Originally posted by iceman00

 

Damn, that kool-aid is awesome no?

When a game launches with 2.4 million, and 6 months later is "above" 500k, that isn't a success!

Nothing else to say.  That's a huge amount of kool-aid drinking.

So, when you make more money in a month than you spend, you consider that an unsuccessful month?  It's easy to classify anything as a failure if you use a different definition of success for every product/service.

Originally posted by CazNeerg

Originally posted by toddze

Originally posted by Arawnite

I've never met anyone in any MMO that has decided to quit because of the payment method or amount.

It's always based on them not enjoying the game anymore, for various reasons. As far as I'm concerned, the original sub amount is moot.

Yes your right about that, but there is a big crowd out there that will not play a game with a sub. So the F2P version more so targets them atleast IMO.

Its becoming a disturbing trend, release as P2P then go F2P in 6-8 months. But then again these type of games are not MMO's.

EDIT: TSW will be another example of this, they will milk subs until they hit the low target mark then go f2p in 6-8 month

Let me guess, you are one of those who thinks "Not a sandbox" = "Not a MMO?"  It has become a trend, and I agree that TSW will be another example of it.  But why is it disturbing?  Why do so many people have an emotional attachment to not having the option to play a game without a subscription?  When did having choices become a negative thing?  When they are done well, Freemium conversions lead to a situation where subscribers are getting more content while paying the same amount as before, while new players get the ability to save money by only paying for the parts of the game they want.  Everybody wins, except for people with an apparently totally baseless and irrational hatred for the hybrid model.

If you would look at my sig you would see my favorite MMO is FFXI, which is nothing close to a sandbox. Its themepark and as themepark as you can get. But you know what, in its hay day it had a diversity of rides, something these new MMO's do not have. And it was not instant gratifaction rides. You had to actually climb stairs to get to the top of the ride which made the ride all that much sweeter, instead of these new mmo's that give you a damn elevator to the top of the ride.

Other than that you totally missed my point, Its disturbing because the Devs are just milking money. Why not just release it f2p, or b2p w/shop to begin with?

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by TheBigDRC

 

It's making them money sure, but by sucking their customers money out like a vampire. Freemiums are blood-suckers, leechs, parasites.

Everything in a freemium would cost you.

Want to access this zone? $7 for a month.

Want to make better gear? $10

Want to join in the raid tonight? $12

I'm not going to deny that, at a business view-point, it's effective. And with so much moeny flowing in they gotta spend it, need more stuff to keep people spending. It's just not good for the consumer in the long run.

As far as I know, every freemium game out there offers the a la carte version or a sub and you get everything.

So the consumer has a choice.

As far as I can think there is no "freemium" model out there that provides everything for the subscriber.  They all have to hit the cash shop for quest packs, expansions, some unlocks, and what not.  If the gamer's monthly allowance doesn't provide enough game cash (and it rarely does for the significant items such as expacs) then they either have to save over several months or pony up for more points.  This is true for LotRO, EQ2, DDO, and I'm pretty sure for AoC too, but it's been a while since I've played that one.

In all, the restricted freemium types seem the most restrictive and "nickle and dimey" to me.  STO and Aion maybe sell buffs and boosters and some power items, but at least I can play their game and spend as I want.

In any game model (P2P, freemium, F2P, B2P) there are grind traps that keep players paying more either through time or the cash shop (or sometimes both).

DCUO's Freemium model gives me everything except a few cosmetic appearance items.  Certainly I get all the ingame content every content pack etc.

Not every Freemium model is the Cryptic/Turbine kind.

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by CazNeerg

Originally posted by Paragus1

I respectfully disagree.  The fact that the biggest budget MMO ever made is going free to play in only 7 months after release can't not be interpretted as anything short of a massive failure. 

Yes.  But the massive failure isn't that it is going Freemium too early, it's that it didn't do so from day one.  It's the most appropriate fit for the way the game is designed.

That is it exactly.  The same can be said for most P2P games at this point.  What I'll be watching is how many more shift to F2P and how many stick to remaining P2P.  I can see TSW moving this way and RIFT too.  I just don't see people sticking with the sub model anymore with so many game options available now that don't require a sub and more are on the way.

Why would RIFT go that way?  RIFT is actually pretty profitable.  They prove that as long as you make a good game, people will pay.  Same with EvE.

You might like F2P.  But the idea that all these games need to go F2P doesn't follow.

Originally posted by toddze

 

Other than that you totally missed my point, Its disturbing because the Devs are just milking money. Why not just release it f2p, or b2p w/shop to begin with?

That I agree with, they should have, but my suspicion is that the suits just won't let go of the dream of lightning striking twice and being the second coming of WoW.  Once that dream finally dies, we will probably see games launching with monetization models that make sense, rather than vainly chasing unicorns.

Originally posted by iceman00

 

Why would RIFT go that way?  RIFT is actually pretty profitable.  They prove that as long as you make a good game, people will pay.  Same with EvE.

You might like F2P.  But the idea that all these games need to go F2P doesn't follow.

Not all games "need" to go Freemium.  But it is observably the case that every game which has has seen increased profits as a result.  The real question, in my opinion, is if you trust the judgment of a development team, why would you want them *not* to go Freemium?  What is the inherent disadvantage?

I play all free to play games except for LotrO.

Originally posted by CazNeerg

Originally posted by iceman00

 

Damn, that kool-aid is awesome no?

When a game launches with 2.4 million, and 6 months later is "above" 500k, that isn't a success!

Nothing else to say.  That's a huge amount of kool-aid drinking.

So, when you make more money in a month than you spend, you consider that an unsuccessful month?  It's easy to classify anything as a failure if you use a different definition of success for every product/service.

I consider something a "success" if you recoup your investment and make a strong profit.  That they've lost 75% of their subscriber base in 6 months and are going to F2P, as well as EA's stock tanking, I think that's pretty concusive evidence we aren't looking at a success.

Now there's a more subjective one, and that's did you get a good return on your investment.  I can't answer that question, but the market seems to have responded with not just no, but hell no.

Never played SWTOR, as I never was interested even though a big SW fan, but.....

Just another failed MMO going Pay2Win. Isn't there enough P2W mmo's out there now, let alone adding another one.

Good luck to those who stay with it, I know the few friends that played left very quickly with a sour taste in there mouth, maybe it might get lucky and actually get more players. Time will tell.

Originally posted by iceman00

 

I consider something a "success" if you recoup your investment and make a strong profit.  That they've lost 75% of their subscriber base in 6 months and are going to F2P, as well as EA's stock tanking, I think that's pretty concusive evidence we aren't looking at a success.

Now there's a more subjective one, and that's did you get a good return on your investment.  I can't answer that question, but the market seems to have responded with not just no, but hell no.

In my opinion, if we are going to measure based on total cost vs. total revenue, rather than cost vs revenue on a month to month basis, then one can't logically describe TOR as a success or as a failure, from a financial standpoint, until one of two things happens; they recoup all of their development costs and turn a profit, or the game shuts down.  It is highly unlikely tht anyone outside EA is going to be provided the necessary data to make that judgment.  We don't know for sure what they spent, we don't know for sure what they've made.  But technically speaking, the game won't be a failure unless it fails to make a substantial profit over the lifetime of the product.  The Freemium conversion is likely to substantially extend the lifetime of the product, giving it more time to become successful, if it isn't already.

As for the market, TOR doesn't have it's own stock price, and it isn't EA's only product.  Trying to pin an entire company's stock woes on a single game is a little silly, compared to a lot of their other products, TOR is an absolute gem.

EDIT:  It would be nice if people stopped treating "not as successful as people hoped it would be" as if it were equivalent to "not successful."  They are two different standards, and the word seems to get misused more often than not on these forums, not just in regard to TOR.

Originally posted by Tanvaras

Never played SWTOR, as I never was interested even though a big SW fan, but.....

Just another failed MMO going Pay2Win. Isn't there enough P2W mmo's out there now, let alone adding another one.

Good luck to those who stay with it, I know the few friends that played left very quickly with a sour taste in there mouth, maybe it might get lucky and actually get more players. Time will tell.

Ah, one of the people who has clearly not played many Freemium games.  I have yet to see one that gives users of the cash shop any substantial gameplay advantage over anyone else.  Maybe try actually playing them before trash talking them?  Can you buy gear in some of them that is better than trash loot off of mobs?  Sure, you can grab +2 Swords from the Turbine shop in DDO.  Can you buy gear that is better than gear you earn at the same level from quests?  Not in any game that springs to mind for me.

The schadenfreude on one side is opposed by massive cognitive distortions on the other. Take your pick as to which psych vocab word you find least maladaptive.

Oh, and to those asking for SWG back; depending on which estimates you believe for current TOR players, SWG at it's peak had somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of what TOR has now, it's peak was many years ago, and it's engine is horribly dated.  Add to that, if a miracle occurred and they did bring it back, it would be the NGE SWG that virtually nobody actually liked, not the one that could have been described as innovative and worth saving.  But keep dreaming, it doesn't hurt anything.

Wow that article was the biggest pile of biased dung I've read in a while.

Subscription based games are still very viable format, and will continue to be, also many players still prefer this format.

HOWEVER, with good F2P games out there players are no longer willing to pay just to access the servers.  If you are a subscription game you must provide VALUE to the player.  SWTOR failed to do this plain and simple.  SWTOR failed to release content in enough quanity and quality to keep players subscribed.   WoW is the exception because of their massive existing player base that already has a huge investment in the game and are reluctant to quit.  Any game going against WoW in the subscription space however, must absolutely release content at least as quickly and of similar quality as Rift.

My simple question to all the SWTOR FTP is the messiah people is as follows, if Bioware couldn't put out enough content to keep people interested when EVERYONE was paying $15 a month, what makes you think they will be able to when most players will be paying nothing?

Originally posted by CazNeerg

In my opinion, if we are going to measure based on total cost vs. total revenue, rather than cost vs revenue on a month to month basis, then one can't logically describe TOR as a success or as a failure, from a financial standpoint, until one of two things happens; they recoup all of their development costs and turn a profit, or the game shuts down.  It is highly unlikely tht anyone outside EA is going to be provided the necessary data to make that judgment.  We don't know for sure what they spent, we don't know for sure what they've made.  But technically speaking, the game won't be a failure unless it fails to make a substantial profit over the lifetime of the product.  The Freemium conversion is likely to substantially extend the lifetime of the product, giving it more time to become successful, if it isn't already.

As for the market, TOR doesn't have it's own stock price, and it isn't EA's only product.  Trying to pin an entire company's stock woes on a single game is a little silly, compared to a lot of their other products, TOR is an absolute gem.

EDIT:  It would be nice if people stopped treating "not as successful as people hoped it would be" as if it were equivalent to "not successful."  They are two different standards, and the word seems to get misused more often than not on these forums, not just in regard to TOR.

First, accept an apology.  I was treating you as just another blind fanboi, and yet you actually give a reasonable response here.

You are of course correct, we will not have all the data.  Unless you are pretty high up the chain for the companies, chances are you never will.  You can only go based on the way certain winds are blowing, or if you've got an insane hunch that pays off.

Here's what we know.  TOR had 2.4 mill in its first month.  7 months later, they have anywhere between 500k and 1 mill subscribers.  Best case scenario, they've lost around 60% of their baseline they started with.  Worst case, they lost 75%.  I wouldn't go around calling that successful.

Now on the revenue front, we don't know for sure, but the fact that they've gone to F2P given their resistance to it before so quickly shows i think a bit of worrying.  Right now, the game isn't profitable.  Could it be profitable?  Of course.  Could it be successful?  Of course.

Will the freemium model extend the life of this game?  Most likely.  Yet I believe the problem with this game wasn't that it was sub based.  I think the problem was the game didn't provide value, not for the 60 dollar box price (I'm honestly stunned the slicing it to 15 bucks didn't get anyone talking more), and certainly not for 15 bucks a month.

Other Freemium games offer value. Other B2P games offer value.  Do I think TOR, as it stands right now, would be able to survive beyond 6 months?  No, I don't.  Was lack of revenue really the problem for delivering new content?  All these questions sorta impact how you think this will do.

And then there's the return on investment question.  Let's just say theoretically, the game plus marketing cost 500 mill.  Was it worth tying up all that capital for 7 years, if it makes a two million dollar profit?  Certainly not.

400?

300 mill?

200 mill?

We can't answer these questions, but the market can.  And while you can't price EA's stock solely on the basis of TOR, it would be equally naive to say that EA's gutter stock price hasn't been affected by the rather poor ROI TOR is offering.

F2P can fix this.  But I think the successes of DDO, LOTRO aren't really applicable to TOR.  But I think I'm getting a little too far down the rabbit hole here,.

Originally posted by CazNeerg

Oh, and to those asking for SWG back; depending on which estimates you believe for current TOR players, SWG at it's peak had somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of what TOR has now, it's peak was many years ago, and it's engine is horribly dated.  Add to that, if a miracle occurred and they did bring it back, it would be the NGE SWG that virtually nobody actually liked, not the one that could have been described as innovative and worth saving.  But keep dreaming, it doesn't hurt anything.

I don't want SWG back but cmon, that's a clown comparison bro.

The MMO market around the time of SWG when it had 250k was vastly different than today's MMO market.  That doesn't mean SWG was a success, but by saying it is "between 1/3 and 1/2 of what TOR is now", as if that's an apples to apples discussion, is just, in the words of Charles Barkley, "turrible'

You may disagree with an honest opinion that this game doesn't deserve to be succesful, but some of us still remember how you sacked one of your regular writers over his honest opinion that SWTOR is a pretty lousy attempt at making a MMORPG.

SWTOR is a nice reminder of how arrogant developers and publishers can be in search for more money - copy/paste games won't cut it anymore, also not listening to their fanbase.

Space-on-rails in probably the most expensive MMORPG ever made is one of the most laughable aspects of this FAILURE of a game.

Future ? This game has no future, it has failed, right now the ink is still drying on the pages of the Guinness book of World records for the 'Record for the biggest MMO flop ever goes to: SWTOR' entry.

The game will get put on life support, we will see miniscule updates spun to the players as 'content' updates whilst they manipulate the gameplay mechanics and microtransaction store in order to maximise the fleecing potential of the game.

Wow, thanks F2P, I'm so glad this wonderul payment model is here to save every one of these games that fail /sarcasm.

F2P is a blight on MMO games and the sooner the F2P bubble bursts, and it will, the better.

All just my humble opinion.

sadly i knew this would happen even before the game released... so there!

Originally posted by wizyy

You may disagree with an honest opinion that this game doesn't deserve to be succesful, but some of us still remember how you sacked one of your regular writers over his honest opinion that SWTOR is a pretty lousy attempt at making a MMORPG.

SWTOR is a nice reminder of how arrogant developers and publishers can be in search for more money - copy/paste games won't cut it anymore, also not listening to their fanbase.

Space-on-rails in probably the most expensive MMORPG ever made is one of the most laughable aspects of this FAILURE of a game.

Couldn't agree more!

Ever since a few years ago when there was a dev panel by some major devs who said they foresaw the future of MMOs going toward a f2p model, this site has been all about putting a positive spin on f2p, as if it's the god send cure for a shit game. LOTRO did it right, after years of subs and tons of consideration to everything involved. Now you have other MMOs who are true failures on a sub basis try to save a sinking ship by switching over to f2p.

Guess what? You have other powerhouses coming out soon (one that is designed not to have a sub) and one that is a WoW expansion. SWTOR is DEAD, trying to spin any other story is pure stupidity.

A 200-500 million game bleeding subs and going ftp in just over half a year cannot be spun in any other way than catastrophic failure, sorry.

However its a good thing. It sends a clear msg to developers to create original mmo's that have longevity in mind.

Shame on them pure LIES! FAKE FREE TO PLAY with locked level like fake world of warcraft, like fake dungeons and dragons and conan and few more, games with locked content etc, dont waste your time if you look for real free game where you not forced to buy anything, try runes of magic, there you even can earn chash shop money and get anything like anyone,use google and you will find tonns of real free games!