Not sure why people are getting so upset about what is being charged (or not charged) in another market as the question really would be more accurate to say are you being charged a fair amount for what you get? The company needs to make money to stay in business and free to play does not equal cheap to play.
If you only play a bit and are not serious about a game free to play is a fine way to just wander around and not spend much if any money but if you are serious about playing a game to its limit then subscriptions are generally going to be a much better value than having to purchase access to areas or other items in the game.
I enjoy Age of Conan and so as long as they don't mess up the game play then I will be happy enough.
Be careful what you wish for. Free "two" play is really farming you the end user for money. It should be called free to down load and free to suck the money from your checking account.
Well this will set the stage if AoC decides to go Free Play in the U.S. Which I don't wish to happen anytime soon.
Actually, the stage was set by DDO and then followed up by LOTRO.
Soon to be followed by Funcom, I mean really why wouldn't they?
Same reason Funcom does every single thing to date - just to personally spite you. Or at least, that's how you make it sound in your posts.
Of course, the sole notion that anything happening in the Asian market begets necessity of change in the Western market is fictitious at best and utterly ridiculous at worst, but I guess reality poses no great obstacle for some.
Originally posted by finaticdThe argument that development needs more personell is silly as I looked it up and posted here that at the two year point EQ had 15 times the bosses of AoC, and much more land area and many more monster types....so are developers becoming more inefficient?
No, it's that over time players demand higher quality and more features. Do you really think if EQ launched today (with updated graphics) that players would find the gameplay and feature list acceptable?
In summary, the popular games that make hand over fist in money in America and Europe charge money for time in Asian markets, such as Aion and WoW, while other that don't do so well do not.
Also the model doesn't change so much, the price has not gone up in 10 years so to be sucessful today you need double the players as you did 10 years ago and you are good. The argument that development needs more personell is silly as I looked it up and posted here that at the two year point EQ had 15 times the bosses of AoC, and much more land area and many more monster types....so are developers becoming more inefficient?
IDK, I know the 4 years of development for AoC costed 40 million and since day 1 of release AoC has been having issues paying quarterly bills with zero recoup for those four years but I don't see why this would be going F2P in Korea if it won't be going F2P everywhere else soon, especially after selling so much extras like character slots, XP pots, leveling packs, etc. Lotro and many other games do well at FTP but those games also have much more of a grind or this and that that goes well with that model but IDK about LOTRO.
I love how you keep bringing up the financial situation of Funcom and AoC. It amazes me that you who claims to have finacial education are unable to see the reality. If funcom have had issues since day 1 of release to pay their bills they would have been bankrupt already. The fact is that AoC generates enough cash to keep it going. Some measures have been taken to cut costs like merges, moving office etc. BUT if they hadn't been making enough and have had issues since day one with paying bills they would most likely been bankrupted a long time ago. You who claims to have studied finances etc should know this. Lifetime of companies in Norway who struggle to pay bills are limited.
The development today needs more personell simply because players requires a higher level of quality then before. In EQ there was lots of bugs and issues, however peopel looked past these issues as EQ was unique in many ways. Few games was like EQ, there was no real competition and the playerbase who played EQ was seen as some kind of super geek who never did anything else then play and sleep. Raids in EQ was easy up to 12 hours, and if the party died at the final boss it was another 12 hour raid to get their stuff back. If they did not do this people lost levels and gear. EQ was proper hardcore compared to most games today. Developers aren't becoming more inefficient, but customers expect more of the product today then they did back then. If a expansion launched with issues it was accepted by many players and they would eagerly wait for the fix. Today if a product has issues at launch forums are filled with hate posts and god knows what.
The market in Korea isn't that big for any MMORPG, even aion and wow. The big thing is FPS and Starcraft and games like GTA. This dicussion is really mooot, because the amount of players/server for AOC will be minimal.
AOC is all about graphics, and the most popular game by FAR in Korea is Starcraft, which had bad graphics when it was released 12 years ago.
This is like the polish and russian servers. it was something to talk about with AOC, but as soon as they launched, they disappeared from the radar ( polish never even launched).
Aion at release in western market had 3,5 million players in Asia, WoW had at a point 3 million chinese subscribers alone plus the other asian countries. There is huge market for MMO's in asia, there is F2P MMO's that are supposed to have between 12-25 million players. How can that not be a huge market for MMO games?
In summary, the popular games that make hand over fist in money in America and Europe charge money for time in Asian markets, such as Aion and WoW, while other that don't do so well do not.
Also the model doesn't change so much, the price has not gone up in 10 years so to be sucessful today you need double the players as you did 10 years ago and you are good. The argument that development needs more personell is silly as I looked it up and posted here that at the two year point EQ had 15 times the bosses of AoC, and much more land area and many more monster types....so are developers becoming more inefficient?
IDK, I know the 4 years of development for AoC costed 40 million and since day 1 of release AoC has been having issues paying quarterly bills with zero recoup for those four years but I don't see why this would be going F2P in Korea if it won't be going F2P everywhere else soon, especially after selling so much extras like character slots, XP pots, leveling packs, etc. Lotro and many other games do well at FTP but those games also have much more of a grind or this and that that goes well with that model but IDK about LOTRO.
I love how you keep bringing up the financial situation of Funcom and AoC. It amazes me that you who claims to have finacial education are unable to see the reality. If funcom have had issues since day 1 of release to pay their bills they would have been bankrupt already. The fact is that AoC generates enough cash to keep it going. Some measures have been taken to cut costs like merges, moving office etc. BUT if they hadn't been making enough and have had issues since day one with paying bills they would most likely been bankrupted a long time ago. You who claims to have studied finances etc should know this. Lifetime of companies in Norway who struggle to pay bills are limited.
Age of Conan does not make enough money on a quarterly basis to keep the game going, if you would bother to read any of Funcom's financial statements you would see they are riding a cash surplus that was created by the good box sales from launch. This surplus has been shrinking every quarter, it has been stated by Funcom that AoC needs at least 200k subs to be a viable game, there is no way AoC has 200k Subs.
AoC will go F2P once their new engine upgrade is done.
The development today needs more personell simply because players requires a higher level of quality then before. In EQ there was lots of bugs and issues, however peopel looked past these issues as EQ was unique in many ways. Few games was like EQ, there was no real competition and the playerbase who played EQ was seen as some kind of super geek who never did anything else then play and sleep. Raids in EQ was easy up to 12 hours, and if the party died at the final boss it was another 12 hour raid to get their stuff back. If they did not do this people lost levels and gear. EQ was proper hardcore compared to most games today. Developers aren't becoming more inefficient, but customers expect more of the product today then they did back then. If a expansion launched with issues it was accepted by many players and they would eagerly wait for the fix. Today if a product has issues at launch forums are filled with hate posts and god knows what.
I love how you keep bringing up the financial situation of Funcom and AoC. It amazes me that you who claims to have finacial education are unable to see the reality. If funcom have had issues since day 1 of release to pay their bills they would have been bankrupt already. The fact is that AoC generates enough cash to keep it going. Some measures have been taken to cut costs like merges, moving office etc. BUT if they hadn't been making enough and have had issues since day one with paying bills they would most likely been bankrupted a long time ago. You who claims to have studied finances etc should know this. Lifetime of companies in Norway who struggle to pay bills are limited.
Age of Conan does not make enough money on a quarterly basis to keep the game going, if you would bother to read any of Funcom's financial statements you would see they are riding a cash surplus that was created by the good box sales from launch. This surplus has been shrinking every quarter, it has been stated by Funcom that AoC needs at least 200k subs to be a viable game, there is no way AoC has 200k Subs.
AoC will go F2P once their new engine upgrade is done.
If you had known anything about finance you would understand that the games currently under development are the drain on the cash reserves. Funcom didn't earn nearly as much as the publisher from box sales, the real cash flow of any MMO starts one month after release. AoC is the only thing bringing cash in to the company, thus it is highly risky to change payment models. Neither will it be shut down, but if the money issue becomes critical (which takes at least 1.5-2 years), and it is impossible to do a public offering or take on debt (both highly unlikely), then they will cut down the development of AoC and just milk it.
I love how you keep bringing up the financial situation of Funcom and AoC. It amazes me that you who claims to have finacial education are unable to see the reality. If funcom have had issues since day 1 of release to pay their bills they would have been bankrupt already. The fact is that AoC generates enough cash to keep it going. Some measures have been taken to cut costs like merges, moving office etc. BUT if they hadn't been making enough and have had issues since day one with paying bills they would most likely been bankrupted a long time ago. You who claims to have studied finances etc should know this. Lifetime of companies in Norway who struggle to pay bills are limited.
Age of Conan does not make enough money on a quarterly basis to keep the game going, if you would bother to read any of Funcom's financial statements you would see they are riding a cash surplus that was created by the good box sales from launch. This surplus has been shrinking every quarter, it has been stated by Funcom that AoC needs at least 200k subs to be a viable game, there is no way AoC has 200k Subs.
AoC will go F2P once their new engine upgrade is done.
If you had known anything about finance you would understand that the games currently under development are the drain on the cash reserves. Funcom didn't earn nearly as much as the publisher from box sales, the real cash flow of any MMO starts one month after release. AoC is the only thing bringing cash in to the company, thus it is highly risky to change payment models. Neither will it be shut down, but if the money issue becomes critical (which takes at least 1.5-2 years), and it is impossible to do a public offering or take on debt (both highly unlikely), then they will cut down the development of AoC and just milk it.
Games currently Under Development means an MMO in BETA, that is a cop-out for an MMO that has been out for over TWO YEARS.
Look at the financial statements for Funcom since AoC released, they needed ROTGS to bring the game back to healthy population levels, instead they most likely got a small cash injection to keep the company safe until TSW releases, then like you said they will put AoC on life support as a F2P game, AoC has not been profitable plain and simple, nor will it ever be with the current GD.
I love how you keep bringing up the financial situation of Funcom and AoC. It amazes me that you who claims to have finacial education are unable to see the reality. If funcom have had issues since day 1 of release to pay their bills they would have been bankrupt already. The fact is that AoC generates enough cash to keep it going. Some measures have been taken to cut costs like merges, moving office etc. BUT if they hadn't been making enough and have had issues since day one with paying bills they would most likely been bankrupted a long time ago. You who claims to have studied finances etc should know this. Lifetime of companies in Norway who struggle to pay bills are limited.
Age of Conan does not make enough money on a quarterly basis to keep the game going, if you would bother to read any of Funcom's financial statements you would see they are riding a cash surplus that was created by the good box sales from launch. This surplus has been shrinking every quarter, it has been stated by Funcom that AoC needs at least 200k subs to be a viable game, there is no way AoC has 200k Subs.
AoC will go F2P once their new engine upgrade is done.
If you had known anything about finance you would understand that the games currently under development are the drain on the cash reserves. Funcom didn't earn nearly as much as the publisher from box sales, the real cash flow of any MMO starts one month after release. AoC is the only thing bringing cash in to the company, thus it is highly risky to change payment models. Neither will it be shut down, but if the money issue becomes critical (which takes at least 1.5-2 years), and it is impossible to do a public offering or take on debt (both highly unlikely), then they will cut down the development of AoC and just milk it.
Games currently Under Development means an MMO in BETA, that is a cop-out for an MMO that has been out for over TWO YEARS.
Look at the financial statements for Funcom since AoC released, they needed ROTGS to bring the game back to healthy population levels, instead they most likely got a small cash injection to keep the company safe until TSW releases, then like you said they will put AoC on life support as a F2P game, AoC has not been profitable plain and simple, nor will it ever be with the current GD.
Again, you lack knowledge of what you are talking about. There are two MMOG's under development, along with a few other games. The most costly endevour I would assume is the development of TSW, but I do not know the percentage of the costs. AoC hasn't recouped its costs, but it is bringing in money to the company. At some stage you should learn that developers don't make lots of cash on box sales, that is the publisher - developers make money off of subscriptions.
Please show me where and when the company has had a cash injection (by which I assume you mean a public offering) the last couple of years.
Age of Conan does not make enough money on a quarterly basis to keep the game going, if you would bother to read any of Funcom's financial statements you would see they are riding a cash surplus that was created by the good box sales from launch. This surplus has been shrinking every quarter, it has been stated by Funcom that AoC needs at least 200k subs to be a viable game
Not that I think that you're a bullshit artist, but do you have a source or link to prove that statement with, the 200k subs one?
Else it's just the usual crap you hear people spouting all the time in all kinds of fanboist and hater type posts on all kinds of forums.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Something around 115k which is not much but keeps it going, even with 50k it can be still making money - but will not do leaps in developement for sure.
"Torquemada... do not implore him for compassion. Torquemada... do not beg him for forgiveness. Torquemada... do not ask him for mercy. Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!"
Something around 115k which is not much but keeps it going, even with 50k it can be still making money - but will not do leaps in developement for sure.
According to that site aion has almost 3mil subs.....
Something around 115k which is not much but keeps it going, even with 50k it can be still making money - but will not do leaps in developement for sure.
According to that site aion has almost 3mil subs.....
Yea but technically only around 200-350k are western subs its all eastern. That and its already on the decline.
Don't know about anybody else but I actually find this quite annoying. According to this when AOC launches it will be free, so what the hell are we paying for then?
Different areas, different ways of paying for the game. F2P in asia is quite common, so not surprised they do it. Cash shop is an option and that's where they will generate the cash, would you rather AoC go F2P in western MMO markets with a cash shop? The western part of MMO players see F2P as a death sentence to the game, the asian audience see P2P as an unecessary evil for their gaming.
And the suits exploit this difference all the way to the bank... Makes me wonder if the asian market grasps the cost difference between f2p and p2p?
There really is no difference if one would spend an amount equal to or less than what the equivalent of a monthly sub fee would be. I only mention this because we hear so often of the theory that f2p games make all there money by people spending insane amounts per month for a game with no sub fee but I've only seen one example of a person complaining about the amount of money he spent on a f2p game on these boards and that same poster was quickly rebuked by more than double the amount of posters to dispute his claims.
Yes we know the possibility exists too waste money in cash shops but how does that equal any worse than something like the STO lifetime sub offer for a game that had no more than two months replay value no matter how casual one was.
With a game like Guild Wars being one of the most successful mmo's in a sea of mediocrity why does the western market continue to cling to the concept that a subscription fee dictates anything other than a devs ability to keep a hand in your pocket month after month?
I recall one of the main reasons I relented and decided to try mmo's despite the monthly sub fee one of the reason I used to justify it was the excuse often levelled by mmo community that sub fees helped to pay for maintenance and drive change in the game. After all these years of playing mmo's I've come to see this as a myth, most mmo's change very little if at all throughout there lifetimes, and until Turbine inspired this tired industry most of the changes came only in the form of "new areas" rarely if at all was attention paid to content that may have been considered old to the established player base. I bring this up because I think it's time for the western cummunity to maybe start seeing that things may not be so much as they seem, you guys championing sub fees is not something the devs would ever disagree with so maybe just maybe we ought to start to consider that in truth the sky won't fall if they aren't the main way to pay for our mmo's.
For the record a game with the amount of content offered by say WOW,LOTRO, or even what TOR purports to have are games that can easily justify a sub fee while there are many mmo's that in my opinion don't justify one at all any game by Cryptic, Funcom and lot's of others out there.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
Something around 115k which is not much but keeps it going, even with 50k it can be still making money - but will not do leaps in developement for sure.
Those numbers have not been updated to reflect the drop-off that has occured about one and half months to now since the launch of ROTGS. AoC is lucky if there is still 100k ACTIVE SUBS atm.
I love how you keep bringing up the financial situation of Funcom and AoC. It amazes me that you who claims to have finacial education are unable to see the reality. If funcom have had issues since day 1 of release to pay their bills they would have been bankrupt already. The fact is that AoC generates enough cash to keep it going. Some measures have been taken to cut costs like merges, moving office etc. BUT if they hadn't been making enough and have had issues since day one with paying bills they would most likely been bankrupted a long time ago. You who claims to have studied finances etc should know this. Lifetime of companies in Norway who struggle to pay bills are limited.
Age of Conan does not make enough money on a quarterly basis to keep the game going, if you would bother to read any of Funcom's financial statements you would see they are riding a cash surplus that was created by the good box sales from launch. This surplus has been shrinking every quarter, it has been stated by Funcom that AoC needs at least 200k subs to be a viable game, there is no way AoC has 200k Subs.
AoC will go F2P once their new engine upgrade is done.
If you had known anything about finance you would understand that the games currently under development are the drain on the cash reserves. Funcom didn't earn nearly as much as the publisher from box sales, the real cash flow of any MMO starts one month after release. AoC is the only thing bringing cash in to the company, thus it is highly risky to change payment models. Neither will it be shut down, but if the money issue becomes critical (which takes at least 1.5-2 years), and it is impossible to do a public offering or take on debt (both highly unlikely), then they will cut down the development of AoC and just milk it.
Games currently Under Development means an MMO in BETA, that is a cop-out for an MMO that has been out for over TWO YEARS.
Look at the financial statements for Funcom since AoC released, they needed ROTGS to bring the game back to healthy population levels, instead they most likely got a small cash injection to keep the company safe until TSW releases, then like you said they will put AoC on life support as a F2P game, AoC has not been profitable plain and simple, nor will it ever be with the current GD.
Again, you lack knowledge of what you are talking about. There are two MMOG's under development, along with a few other games. The most costly endevour I would assume is the development of TSW, but I do not know the percentage of the costs. AoC hasn't recouped its costs, but it is bringing in money to the company. At some stage you should learn that developers don't make lots of cash on box sales, that is the publisher - developers make money off of subscriptions.
Please show me where and when the company has had a cash injection (by which I assume you mean a public offering) the last couple of years.
Read the financial statements from Funcom for 2009 up to the present and post again after you've read them, thnx.
Something around 115k which is not much but keeps it going, even with 50k it can be still making money - but will not do leaps in developement for sure.
Those numbers have not been updated to reflect the drop-off that has occured about one and half months to now since the launch of ROTGS. AoC is lucky if there is still 100k ACTIVE SUBS atm.
These are the best numbers we have but i agree that the future sheet updates will show the numbers going back to pre-expac-times with significant impcts when the next majors are released.
They (Funcom) are creative to offer welcom / wb packages but i guess it wont help that much...
Still they will make money for years to come.
"Torquemada... do not implore him for compassion. Torquemada... do not beg him for forgiveness. Torquemada... do not ask him for mercy. Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!"
Something around 115k which is not much but keeps it going, even with 50k it can be still making money - but will not do leaps in developement for sure.
I guess this is after Q2 2010 report was made public. Too bad the estimate didn't take into account that revenue rise was mostly due to sold boxes of ROTGS expansion to current subscribers, and to lessser extent returning players (those that checked the expansion for a month and were gone again).
Check again after Q3 2010 is made public - we'll all see the revenue numbers there. I'm a serious pessimist that even this new 1 year subscription campaign (more cash in short term) will help even out the books.
Something around 115k which is not much but keeps it going, even with 50k it can be still making money - but will not do leaps in developement for sure.
I guess this is after Q2 2010 report was made public. Too bad the estimate didn't take into account that revenue rise was mostly due to sold boxes of ROTGS expansion to current subscribers, and to lessser extent returning players (those that checked the expansion for a month and were gone again).
Check again after Q3 2010 is made public - we'll all see the revenue numbers there. I'm a serious pessimist that even this new 1 year subscription campaign (more cash in short term) will help even out the books.
Due to the accounting principle of periodicity the 1 year subscriptions will be on the books in the balance sheet as a short term liability until the period is passed and the income is transferred to revenues in the p/l. Due to the principle of prudence, any costs assiciated will be on the p/l immediately.
Ohnoes, another AoC thread hijacked with the ol' "Funcom will go bankrupt cos they made me the bitter kid I am today".
New nick, same phrases and wording... go figure
No one is stating Funcom is going broke anytime soon, just that AoC is most likely going F2P in the near future, not just in Korea but in the US and EU markets as well
Ohnoes, another AoC thread hijacked with the ol' "Funcom will go bankrupt cos they made me the bitter kid I am today".
New nick, same phrases and wording... go figure
No one is stating Funcom is going broke anytime soon, just that AoC is most likely going F2P in the near future, not just in Korea but in the US and EU markets as well
And you will prove this like you proved the other statements you previously in the thread?
Comments
Not sure why people are getting so upset about what is being charged (or not charged) in another market as the question really would be more accurate to say are you being charged a fair amount for what you get? The company needs to make money to stay in business and free to play does not equal cheap to play.
If you only play a bit and are not serious about a game free to play is a fine way to just wander around and not spend much if any money but if you are serious about playing a game to its limit then subscriptions are generally going to be a much better value than having to purchase access to areas or other items in the game.
I enjoy Age of Conan and so as long as they don't mess up the game play then I will be happy enough.
Be careful what you wish for. Free "two" play is really farming you the end user for money. It should be called free to down load and free to suck the money from your checking account.
F2FU (Free 2 farm you)
Same reason Funcom does every single thing to date - just to personally spite you. Or at least, that's how you make it sound in your posts.
Of course, the sole notion that anything happening in the Asian market begets necessity of change in the Western market is fictitious at best and utterly ridiculous at worst, but I guess reality poses no great obstacle for some.
No, it's that over time players demand higher quality and more features. Do you really think if EQ launched today (with updated graphics) that players would find the gameplay and feature list acceptable?
I love how you keep bringing up the financial situation of Funcom and AoC. It amazes me that you who claims to have finacial education are unable to see the reality. If funcom have had issues since day 1 of release to pay their bills they would have been bankrupt already. The fact is that AoC generates enough cash to keep it going. Some measures have been taken to cut costs like merges, moving office etc. BUT if they hadn't been making enough and have had issues since day one with paying bills they would most likely been bankrupted a long time ago. You who claims to have studied finances etc should know this. Lifetime of companies in Norway who struggle to pay bills are limited.
The development today needs more personell simply because players requires a higher level of quality then before. In EQ there was lots of bugs and issues, however peopel looked past these issues as EQ was unique in many ways. Few games was like EQ, there was no real competition and the playerbase who played EQ was seen as some kind of super geek who never did anything else then play and sleep. Raids in EQ was easy up to 12 hours, and if the party died at the final boss it was another 12 hour raid to get their stuff back. If they did not do this people lost levels and gear. EQ was proper hardcore compared to most games today. Developers aren't becoming more inefficient, but customers expect more of the product today then they did back then. If a expansion launched with issues it was accepted by many players and they would eagerly wait for the fix. Today if a product has issues at launch forums are filled with hate posts and god knows what.
Aion at release in western market had 3,5 million players in Asia, WoW had at a point 3 million chinese subscribers alone plus the other asian countries. There is huge market for MMO's in asia, there is F2P MMO's that are supposed to have between 12-25 million players. How can that not be a huge market for MMO games?
If you had known anything about finance you would understand that the games currently under development are the drain on the cash reserves. Funcom didn't earn nearly as much as the publisher from box sales, the real cash flow of any MMO starts one month after release. AoC is the only thing bringing cash in to the company, thus it is highly risky to change payment models. Neither will it be shut down, but if the money issue becomes critical (which takes at least 1.5-2 years), and it is impossible to do a public offering or take on debt (both highly unlikely), then they will cut down the development of AoC and just milk it.
Games currently Under Development means an MMO in BETA, that is a cop-out for an MMO that has been out for over TWO YEARS.
Look at the financial statements for Funcom since AoC released, they needed ROTGS to bring the game back to healthy population levels, instead they most likely got a small cash injection to keep the company safe until TSW releases, then like you said they will put AoC on life support as a F2P game, AoC has not been profitable plain and simple, nor will it ever be with the current GD.
Again, you lack knowledge of what you are talking about. There are two MMOG's under development, along with a few other games. The most costly endevour I would assume is the development of TSW, but I do not know the percentage of the costs. AoC hasn't recouped its costs, but it is bringing in money to the company. At some stage you should learn that developers don't make lots of cash on box sales, that is the publisher - developers make money off of subscriptions.
Please show me where and when the company has had a cash injection (by which I assume you mean a public offering) the last couple of years.
Not that I think that you're a bullshit artist, but do you have a source or link to prove that statement with, the 200k subs one?
Else it's just the usual crap you hear people spouting all the time in all kinds of fanboist and hater type posts on all kinds of forums.
Thank you.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
The latest estimated numbers for AoC (150k to 1m sheet):
http://www.mmodata.net/
Something around 115k which is not much but keeps it going, even with 50k it can be still making money - but will not do leaps in developement for sure.
"Torquemada... do not implore him for compassion. Torquemada... do not beg him for forgiveness. Torquemada... do not ask him for mercy. Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!"
MWO Music Video - What does the Mech say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF6HYNqCDLI
Johnny Cash - The Man Comes Around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0x2iwK0BKM
According to that site aion has almost 3mil subs.....
Yea but technically only around 200-350k are western subs its all eastern. That and its already on the decline.
There really is no difference if one would spend an amount equal to or less than what the equivalent of a monthly sub fee would be. I only mention this because we hear so often of the theory that f2p games make all there money by people spending insane amounts per month for a game with no sub fee but I've only seen one example of a person complaining about the amount of money he spent on a f2p game on these boards and that same poster was quickly rebuked by more than double the amount of posters to dispute his claims.
Yes we know the possibility exists too waste money in cash shops but how does that equal any worse than something like the STO lifetime sub offer for a game that had no more than two months replay value no matter how casual one was.
With a game like Guild Wars being one of the most successful mmo's in a sea of mediocrity why does the western market continue to cling to the concept that a subscription fee dictates anything other than a devs ability to keep a hand in your pocket month after month?
I recall one of the main reasons I relented and decided to try mmo's despite the monthly sub fee one of the reason I used to justify it was the excuse often levelled by mmo community that sub fees helped to pay for maintenance and drive change in the game. After all these years of playing mmo's I've come to see this as a myth, most mmo's change very little if at all throughout there lifetimes, and until Turbine inspired this tired industry most of the changes came only in the form of "new areas" rarely if at all was attention paid to content that may have been considered old to the established player base. I bring this up because I think it's time for the western cummunity to maybe start seeing that things may not be so much as they seem, you guys championing sub fees is not something the devs would ever disagree with so maybe just maybe we ought to start to consider that in truth the sky won't fall if they aren't the main way to pay for our mmo's.
For the record a game with the amount of content offered by say WOW,LOTRO, or even what TOR purports to have are games that can easily justify a sub fee while there are many mmo's that in my opinion don't justify one at all any game by Cryptic, Funcom and lot's of others out there.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
Those numbers have not been updated to reflect the drop-off that has occured about one and half months to now since the launch of ROTGS. AoC is lucky if there is still 100k ACTIVE SUBS atm.
Read the financial statements from Funcom for 2009 up to the present and post again after you've read them, thnx.
These are the best numbers we have but i agree that the future sheet updates will show the numbers going back to pre-expac-times with significant impcts when the next majors are released.
They (Funcom) are creative to offer welcom / wb packages but i guess it wont help that much...
Still they will make money for years to come.
"Torquemada... do not implore him for compassion. Torquemada... do not beg him for forgiveness. Torquemada... do not ask him for mercy. Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!"
MWO Music Video - What does the Mech say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF6HYNqCDLI
Johnny Cash - The Man Comes Around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0x2iwK0BKM
I have. You made claims, now back them up with evidence.
I guess this is after Q2 2010 report was made public. Too bad the estimate didn't take into account that revenue rise was mostly due to sold boxes of ROTGS expansion to current subscribers, and to lessser extent returning players (those that checked the expansion for a month and were gone again).
Check again after Q3 2010 is made public - we'll all see the revenue numbers there. I'm a serious pessimist that even this new 1 year subscription campaign (more cash in short term) will help even out the books.
Due to the accounting principle of periodicity the 1 year subscriptions will be on the books in the balance sheet as a short term liability until the period is passed and the income is transferred to revenues in the p/l. Due to the principle of prudence, any costs assiciated will be on the p/l immediately.
Ohnoes, another AoC thread hijacked with the ol' "Funcom will go bankrupt cos they made me the bitter kid I am today".
New nick, same phrases and wording... go figure
"nerf rock, paper is working as intended."
- Scissors.
Head Chop
No one is stating Funcom is going broke anytime soon, just that AoC is most likely going F2P in the near future, not just in Korea but in the US and EU markets as well
And you will prove this like you proved the other statements you previously in the thread?