop model, DC Comics is in someway just like EA in term of making profits for their products and dont be surpised if the monthly fee is $20 a month like SWTOR will be, considering EA is spending I think I read around $150 million on SWTOR lol yeah thats real cool EA dorks. But I for one will be playing DCUO regardless what they agree to use because if SOE fucks it up DC will no doubt be on SOE's ass to fix it or lose their license and that'll be the end of SOE's involvement, thats how DC Comics is, I've seen them do this type of business with other companies with varies types of products bearing the DC trademark.
Evil will always triumph because good is dumb....
This is an older topic but there is no proof of that in the article you provided, all he stated was
"In his response we were given a very strong impression that they are leaning towards the expansion-pack business model, as opposed to the traditional subscription fee although such matters hadn’t been solidified"
Mystery Bounty
Which stuff ended up in CO MT store, that was outrageous? If you are talking about full respecs, you can get them in game, you get one free at cap level, everytime major changes are done they gives free respecs. Moreover, you get one every 6 onths from veteran rewards. Furthermore, you can get those by paying money in a game where you need a lot of ingame money for only 2 things, respecs or crafted travel powers. Keep in mind that respecs in this game is like a rebirth in other games, you can basically change the whole character, while in CoH you cannot change archtype or even powerset selections.
So apart respecs that are debatable, what other outrageous stuff ended in CO store?
What a hopeless atitude.
This industry is heading into the dumper.
Just wait for the ET-like faliure of some future AAA (SWTOR maybe?). It's the only way the suits will be taught that there is a limit to the greed and incompetence the consumers will tolerate.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
No cash shop, but lots of WoW-style 'service' charges.
ArenaNet isn't pure.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Is there any official announcement about DCUO model? Most people is assuming that is going to be a form of f2p but I haven't seen any official information
yeah but none of their services is pay to win.
now: GW2 (11 80s).
Dark Souls 2.
future: Mount&Blade 2 BannerLord.
"Bro, do your even fractal?"
Recommends: Guild Wars 2, Dark Souls, Mount&Blade: Warband, Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning.
Frankly, I'm fed up with settling for the lesser of two evils.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
I read that this was a misunderstanding. I can't find the link to where I read it, though.
I'm hoping this will be f2p but I'm not holding my breath. Everyone assumed APB would be going f2p because of the wording in their FAQ, and it turned out to be subscription based. It seems that Sony isn't sure what they're going to do just yet. It would be nice if they saw what Turbine or Arena Net is doing and decided to go for the f2p or b2p model.
I have never been a fan of a f2p game, yet. I still think this is the way MMOs need to be made from now on (preferably b2p over f2p). I'm sure players, like me, are tired of buying a MMO and paying for a few months, only to decide they're just not that into it. I would be much happier if I could buy the game and come back to it anytime I want without paying monthly.
I'm sure many people will be more patient with a good f2p game that has some kinks to work out, as opposed to a p2p. You won't feel you are getting ripped off (or not as much at least) since there are no sub fees.
That link that was given has no proof, they say they were given an impression that SOE was leaning towards the F2P model, but that hasnt been confirmed and I dont think it will be F2P because all past SOE MMO's have been subscription based, EQ I&II, Star Wars Galaxies, and any superhero MMOs that have come out, Champions Online, City of Heroes/Villains, have also been Subscription, so if they go F2P it will be a shock to me. Honestly I prefer P2P games with no items that give anyone the upper hand in the item mall. I hate games where you can buy your gear or anything that gives you leverage over the other players. I dont want some daddy's boy to be better than me because I work for a living and cant spend hundreds of dollars on a game.
Mystery Bounty