Originally posted by Hrimnir

F2P games simply ARE NOT good for consumers, they are only good for developers.

And only good for developers when they realize that the 100 million (or, in the case of TOR, way more than that) they invested in the product is never going to be recouped by subscriptions alone. That's why you didn't see TOR simply transition to F2P and everyone got to keep their jobs -- dozens and dozens of people were fired in this hailstorm because the amount of content that Bioware hoped to produce (and the number of developers required to produce said content) could not be reconciliated with the cost/benefit model of F2P games.

TOR will never be the game it might have been. Now, it's safe to say, it was never going to be that game anyway because it was badly put together. But the same can be said for most western, 'fallen' AAA F2P games -- their potential was stomped on by the transition. They now float along, bailing water -- but nobody is building anything major (and that includes LOTRO's laughable 'expansions' since going F2P).

Originally posted by Hrimnir

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by ste2000

OP great post

WOW shows that Subscription model is where the money is.

F2P is just a lifeboat for a dieing MMOs.

EVE has now 500K subscribers and they are not thinking of going F2P, because those 500K subscribers a month means 5 Million dollars per month or 60 Million Dollars a year of revenues

No Western F2P MMO can make a similar amount of money, not even close.

Only some Asian MMOs can make better...............but that's because they know how to make F2P games which are basically Pay to Win games (but that's the only way F2P could work commercially)

 

WOW shows that Subscription model is where the money is.

No.  This may show that subs model brings in more than f2p when the number of subscribers goes beyond a certain point.

F2P is just a lifeboat for a dieing MMOs.

No.  See above post.

EVE has now 500K subscribers and they are not thinking of going F2P, because those 500K subscribers a month means 5 Million dollars per month or 60 Million Dollars a year of revenues

Eve doesn't have 500k but it is doing very well.  It actually has a method of f2p in there (pay for sub with plex).  http://www.ccpgames.com/en/public-relations/press-releases/article/9086/ccp-names-tiancity-exclusive-eve-online-publisher-for

No Western F2P MMO can make a similar amount of money, not even close.

Sources please.  I don't have any clue at all, not even a glimmer as to how much money EQ2, EQ, CoH, Lotro... is making with their f2p model.  So if you have numbers please share them.

Also eve is played on a world market, 200 countries.  If you are going to compare Eve's world numbers, then you cannot just look at western MMO subs, you need to compare world subs.  Compare like to like.

 

I'm sorry bro but your logic is flawed.

Lets look at the current mmo's (western) with the highest number of players:

WOW, Rift.  Both are subscription models.

Also, You say EVE doesnt count b/c its worldwide.  Well as of july of 2011, the EU/US/UK server Tranquility hosted over 350k players.  So, EVE's non western playerbase is less than 1/8th of their playerbase and as such i think we can safely count EVE as a western, sub based MMO in the list as well.

Now, lets look at historic AAA games that started with subscription models, failed (miserably i might add) and converted to a F2P model:

Age of Conan (sold over a million boxes, lost 70% of those in 3 months)

Warhammer Online (also sold close to a million boxes, also lost 60+% in less than 6 months)

Star Trek Online

Dungeons and Dragons Online

Aion

 

I'm sure im missing some major ones, but those are just the ones off the top of my head.

 

The reality is, in the western mmo market, F2P is associated with dying or old games.  EQ1 and EQ2 only converted because mmo's tend to lose subs slowly over time after they reach a certain break point.

F2P is popular option for these old mmo's or mmo's that bled subs to a low number quickly because the average F2P player spends $27/mo on the game vs $15 for a sub.  People think that F2p is great because its "free" but they dont realize the games and cash shops in the games are set up specifically to make them spend money, and due to the way human psychology works, we dont realize we're spending the money because we do it in big goes.  You might spend 60 one month and then go 3 months without and think you're ahead, but when you average out how much you spent, its more than if you had just paid a sub.

This is just my personal opinion, but i think F2P games are for A. Young people who have no concept of cost vs value. and B. Older people who are too dumb to see the forest for the trees and thus get caught up in the scam.

F2P games simply ARE NOT good for consumers, they are only good for developers.

 

 

I'm sorry bro but your logic is flawed

Please point out where I'm flawed.  I did not state nor imply that f2p is the future, nor that p2p is dead.  I stated that all WoW shows is that p2p brings in more when subs go beyond a certain point.  That is not flawed at all.  WoW is beyond that point, Rift may be as well, likely Eve is too.  Nothing you have stated contradcits what I said.

I also did not state that Eve doesn't count.  I stated you cannot look at Eve and then only compare to western subs.  You have to look at both.  Eve may very well have more in the west compared to anything else, however it is still played in 200 countries therefore I think we can safely count eve has a global MMO.  Compare like to like, global to global, not global to just western, or just western to just western.

Aion  still is doing well, just not in the west.

And I never stated or implied that some of the games that have gone f2p did not fail.  I said some games that have gone f2p had very sizable and stable playerbases.  The conversion to f2p was not because they failed.  You cannot make the generalized assumption that a p2p game going to f2p has done so because it failed because that would be false. At least 3 haven't.  Yes some have, but not all have so the statementt is false. 

 "The reality is, in the western mmo market, F2P is associated with dying or old games. EQ1 and EQ2 only converted because mmo's tend to lose subs slowly over time after they reach a certain break point."

That is not the reality, that is your belief and a false one.   Again at least 3 have not done that EQ2, CoH and Lotro, had stable and sizable populations.  The f2p wsa not because of low subs or profits it was becasue they thought they could od even better with f2p. 

"This is just my personal opinion, but i think F2P games are for A. Young people who have no concept of cost vs value. and B. Older people who are too dumb to see the forest for the trees and thus get caught up in the scam."

That is your opinion, and IMO is false.  Many many many people see and understand the concept of cost vs value, most people do not pay for f2p and still have a very good time. 

IMO F2P are better for consumers.  They allow consumers to buy only what they want, in an a la carte method.  It also means the developer has to have a fun game or they won't get any money from the consumer.  No fun means no money.  B2P or p2p they have the box fee and a months sub before you even know if you like it or not.  F2P is much better for consumers.  B2P and P2p seem morel ike scams in that sense. 

As someone has stated, in general subs make more money, but there comes a point where you'll make even more money than sub with F2P, which is the point many games switch methods.

SWTOR is viewed as a 'failure' with the F2P conversion due to how quickly it switched from p2p to f2p (less than a year, basically took them 3 months to think about it).  This only shows one thing, the developers were wrong with what they thought would work with their game, and that in itself is a huge failure, because if the game was developed with the 'correct' method from the get go, it would save the company tons of money since they wouldn't have to redevelopment the game for a different method.

Do I think this is the end of subscriptions?  No. Do I think SWTOR change to F2P because of some type of large error by the company? Yes.

Originally posted by Humphrie

 

In closing, I'd like to once again praise EA for being such AMAZING and UPSTANDING citizens of the gaming world. There's nothing like seeing a company claim that 40% of the 700k(ish) or so people who had quit since launch stated that the 'subscription model' was the primary reason for canceling. First of all, that's an outright lie. Second of all, yeah, we all had an issue paying money for crap.[mod edit] So, in that sense, yes, of course all of us who quit had an 'issue' with the subscription model. I don't like subscriptions for bad games. Voila.

This point has been brought up in multiple threads and it bugs me because most of you don't understand how surveys work.  I of course do not have access to their survey or to the results, but what I can say is that in all likelihood the 40% number quoted is not a lie.

I don't know what TOR's exit survey said, but let's use some hypothetical examples that are probably not far off.  They probably asked:  What was your primary reason for cancelling your subscription to TOR?

A)  Don't want to pay a subscription fee

B)  Don't like the graphics

C)  Performance is lacking

D)  Classes are unbalanced

E)  Can't play with my friends easily

F)  System requirements are too high

G)  Combat and questing are not fun

Now they probably only allowed people to pick 1 answer so let's assume these are the results:

A) 40%

B) 10%

C) 5%

D) 10%

E) 5%

F) 5%

G) 25%

As you can see, EA would not be innacurate in stating that according to their survey 40% of respondendts said that the subscription fee is the main reason they quit.  They aren't going to release a statement saying that 60% of people said that they quit because the performance was lacking, they didn't like the graphics, they felt the classes were unbalanced, that the combat and questing was not fun and that they couldn't play easily with their friends. 

I totally agree that the main reason that most probably stated the sub fee is why they quit is because overall they didn't feel the game was good enough to warrant a montly fee, but I'd also say that's pretty obvious and I'm sure EA got the message. 

I am in no way a fan of TOR and in fact am happy it's tanking because I believe it does send the message that you can't just creat a new WoW clone and expect  people to fall for it.  At the same time though people do need to understand that EA is probably not lying at all about the results of the survey.

Here is the most basic truth of it.

There are high quality F2P games out there.

F2P is a viable revenue model.

The most anticipated game on the horizon is B2P.

B2P is a viable revenue model.

There are people that will realize they can play an enjoyable game without paying a subscription.

There are people that will feel a subscription is the best model, and continue to pay to play.

Here is the assumption.

I think the number of people that choose B2P or F2P will continue to be an increasing percentage of the market.

Originally posted by eyelolled

I think the number of people that choose B2P or F2P will continue to be an increasing percentage of the market.

I don't. I believe it has topped out. Why? Because the crowd who doesn't want F2P isn't going to magically fall into line with it. I know that, personally, I have never had a quality experience with a F2P MMORPG -- not one. Every single one has either been a dog from the start (TOR), or became a dog after the transition (LOTRO).

The P2P model works, and the reason it works is because -- when it functions -- it manages to turn out the highest quality content at the highest rate for the lowest overall buck. It's the model utilized by the highest caliber games in the genre for this very reason.

I know theres this like militant F2P crowd and they use P2P games that change to a free-er payment model as proof they are winning ect.

Most of the p2p games that went free-er didnt go f2p.  f2p requires that all the content is free, making it free to play.

Asking people to subscribe for full access, or making them pay for more content isnt free.  I consider games like WAR and AOC as more games with very generous trials, in AOC you can trial the game up untill endgame, and then expansion content requiers a sub...and in a game with pvp like that not having content gear is a pretty significant gimp.

TOR isnt a free game, just look at what you get for free and look at what you get for paying.  No operations is a pretty big restriction if you want to actually play the end game.

Its really a silly argument when you look at it all.

Originally posted by Hrimnir

F2P games simply ARE NOT good for consumers, they are only good for developers. 

You have things reversed.  Developers love it when all they have to do is hype players up and sell a lot of boxes.  Who needs gameplay that's actually fun?  Just run some flashy commercials and rake in the cash.

Conversely, if they only get money by delivering fun to players (because their game is F2P and players actually get a sense of quality and fun before paying) then that puts the burden on them to actually release something awesome if they want to make money.

The success / failure of SWTOR really isn't as significant to the p2p vs. f2p situation.

The reason why subs are declining is for a number of different reasons:

1) Gamers are growing increasingly tired of putting down large sums of money (relatively large, at least), for a game that they aren't sure if it's going to be good or not. This will take a while to fully die out (and it may never 100% die out), because there is still the belief that subscriptions guaruntee quality and are necessary (even though there is evidence to the contrary).

2) F2P has actually been shown to generate more revenue that sub games. There are numerous examples of this, including games like DDO and LotRO which saw record turn arounds in profits after switching to a F2P model. It seems counter-intuitive, so there is still some opposition from a corporate lvl, but that is changing.

3) Subscriptions force competition on your games. So by having a subscription fee, you are actually forcing your fans to choose between your game, and the next new hotness. This is another thing that seems counter-intuitive, but is another realisation that is sinking in for most developers.

I'm not sure if subscriptions will ever 100% die out, but it's pretty clear to most industry professionals that f2p is where things are headed. There's even talk of it possibly spilling out into other mediums, and not just gaming.

Originally posted by Humphrie

No, the fall of TOR is NOT the harbinger of things to come. Sorry -- you're going to need to back up the carriage on that one.

 

The root problem in all of this (everything -- from the moment the game was first spun into development) was that Bioware believed their own hype. They believed that everything they touched turned to gold, and that the 'magic' of their storylines would infect the MMORPG genre with some kind of mass hysteria (the good kind for players, and the bad kind for developers). Bioware fully expected that they would light the digital world on fire with their creativity, and that explains much of why they were absolutely resolute in resisting suggestions for changes made by beta testers. They -- and only they -- knew best.

 

The problem with that is, their stories in TOR might have been decent (as an author, I'd argue they were barely passable, but whatever, it's academic now), but the rest of the game was a shameless clone of a 7-year-old product, with little to none of the changes made to enhance said product over that timeframe. TOR is, foundationally, a wreck, beginning with the hero engine, and then moving upwards into the clunky combat and ridiculous world design. There were elements that were good, but all of them were consumed and blown away by the immense enormity of the flaws. It's like somebody decided to build a gleaming castle on top of a volcano, KNOWING THE ENTIRE TIME that said mountain was a volcano, and then popped their pinky into their mouth when the thing exploded and went 'whoops!'

 

I imagine that at some point last summer, a few of the higher-up types began to realize that there were serious issues. I got the sensation throughout the season -- based on just the general tone and tenor of the talk about the game -- that something was wrong. So I'm giving Bioware a bit of credit here: I think they figured it out slightly before zero hour that this puppy was going to flop, and flop big. It was just way too late to change anything substantial at that point. They could either launch, or announce a sizable delay to make changes.

 

They chose the former, and in doing so, decided to assume we were dumb. [mod edit] And thus, in the span of less than a year, TOR has surpassed SWG as the most epic MMORPG failure in the history of gaming. I didn't think it could be done, but when you look at the numbers of people involved; at the money that was spent in development -- money that is NEVER coming back for EA/Bioware[mod edit] 

 

But that is no reason to make wide-ranging conclusions about MMORPGs. No sir.

 

The industry hasn't 'evolved.'

 

The F2P model is not 'the future.'

 

This is not 'where the genre is going.'

 

SWTOR sank to the bottom because it was a bad game; because it was a game that not only was living in the dark ages of the first year of WoW, but also refused to acknowledge that the way people approach these games is beginning to shift yet again. It didn't fail because people were 'looking for that F2P experience.' Anyone who eats up a line like that from EA is a sad and sorry individual.

 

The fact is, F2P is where bad games go to die, and that hasn't changed just because a few poor 16-year-olds run around the internet screaming about how it's 'the future.' F2P is the glue factory for Kentucky Derby horses that break their legs. The big money is in the subscription model, and will continue to be in the subscription model. WoW proves this (and, make no mistake, WoW isn't losing subs because it's P2P either -- it's losing subs because the game is closing in on a decade of age and people are tired of it. White knight? Hello! SOMEBODY SWEEP ME OFF MY FEET!).

 

Rather, what has changed are player expectations.

 

While I'm not by any means claiming the sandbox is the future, I think players are increasingly looking for the following: challenges, comradery and individuality. The Facebook fad is already passing us by; those worthless souls who polluted this genre with their lack of any skill have moved onto Angry Birds and Farmville. What's left is a larger crowd composed of basically the same people MMORPGs started with -- diehards looking for action. And the game that's going to unseat WoW; the game that's going to be 'the next' game (my 'white knight) will cater to those people, and less to the 'GIMME IT RIGHT NOW' crowd. 

 

This theoretical game will give players the tools to be heroes rather than shoving their unearned majesty down their collective throats. It will give them the ability to do what they want (within reason); play how they want; slay how they want. The sandbox might be dead, but the message people should take away from TOR isn't that the subscription model is finished, but that the time of the half-***ed themepark is over. From now on, you either do it different, you do it spectacularly, or you don't do it at all.

 

In closing, I'd like to once again praise EA for being such AMAZING and UPSTANDING citizens of the gaming world. There's nothing like seeing a company claim that 40% of the 700k(ish) or so people who had quit since launch stated that the 'subscription model' was the primary reason for canceling. First of all, that's an outright lie. Second of all, yeah, we all had an issue paying money for crap.[mod edit] So, in that sense, yes, of course all of us who quit had an 'issue' with the subscription model. I don't like subscriptions for bad games. Voila.

QFE^

I couldn't agree more if it bit me on my ass.

Been saying all of this for years, and each time I get attacked by kids whom glorify "F2P" like it's some sort of saviour simply because they don't have a job or don't know how to manage money well enough to put $15 aside each month to have UNLIMITED ACCESS to their favorite game.

Hell, look at the Koreans, their primary model is PAY BY THE HOUR. Most people don't even understand, at all, what fantastic lives they live where they can just throw money worth a Pizza once a month at a decent game to waste their time in socializing with people whom live all over the world.

FreeToPlay == the Future my foot. Only fools and children, or paid-off fools, would believe that line from EA.

I guess, the future is, milking the cow better than you did before. It is not F2P. It is not that simple.

- We will see pre-order/-purchase betas as a rule to get some initial cash flow.

- Most games will sell their boxes / downloads at launch and of course expansions. Some will not (especially the asians), in order to advertise with the term "free"

- A lot of games will have a subscription, at least at the beginning. The hype will allow them to milk the maximum during a short phase of about 6-12 month this way. 

- All games will have a cash-shop. The subscription based games just with a very smart shop with cosmetics, services and such. But their entire architecture will be ready to switch to F2P on the fly whenever needed. With afterwards an extended cash-shop. Perhaps not P2W, but much more nasty than before. 

I guess TSW is the 1st game of this type. Starting with everything you can do in order to milk the customer and then customize your very flexible milking machine over time accordingly. We will see TSW going F2P soon, and this transition will be the smoothest in history, because it was planned from the very beginning.

I am either surprised that the good old economical modell of "Skimming off Excess Profits" took more than 10 years to make in into MMO-industry.

PS: And some guys will never learn, how MMO works, like Mr. Smedley and his weird freemium model. Milking should not be too obvious, because humans are no cows.

Originally posted by mbrodie

LOTRO, GW(B2P though), Aion, Vanguard (going F2P), DDO, AoC unchained and numerous other games which have become more thriving in players then before when they were P2P would like to have a word with you about how F2P is horrible. i dont mind paying a sub, i'm currently subbed to TERA, TSW and WoW, but i also enjoy the shit out of Aion F2P and guild wars 1 (doing my unlocks).

I don't see how you can do it, be playing so many different MMORPG's at the same time.  I am challenged to master the combat rotations of my 5 different builds in TSW, let alone the interfacce of multiple MMO's. I salute you!

I'm a one MMO at a time player, and I prefer they last a long time if possible, because it takes me a long time to really understand them.  (I played EVE 3.5 years and still only comprehend about 1/2 of what that title offers)

What I see the future of almost every AAA title is the initial release with a sub model, some may offer F2P options at start, definitiely will have a cash shop at launch, better to first get the initial box price, then milk the paying sub base for as long as it holds up, 6 months to a year at tops (who knows someone might even get lucky and string it out like WOW did) and then quickly convert to a F2P/Sub hybrid for the rest of the titles life.

It will all be part of the plan rather than reactive as it has been in the past.  I'm pretty sure Funcom has had TSW's conversion along these lines built in right from the start and they'll jump to the hybrid F2P model in a flash.

Originally posted by Kyleran

 

What I see the future of almost every AAA title is the initial release with a sub model, some may offer F2P options at start, definitiely will have a cash shop at launch, better to first get the initial box price, then milk the paying sub base for as long as it holds up, 6 months to a year at tops (who knows someone might even get lucky and string it out like WOW did) and then quickly convert to a F2P/Sub hybrid for the rest of the titles life.

 

 

Agree, exactly, what i said.

The game of the future will have a proactive infrastructure and design, able to adapt the business model on the fly. This way maximum profit is generated and every possible loss of profit due to transition is avoided. Today the F2P transitions are still reactive and less profitable as they could be.

Well, you still have to make a good game for a the real big money.

     The sub model might not be dead.. but in my eyes it is..  Games today are being pushed out the door with minimal content and charging a premium fee ontop of it....  From now on, I'm focusing on F2P or B2P games..  After Rift and TOR, I've learned my lesson on sub based models..  NO thanks.. 

A lot of people only have room for one MMO

Given two equal or fairly equally fun games the subscription based game will lose out every time (to a b2p game for instance).

heres the future, please bookmark my post.

59.99 box price

Full cash shop

F2P conversion of said box price after 8months-1 year.

More added to cash shop

Life support.

Amount spent on game? maybe 20-50mil

Amount earned after full cycle completes and coders have been fired, 100mill +.

The egg on your faces? priceless

Originally posted by alexanys1982

heres the future, please bookmark my post.

 

59.99 box price

Full cash shop

F2P conversion of said box price after 8months-1 year.

More added to cash shop

Life support.

 

Amount spent on game? maybe 20-50mil

Amount earned after full cycle completes and coders have been fired, 100mill +.

The egg on your faces? priceless

I'll bookmark this just to throw it back in your face when Titan smashes sales record utilizing the tried-and-true model.

Originally posted by Humphrie

Originally posted by ste2000

EVE has now 500K subscribers and they are not thinking of going F2P, because those 500K subscribers a month means 5 Million dollars per month or 60 Million Dollars a year of revenues

 

The truly wonderful thing about EVE is that the game was essentially designed from the outset to be niche, and thus the following that they have developed over the years is nothing short of a massive windfall, because I am sure that their operating costs have remained relatively low, even as growth has taken hold.

 

I wish we'd see more games like that, TBH -- games with a sub model designed to cater to a small audience; games that acknowledge that the market is flooded at the moment, and whose designers realize that, if you do it right, 500k subs a year can be a very profitable business.

 

Part of the problem with MMOs right now is that everyone big is trying to be THE GUY. Eventually, it's true, someone else will be THE GUY. However, it'd be interesting and nice if fewer people tried to be THE GUY, and instead were content with being A GUY.

I actually didn't like EVE.  And I love pvp/rvr games.  In the end, the pvp wasn't tactical enough for me, and the things I adored (the intrigue, politics and economy) it took me too long to enjoy them.

Yet EVE's devotion to their goal still inspires me.  They have a purity that is refreshing for a game company.  They made a niche.  And then they said "how can we make the niche better" not "how can we maximize short term subs."  And they continue to make money hand over fist.

While the raw revenue isn't what TOR is, you can bet your last penny that the ROI on EVE is expotentially better than TOR.

Originally posted by Baddogbill

The scam is paying a subscription ...please explain what WoW has done with the 15$ a month folks have paid for the last 3 years. The reasoning that because you pay for something  makes it better ...need I go any farther than the fact people pay 2-3$ for bottled water that comes out of the same tap that someone else pays 0.005$ to drink and flush down their toilet.

 

WoW has lasted almost a decade.  If you can find me a F2P game that delivered value to its customers the way WoW did for the time it has.....

When a game is this old, you are going to basically get inertia.  But they have rebooted the way they approached the game with Cataclysm (for better or worse) and they are doing so again with Mists of Pandaria (again, for better or worse.)

You don't have to like WoW (I hated it) to admire at how they have remained the top dog, and how even when they are failing (they are down to around 9 million subscribers), they lose more subscribers in a year than most games get playing for the entire span of that game.

People still think WoW is an anamoly.  They became the top dog through a combination of brilliant research, easy marketing, a gold plated reputation, and good fortune.  And they've remained the top dog through continuing to keep their game relevant maybe not to veteran gamers like those that visit this site, but they stil bring in people every day.