Deny, Blame, Deny, Blame, Deny, Blame

Criminals and Corporations share this response to failure.

Once cable tv and theater movies didn't have commercials then someone realized people would pay for a service with commercials.

Subs aren't dead, but cash shops are here to stay.

swtor didn't die because it was sub. It died because to much money was dumped into it. You should only spend as much money on a game that you can realistically expect to make off of it (at least then you break even).

Originally posted by lifeordinary

 

Population of LOTRO is still quite healthy considering how old it is now. So yes in long run F2P model does work. Ioreover SW IP also helps and game is still new so i am quite sure that they will double or tripple their profits with F2P model.

No way a 200, 000 + player base for a game like LOTRO is considered as a 'trouble'. That is a very decent player base for P2P title.

But since Turbine saw the jump in profits with DDO, they decided to go with same model for LOTRO.

Ok, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Opinions come in many flavors, as does Kool-Aid.

Originally posted by tiefighter25

Originally posted by lifeordinary

 

Population of LOTRO is still quite healthy considering how old it is now. So yes in long run F2P model does work. Ioreover SW IP also helps and game is still new so i am quite sure that they will double or tripple their profits with F2P model.

No way a 200, 000 + player base for a game like LOTRO is considered as a 'trouble'. That is a very decent player base for P2P title.

But since Turbine saw the jump in profits with DDO, they decided to go with same model for LOTRO.

Ok, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Opinions come in many flavors, as does Kool-Aid.

Yes it is my opinion that 250 000 player base is very decent for P2P. How many P2P titles hit 10 mill like WOW anyways? or even get to be at 1 million or 500K and stay stable there for many years? FF MMO was the only exception and even there too majority of subs came from Asian players. so it frequeted between 300K to 400K subs for many years.

So yes i completely disagree tha LOTRO went F2P because 250, 000 player base spelled doomed for the game. Majority of P2P titles would kill to have that many players.

If you don't have anything better to say atleast don't try to undermine my opinion by using words like 'kool aid'. That is very low.

Originally posted by busdriver
Someone call Blizzard that they're doing it wrong.

Wow have been out for 8 years and people are addicted so that is not really proving anything.

I still think EA is just trying to cover up their misstake but for Blizzard to prove or disprove anything you need to wait 2 more years (or more) until Titan releases.

It is my opinion that P2Ps flirt with itemshops is causing a problem to the model though.If future P2P games includes all content and actually get free updates instead of paid expansions the model will live on for a long time. But most companies seems to both want to eat the cake and keep it and that isnt really possible anymore.

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by busdriver
Someone call Blizzard that they're doing it wrong.

Wow have been out for 8 years and people are addicted so that is not really proving anything.

I still think EA is just trying to cover up their misstake but for Blizzard to prove or disprove anything you need to wait 2 more years (or more) until Titan releases.

It is my opinion that P2Ps flirt with itemshops is causing a problem to the model though.If future P2P games includes all content and actually get free updates instead of paid expansions the model will live on for a long time. But most companies seems to both want to eat the cake and keep it and that isnt really possible anymore.

 I think that GW2 will probably be the death knell for themepark P2P...

But I dunno, I think that a game remaining profitable with a P2P model for eight years actually is an argument in favor of P2P being viable.  Saying that you have to ignore something because it has remained successfuly with the P2P model for a long time doesn't make much sense to me.

In fact, I think that WoW even gives more credence to the P2P model's viability because it has remained dominant with the P2P model despite a legion of F2P competitors and the fact that it is eight years old.

Originally posted by lifeordinary

Originally posted by tiefighter25

Originally posted by lifeordinary

 

Population of LOTRO is still quite healthy considering how old it is now. So yes in long run F2P model does work. Ioreover SW IP also helps and game is still new so i am quite sure that they will double or tripple their profits with F2P model.

No way a 200, 000 + player base for a game like LOTRO is considered as a 'trouble'. That is a very decent player base for P2P title.

But since Turbine saw the jump in profits with DDO, they decided to go with same model for LOTRO.

Ok, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Opinions come in many flavors, as does Kool-Aid.

Yes it is my opinion that 250 000 player base is very decent for P2P. How many P2P titles hit 10 mill like WOW anyways? or even get to be at 1 million or 500K and stay stable there for many years? FF MMO was the only exception and even there too majority of subs came from Asian players. so it frequeted between 300K to 400K subs for many years.

So yes i completely disagree tha LOTRO went F2P because 250, 000 player base spelled doomed for the game. Majority of P2P titles would kill to have that many players.

If you don't have anything better to say atleast don't try to undermine my opinion by using words like 'kool aid'. That is very low.

I'm sorry if you don't like the term Kool-Aid, but it seemed apt to me. It is a bit sophomoric I guess.

It is generally accepted that LOTRO went FTP because it had to or shut down. Turbine spun it that it was to tripple revenue. You seem to be taking the same stance.

It is generally accepted that SWTOR went FTP because it had to. EA spun it that it is because P2P is no longer a valid payment model . You seem to be taking the same stance.

I'll agree to disagree and not lob in pejorative "Buzz Words".

Although I am having a hard time figuring out why FTP is the way to go, but LOTRO was a success as a sub; don't judge LOTRO by WoW's success; WoW doesn't prove that P2P is a viable payment model: therefore SWTOR which has over 500k subs should go FTP, because the 500 k means its a success but FTP maximizes profits. There's a lot of contradictions in there.

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by busdriver
Someone call Blizzard that they're doing it wrong.

Wow have been out for 8 years and people are addicted so that is not really proving anything.

No logic was found in that response, try again.

Originally posted by grimal
It's about time the big studios started admitting what many have known for some time.  This declaration is a win-win for all.

  You do understand of course EA doesn't have a clue as their recent releases like ME3, SW:tor, and DA2 have shown. EA is very much a failing company (check their stocks over the last year) So by saying you back them as knowledgable when they can't make any good economic choices themselves I'd have to wonder.

omg. show me the statistical data to how many wow players are in the eastern market instead of just speculation.

I dont think there should be one payment model to rule them all. We have choices now.

Originally posted by winter

Originally posted by grimal
It's about time the big studios started admitting what many have known for some time.  This declaration is a win-win for all.

  You do understand of course EA doesn't have a clue as their recent releases like ME3, SW:tor, and DA2 have shown. EA is very much a failing company (check their stocks over the last year) So by saying you back them as knowledgable when they can't make any good economic choices themselves I'd have to wonder.

 

a bit like taking marriage guidance advice from a 3 times divorcee

---

Originally posted by winter

---

Originally posted by grimal It's about time the big studios started admitting what many have known for some time.  This declaration is a win-win for all.

---

  You do understand of course EA doesn't have a clue as their recent releases like ME3, SW:tor, and DA2 have shown. EA is very much a failing company (check their stocks over the last year) So by saying you back them as knowledgable when they can't make any good economic choices themselves I'd have to wonder.

 

---

As long as Rock-Star keeps releasing fun Grand Theft Auto and related games, I'll be playing those, but once Rock-Star attempts an MMO game, it's game over. I also think the Skyrim MMO is a bad idea.

The TV comparison is interesting. People do subscriber to e.g. HBO and will continue to do so despite "free to watch" television. It is all about value.

And that is what EA seem to have missed.

Sure going F2P should boost the population - it kept Anarchy Online afloat for year. And has boosted the numbers for lots of other games ... at least the initial numbers. After all we can all sign up. We can all be counted as players of 20, 50, 100 or more F2P games. There are very few that any of us will play at any one time however.

Zynga data simply confirm what we all "know" - that most F2P players pay nothing or very little. and lots of advertising is needed to replace churn.

EA are going to need millions of F2P "subscribers" and millions of new F2P "subscribers" every month even if they only need a fraction of the 500k they talked of to cover their costs. 

Originally posted by Kyleran

They've misunderstood their exit interviews.  They assume that 40% won't pay a subscription, I maintain most of them will (since it really is a small amount of money) if the content is worth the buyers time.

Apparently they failed to deliver on engaging long term content, but don't seem to realize it yet.

Don't worry, when people don't stick around for the F2P version either, they'll understand the real issue.

 

+ 100. Completely agree. MMO's now a days have no content, making f2p the only option. Too many mmos that only last a couple months. What happened to worlds like Vanguard with content for a year on release?

If SWTOR was a real MMO, it would have made a killing as a subs game. It could have really been the WoW-killer, but BioWare messed it up, because it seems none of their developers ever played a decent MMO before.

They just did not understand that there is no way in hell that people will pay monthly to play a single-player game.

Personally, I think they are just clueless as to what 'Content' is and to what Features/Content/Games should use/require a Subscription model.

Saying 'Subscription Model Games are dead' is just an excuse for incompetence and lack of research/thought on their part.

Trying to milk money out of people by charging subscriptions for what is given away for free in a market is always going to turn out badly.

EA will have to work harder to get peoples money, whether work is better games or (more likely) better ways to scam people.