| 81 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
7/11/10 1:45:59 PM#61
hype does not equal success. Just look at WAR. |
|
|
7/11/10 1:56:37 PM#62
Originally posted by Horusra
Of course it doesn't. Yeah, some of those games my succeed, some may fail. However there is no f2p at all in the most hyped future games list. So saying that f2p it's the future goes against the facts. I mean what f2p game should we look forward to in the near future? He mentioned NFS, driving game not really the cup of tea for the majority here. |
|
|
7/11/10 2:05:49 PM#63
Originally posted by Thomas2006 Seems like you missed the other article. F2P is not the future of online gaming; it is just a part of it. That is one of the most general and broadest claims I've seen in a bit over here which, of course, has no support to back it whatsoever. parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better. |
|
|
7/11/10 2:06:42 PM#64
Depends. If LoTR rebounds like DDO did we might see older games switching over to F2P model. Most of the F2P out there are horrible models with little thought except taking your money. I would not be surprised if LoTR does great for even some newer games that are on the bubble adopting their method of offering the game for free and then charging for various content and extras without monthly fee. |
|
|
7/11/10 2:11:41 PM#65
Originally posted by Edli It for sure shows signs that its the future when major companys are taking games that are doing amazingly well (LOTRO). when you have companys like Blizzard saying that it sure could be the future of World of Warcraft and its future games. When you have games like SWKOTOR where Bioware has stated they are very interested in not using a monthly subscription for the game (They have not stated if it will or will not have a monthly fee. But there terms of service suggest something else). Where there terms of service is worded in such a way that the game features a cash / item shop. Oh BTW Guild Wars 2 is not considered a P2P game. If anything it would fall within the F2P catagory just like GW1 is. GW2 will not have a monthly subscription. You buy the game and thats it, so its not a P2P Monthly Subscription game. And we wont even get into Tera since just about every knows its more then likely going to end up the route of Aion. Remember that so called WoW killer there that was P2P that all but died within the first 3 months. Last I heard The Secret World they where heavly considering going the AO right with it that would make it fall within the F2P catagory. |
|
|
7/11/10 2:13:56 PM#66
Originally posted by Horusra
Lotro is not the future though. The main reason it's going f2p is because it will soon become the past. Do you think it's a coincidence that Lotro will become f2p at the same time these other triple A mmo will be released? Again if you're gonna say that f2p is the future then back it up with facts. What f2p games will come in the future. Don't bring as examples old games that are switching to save themselfs. That's not the future. That's the past trying to keep up with the future. |
|
|
7/11/10 2:14:43 PM#67
Ive been following 3 indy game recently after I left AoC and from my experience its really the best option for indy companies. No-one know you, no-one gives a shit about you, so you want to give them free taste of the game. I suppose this could work as B2P and give free trial straight away. Of course there needs to be somekind of catch to get money as nothing is free in real world. Btw, long time veteran and true MMO hero. I really think World of Tank is going to be next big success of F2P MMOs! So much potential. |
|
|
7/11/10 2:20:35 PM#68
Originally posted by Horusra When a game goes F2P, that is not the same as starting F2P for one thing. Another is LOTRO is starting to look and play old, and without enough fresh content, any MMO starts to strugglee. Because its F2P, the subs no longer matter. What I would like to know how many paying customers DDO has, not the number of people playing they keep spitting out. And lastly, most PC games end up in bargain prices, that doesnt' mean that we run around claiming all games are only 15-20 dollars and that there are no Triple A titles left because they all wind up on sale. parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better. |
|
|
7/11/10 2:22:20 PM#69
Originally posted by Nesrie
Is there any type of support that suggests it could not be the future? I have no doubt that there will always be some form of P2P / Monthly subscription for some games. But if you purely look at the games that have been coming out and look at the profitability / where the money is. It shows that there is ALOT more money to be made off a F2P / Hybrid model then the P2P. When you are turning developers that once claimed they would never go to a F2P / Cash shop setup.. And then the next year they are doing just that.. Well that speaks volumes on where the money is at. Now I agree it may be much to say it is the future. I actually see the future using some sort of mix of options in the final picture. Sorta like the LOTRO model. And in all honesty there is nothing wrong with LOTRO's adaption of the model. You can go the F2P route if you like or you can go the P2P route if you like. I am all for options that opens up the markets to more gamers.
As far as hype goes.. I await someone that names a game that had huge hype that has actually done well / very good (besides World of Warcraft). If anything Hype has shown us that them are games we should stay away from. They tend to be the biggest let downs / most bug ridden games. Vanguard had HUGE hype going for it.. Age of Conan had hype going for it.. Spellborn had hype going for it.. Aion was charged as the WoW killer by loads of people and its developers.. Should I just name every MMO out there since most of them always make it into the Top 5 within several months to a year of release. If anything the less hyped games DDO, LOTRO, ect. are doing very well today. Some might have had a very rough start but look at them now. |
|
|
7/11/10 2:27:10 PM#70
Originally posted by Edli Your "facts" is a hype meter of unproven games that might fail to launch or fail in the first months. I hardly see that as conclusive facts that P2P is the distant future. It might be the near future, but if games keep coming out and fail to thrive at birth like 90% seem to do then investments in them are going to plummet. I think a balance of the two is probably the future and if investment keeps dropping then I see P2P getting the shaft on that deal. F2P makes money upfront to create more content while P2P relies on investment and paying back on the long run. Also in a heavy market with lots of games P2P gets screwed because people will generally only have a one or a few paid accounts. In a F2P market place you can jump in and out of games with little worry. I could play every game and only pay when I want to and when I get bored jump to another. I can not play WoW, AoC, EVE, AION, etc. all in the same month unless I want to spend crap loads of cash on subs. So the more games that release the less likely they will make money with P2P or they will have to eat each other while F2P just keeps going along like nothing happened. |
|
|
7/11/10 2:33:13 PM#71
Originally posted by Edli
So the #2 Most Popular P2P MMO went F2P because it was getting old? I find that hard to believe as its held the #2 spot for some time as far as subscriptions went. The fact that Turbine seen DDO do a 180 and become more profitable then LOTRO says some things. The fact that Turbine has decided on a hybrid model for a VERY popular / currently CASH MAKING game also says things. LOTRO feels about as dated as World of Warcraft does with the exception that LOTRO has ALOT more in the graphics department then WoW does. It's hard to name F2P MMO games coming out. Because for the most part you don' see them coming years in advance like you do P2P games. Because with F2P games it really doesn't matter if they start spending money on hyping there game up 1 month before release of years before release like P2P games do. It's just simple that they do not need to hype there games. You tag Free onto something and people are going to try it out at some point.
BTW last I heard The Agency was going the F2P route. That considered a AAA mmo? I am still trying to figure out what a AAA MMO really is. Even more so how you can determin a AAA game before its even released. Last I heard from a developer AAA simply ment (and I quote) "Has sold, or is predicted/targetted to sell, over one million copies." Well if thats the case then how can a F2P game be a AAA game under them terms. If we go by accounts then just about every F2P game has had atleast a million accounts at some point. If we go by subscriptions then well most MMO's even P2P do not fall under the AAA definition, since most MMO's do not have over a million subscriptions. |
|
|
7/11/10 2:35:56 PM#72
Originally posted by HorusraOriginally posted by Edli Very good points. I also agree that a Hybrid style model is actually the best choice. A mixture of F2P / Monthly subscription option would be a idea style setup. |
|
|
7/11/10 2:39:45 PM#73
Originally posted by Horusra
I didn't say that p2p is the near or far future. I replied to the "f2p is the future" comment. For me both will keep going. So neither of them is the only future. The way I see it the p2p hyped games that fail will turn f2p or shut down. Those who succeed will keep going p2p. What do you mean a balance of the two anyway. For me it's a cash shop mmo and a non cash shop mmo. You can't have both. When I say cs I don't mean 1 shiny ponny but the typical f2p cash shops. Those on which f2p games rely to get money from the players which for me have no place in the game I want to play. |
|
|
7/11/10 2:56:09 PM#74
People have proven time and time again in Sub games and in single player games (dragon age) that they will pay extra for extra features. Thus the hybrid. Right or wrong has no place in the discussion because it is only a question of will people pay or not. And they will. Soon games will hold back stuff (if not already) that is complete and ready for launch so that they can release it as a DLC. |
|
|
7/11/10 3:09:27 PM#75
Originally posted by Horusra Kind of like how the SNES was already up and running long before the NES died out but, the company made a logical decision to hold off on it's release to not kill their current product. Companies already withhold products and content to increase hype or create the illusion of demand. Like how Nintendo held back on production of the Wii to increase it's hype. The company I worked for at the time of the Wii release experienced this firsthand. They would only send 5-20 of them at a time to each company and a marketing rep from their manufacturer flat out told us this was the reason for it. Companies will always do what is best for them and their pocket books. We should not expect more or less. If players paid more for better content, they would make better content. If players stopped paying from grinding boring games, they would stop making them. So long as people are willing to pay and are addicted to it enough to keep the company's bank account full, they will continue to do what they do. They do not care why it works (addiction or fun); they only care that it does work. |
|
|
7/11/10 3:39:35 PM#76
Originally posted by Thomas2006 This is the primary issue I have with your statements, this generalization of the future. Sure, I disagree with you on a number of points, which is normal of course, but this is the one I find completely unsupportable. Just think back to all the statements made about changing the game industry as we know it. The future of gaming is changed because: ... Black and White removed the need for menus and now all our commands can be done with the wave of a mouse .... PS3 and Xbox360, PC gaming is now dead because you've got these all in one machines that are easy to use and supposedly cost less than PC gaming rigs ... Games for Windows Live ... The Sims, one of the most successful franchises ever, still not sucessfully copied or even really mimicked in other games .... HD graphics are here, everyone roll over, no other type of games will be expected or accepted... and then the Wii becomes more wildly successful than anyone in the industry can imagine ... iPad games are the wave of the future .... Social Games are the wave of the future
These claims are often used and never realy pan out. I think it's because our entertainment medium is so dynamic, ever changing. Just when you think the mouse has become the wave of the future, you get controllers, and then you get motion control which, by the way, was called a fad when nintendo put it out but no Sony and MS each have their own versions. I do think F2P is going to have a bigger piece of the pie in the future. I do, but that doe snot mean the F2P "is the future". I think that is just such a broad statement that implies the death of everything else and therefore, is not supportable, in anyway. Every time we think we've "seen the future" something in this industry changes and surprises us. P2P also had a predictability a lot of people love. You set aside your 10-15 a month and its an ongoing expensive. Subscription models work for a lot of industries. They tend to have a low cost illusion in that people think just 10 dollars not 120 a year plus expansions. There is a bit of an unkonwn in the true costs of playing a F2P game as it was meant to be experienced. parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better. |
|
|
7/12/10 12:15:22 AM#77
Coming from someone that was playing Allods for several months I'm still seeing f2p games as nothing more than low quality cash grabs. They may be increasing the bar with content and depth but it's still got the stench of amatuer development work. They eventually go down the path of pay to win because in the end the devs are simply trying to balance lower quality with making money.
With the exception of Guild Wars or mainstream games that went from p2p to f2p there's still a fairly large gap between indepenant f2p games and p2p and I don't seriously see this changing anytime soon. You might be able to satisfy your MMO fix somewhat playing a f2p but the differences in quality with eventually become apparent and leave a bad taste in your mouth.
|
|
|
7/12/10 1:36:25 AM#78
Originally posted by Horusra Dunno about that. I usually buy the game, then *cough* aquire through alternative means *cough* the DLC. -Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.- |
|
|
7/12/10 3:33:26 AM#79
It's hard to say since I've never seen a f2p game publish how many people are playing it much less how well they do with the item shop. Unlike p2p games where they are sometimes open about how successful they are and even if they keep it to themselves they are often involved with publicl traded company that releases the info for their stockholders and investors. Then you also have to consider how different cultures tolerate their games. Like Asians are notorious for actually enjoying grinding in their MMO's but it doesn't fly well in the West. Regardless they do well in the East but who's to say they are still successful in regards to the EU/US market?
Take Allods Online. Even before the 1.10 patch chased a lot of people off it was dubbed as a f2p MMO that raised the bar and a game that should have been about as popular as f2p can get. Considering they only had two servers that hovered around medium to low all you can really do is guess. I've played a lot of MMORPG's from WoW with insane active players to games that were dead and ready to close up shop and I'd have to say the number of people actively playing US Allods was really low when compared mainstream games made by .
I think I read where they said they spent $12 million making it. I have to assume that's pretty good size budget when it comes to f2p. Are they making enough money though that's the question. Since they just released a patch that put a lot more focus on the item shop just to play the game like normal I'd have to say they aren't. So it is even possible for an amatuer indie company to create a big budget game around a f2p model and stil be able to turn enough profit? Guild Wars is pretty much the only example of a game created by experienced mainstream develeopers with deep pockets and a game that was designed to be f2p from the ground up. I'm guessing they still do pretty well considering the sequel coming up. |
|
|
7/23/10 12:28:21 PM#80
Im sorry I am several day slow but couldn't we argue the optimal payment model changes over the life of the game itself? When a game is new and large amounts of development capital need to be repaid box sales and p2p for a premium product allow greater revenue. As a product ages and more competition is available the monthly rate players are willing to pay will decline to zero. At this point in the product life it should become f2p. Games using f2p are not able to stand apart from others in the market and demand a premium. The whole discussion is really just an exercise in economic price descrimination and product life cycle. If you follow my logic, the highest perceived quality games will also be able to demand the greatest monthly fee. * I read most of what Jon Wood writes |
|
