Originally posted by TrunksZ

Also...

I beta tested this game and I can say that if this game was B2P with a cash shop I would've bought it and I probably would have spend way more than if I've paid a subscription fee, the reason I don't like subscription fees is because of two reasons, first, I don't see any physical reward from doing so, I know we are basically paying monthly fee for server maintenance and stuff, but I don't really see it as a reward from my 15$, even tho it kinda is. Second I really love to have the option to pay or not to, I even reward companies from doing so, I just threw 30$ in GW2 I have the gems in there waiting to be spend, I've spent about 150$ in APB: Reloaded another 300$ in LoL and every single person I know from LoL have bought at least 1 skin, I am what you call an impulsive buyer (Only in video games, because I still wear the same pair of jeans I had from 2 years ago xD) and as long as I can afford it I will keep doing it and I know people that have spend so much more than me, anyway I just thought I would leave MY opninion about it.

Is it a simple case that the $15 a month does not buy you an advantage - while other purchases do?

That can either be taken bluntly (cause for some folks it is just that) or it could be taken in lines with the discussions folks have had regarding time vs. money.  With the former, well - some folks just like to buy advantages.  With the latter, well - that's about the folk paying $15 a month that can only play a couple of hours vs the guy that plays the game like a job for that $15.  The guy that can only play a little does not stand a chance of keeping up with the other guy - if that guy feels the need to keep up.  In many F2P games, that time issue can be overcome by throwing money at the game.  It presents an equalizer of sorts.

It's generally about who has the advantage - because either side would be lying if they were to say it did not exist.  Folks either have time or they have money (yes, some folks have both).

Originally posted by Zikari
This news is the first one that is making me believe the game is going down. Ragnar was quoting they are staying true to their vision while going forward in the State of The Game Issue, then the Lead Designer leaves. Not good, I think the game won't be able to get back up or at least future content will be suffering by this. (For the record, I love it and am Lifetimer)

The Secret World is Ragnar's creation. It's his baby and he's been working on it since way before development of AoC even started.

The Secret World is basically the continuation of his Longest Journey / Dreamfall games.

So while it sucks the Lead dev is gone (as he is responsible for the technical design of the game systems). He was still only materializing Ragnar's vision.

So as long as Ragnar stays on the helm, it's no problem to have a new lead dev step in and continue working on Ragnar's vision / roadmap.

Now... if Ragnar would leave the team.... yeah... then I would start getting worried too.

Originally posted by JeroKane

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by Nitth

So if you cant get someone to pay a sub, how are you going to get them to by from a store?

---

 

If they are not willing to pay sub, they might be willing to pay for something else.

That I think you would agree is not unreasonable way of thinking.

If people are not willing to pay for a sub, they won't spend a dime in the store either.

History has shown that F2P games are always way more expensive to play that subbased games.

In a P2P game I pay a monthly sub and I know what I am getting. In a F2P game I don't!

Not everyone realize this "truth" to F2P games. Even if some realize this already, they're banking on the possibility that they won't be spending as much as subscribing monthly. Bottom line is the price barrier to entry is gone for F2P games. There's a possibility that you spend more, but it's up to you if you want to.

I for one plan to try SWTOR out when it goes F2P. I don't know yet if I will like it enough to buy stuff from their store, but I will play. It simply opens up that possibility.

I also played Champions when it went F2P. I bought a costume pack.

EDIT: I'm not saying TSW should go F2P. Personally if it went F2P I still wouldn't play it untill they changed the animations.

Originally posted by JeroKane

If people are not willing to pay for a sub, they won't spend a dime in the store either.

 

This is such nonsense. I spent about 50€ on AoC because I bought packs to unlock dungeons and classes.

I never got beyond level 44 but I don't regret buying because I know, should I go back all the things I bought will still be there. I would have never bought anything or even tried the game if AoC had sticked to the subscription model.

Now tell me that the 100k subscribers of TSW are the majority and the millions of people like me, jumping from game to game, buying stuff from the cash shop, are the minority.

Originally posted by Dakeru

Originally posted by JeroKane

If people are not willing to pay for a sub, they won't spend a dime in the store either.

 

This is such nonsense. I spent about 50€ on AoC because I bought packs to unlock dungeons and classes.

I never got beyond level 44 but I don't regret buying because I know, should I go back all the things I bought will still be there. I would have never bought anything or even tried the game if AoC had sticked to the subscription model.

 

Now tell me that that 100k subscribers of TSW are the majority and the millions of people like me, jumping from game to game, buying stuff from the cash shop, are the minority.

You're one person.  Not sure why you're speaking for millions.

Wouldn't it be better to see if you can't find the actual numbers from a given company about how many of their players spend more than $15 a month in the various RMT shops...and then if those folks are actually in the majority - bring that up.

Othewise, even though what JeroKane said - while it might be an overgeneralization - would still apply to the majority.

Originally posted by VirusDancer

Originally posted by Dakeru

Originally posted by JeroKane

If people are not willing to pay for a sub, they won't spend a dime in the store either.

 

This is such nonsense. I spent about 50€ on AoC because I bought packs to unlock dungeons and classes.

I never got beyond level 44 but I don't regret buying because I know, should I go back all the things I bought will still be there. I would have never bought anything or even tried the game if AoC had sticked to the subscription model.

 

Now tell me that that 100k subscribers of TSW are the majority and the millions of people like me, jumping from game to game, buying stuff from the cash shop, are the minority.

You're one person.  Not sure why you're speaking for millions.

Wouldn't it be better to see if you can't find the actual numbers from a given company about how many of their players spend more than $15 a month in the various RMT shops...and then if those folks are actually in the majority - bring that up.

Othewise, even though what JeroKane said - while it might be an overgeneralization - would still apply to the majority.

Cause TSW has 100k subscribers - so where is the rest?

Are you really saying TSW is earning Funcom a larger revenue than AoC?

Originally posted by Dakeru

Originally posted by VirusDancer

Originally posted by Dakeru

Originally posted by JeroKane

If people are not willing to pay for a sub, they won't spend a dime in the store either.

 

This is such nonsense. I spent about 50€ on AoC because I bought packs to unlock dungeons and classes.

I never got beyond level 44 but I don't regret buying because I know, should I go back all the things I bought will still be there. I would have never bought anything or even tried the game if AoC had sticked to the subscription model.

 

Now tell me that that 100k subscribers of TSW are the majority and the millions of people like me, jumping from game to game, buying stuff from the cash shop, are the minority.

You're one person.  Not sure why you're speaking for millions.

Wouldn't it be better to see if you can't find the actual numbers from a given company about how many of their players spend more than $15 a month in the various RMT shops...and then if those folks are actually in the majority - bring that up.

Othewise, even though what JeroKane said - while it might be an overgeneralization - would still apply to the majority.

Cause TSW has 100k subscribers - so where is the rest?

Are you really saying TSW is earning Funcom a larger revenue than AoC?

Why would I really be saying that - when I did not say that at all?

You spoke for millions of people.  You're not millions of people.  You're you.  Just you.  You can't speak for millions of people.  Perhaps you've gotten feedback from some friends - so yeah, you can pass along what they've said and done.  That's not going to be millions of people.  You can't speak for millions of people.

That's something I really said.  It's up there - you even quoted it.

So rather than suggesting that people spending money in the cash shops are in the majority, would it not be best to get the numbers from the company on how many folks playing the game are spending money in the cash shop?  What JeroKane said was not about how much is being spent in the cash shop, but rather it was about the number of players spending money in the cash shop.

Say you have three players.  One of the could spend $50+ a month in the cash shop, and the company would generate more revenue than if they had three subs...but that's only 1 out of 3 players.  That's a minority.  Of course, this is just a random example.  I still say it would be best to get the actual numbers from the company on what percentage of players spend money (more than $15, given sub cost) in the cash shop each month.

If the percentage is larger for those that do than those that do not...tada, you've got a majority.  Otherwise, you do not.

Without something like that, you can't say that millions of players are spending money in the cash shops.  It's just a made up number.  Pointless.

That's something I really said.  It's up there - you even quoted it.

My talking about TSW vs. AoC revenue?  Um... something else you made up?

edit: I'm being plagued by typo demons...arrrrgh!

Withought quoting all that again. You even just pinpointed why f2p is a better model for revenue than subscriptions.

You have a very large potential number of players and a few of them will spend enough money worth several subscriptions.

The point here is that people will not just shy away because they don't want to pay a monthly fee for a game they might not even like.

So f2p leads to more players ingame which leads to more players buying stuff because the servers won't appear as empty.

And yes I do speak for millions because I don't want to pay a monthly fee and then worry that I might be too busy with work and Uni to even make any use of my money. 

Now tell me that this simple logic is hard to grasp.

Funcom had already adapted to the modern market with AoC. Why they tried subscriptions again on TSW just to lose 80% share value and to fire half of their staff is beyond me.

Originally posted by Dakeru

Originally posted by JeroKane

If people are not willing to pay for a sub, they won't spend a dime in the store either.

 

This is such nonsense. I spent about 50€ on AoC because I bought packs to unlock dungeons and classes.

I never got beyond level 44 but I don't regret buying because I know, should I go back all the things I bought will still be there. I would have never bought anything or even tried the game if AoC had sticked to the subscription model.

 

Now tell me that the 100k subscribers of TSW are the majority and the millions of people like me, jumping from game to game, buying stuff from the cash shop, are the minority.

Someone posted an interesting buch of statistics from a ftp game on how many people actually went to the store and spent cash on DLC. I can't remember the exact stats but the vast majority of players didn't spend much time on the game, left and never came back online again after under 6 hours of playing. A smaller percentage played regularly but never spent money, while a larger % spent some money, around $5. but the top 10% of players, mostly hardcore PvP spent on average $50 a month with the top 1% spending something around $300. The only stat that really shocked me was the last one.

To be honest, I tend to stay away from ftp games, I just don't like the idea of exclusive items apearing into a virtual world because you pay real money for them. A game loses it's integrity in my eyes when things like that happen. I don't mind so much vanity items or character transfers name change etc. But doubt XP, higher loot drops, defence and attack buffs or special weapons just cross that line for me.

I'm really sorry to hear that. I remember Martin from many TSW videos i saw. I sound really down to earth and just a normal gamer. Look like a cool, nice guy. I hope he stays well. Best of luck to him.

As far as TSW, well it's no secret it's not doing very well. And i don't think F2P will cause much changes.

The problem this game faces is simply that it didn't recover the production cost. If i'm correct, it was around 50 million, the "standart" for mmorpgs. If you can't even get out of the red zone from launch, then it's quite bad.

The problem with turning F2P is that they lose the mandatory box price and the sub. They also already have cash shop in place. I think doing the switch would only hurt it. Yes, more people would definitely play it, but how many would actually waste any money on it?

That's the danger of CS dependancy. It may turn out good or bad. Also, while some mmos are doin great with this model, many are completly failing and in the red.

Sad, because i think TSW has some unique, innovative features.

Originally posted by Dakeru

Withought quoting all that again. You even just pinpointed why f2p is a better model for revenue than subscriptions.

Um, nope - I didn't.  I gave a random example of 3 players.  Yes, there's the potential that if you get 1/3rd of your players paying for the other 2/3rds of your player - or paying more - then it would be a better revenue model.

You'd need to show that you have that though - so no, I didn't pinpoint where it was a better model.

For a game that's not making any money, then a model that makes money - would obviously be a better model.  There's no arguing that, as long as that model continues to make enough money to generate a profit.  If it doesn't, then that model would actually cost the company more and be worse off than if they were just to close the game down.

You have a very large potential number of players and a few of them will spend enough money worth several subscriptions.

Potentially...

The point here is that people will not just shy away because they don't want to pay a monthly fee for a game they might not even like.

Well - obviously - if there is no upfront cost, you're likely to have more people look than if there is a box cost.  It's one of the reasons that many folks will start off wtih an open beta so people can try the game before they buy - and - will later introduce a free trial so people can try the game before they buy.

The little old ladies that pass out samples of sausages and crackers in the grocery store are offering a trial - folks might never have tasted those sausages and crackers if not for them standing there.  It's a trial - an incentive - to get you to buy the product.  It's not an incentive for you to slip the sausages and crackers inside your coat and leave without paying.

So f2p leads to more players ingame which leads to more players buying stuff because the servers won't appear as empty.

There's no proof of any causality with that.  That's speculation and a markteing pitch.  It actually works better for Freemium models - if it's to be believed.  People are more likely to continue subscribing if there are other folks there that are playing, whether they are paying a sub or not.  It has nothing to do with anybody buying anything from a cash shop.

And yes I do speak for millions because I don't want to pay a monthly fee and then worry that I might be too busy with work and Uni to even make any use of my money. 

No.... you speak for yourself.

Now tell me that this simple logic is hard to grasp.

 ...still waiting for you to share some logic...

Funcom had already adapted to the modern market with AoC. Why they tried subscriptions again on TSW just to lose 80% share value and to fire half of their staff is beyond me.

With AoC?  So you don't know what a Froob is, eh?

Originally posted by Nitth

 

---

Originally posted by tank017

---

Originally posted by Nitth  

---

Originally posted by tank017 now that the game is complete for the most part,his services are probably no longer needed.     that said,that doesnt mean the game isnt hurting.They really need to make it F2P.A lot of people are no longer willing to pay a monthly fee.

---

  How is the game going f2p going to help revenue and fun factor?

---

if anything it'll get more people in the door.

 

If it means spicing up the online store,then im sure they'd oblige.F2P,B2P or whatever.. its most likely inevitable..

---

 

So if you cant get someone to pay a sub, how are you going to get them to by from a store?

Because most people aren't very bright, and think that F2P is actually cheaper than paying $15 a month and be able to EARN everything in game. F2P is an illusion, and you will eventually have to start paying in a F2P game if you want to compete at a high level or do everything the game has to offer. Funcom made the mistake of double dipping, which is sort of a turn off for me. I love the sub model, but many people hate it now. I don't get it.

It just proves low / medium created mmo's with aburd box + sup + cash shop aint going to survive anymore.
You need to created something fantastic to be able to surive, something special.

Buy to play would have been much better gamle for Funcom, but people alrady knew what was comming from Funcom so it would have been a rough time anyway for them.

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Another thing.

What the hell did EA do to justify their logo plastered all over the box and loading screen.

Same thing that most co/publishers do...