General Discussion

Codemasters VP David Solari talks to MSN about the recent changes to the business models for Archlord and RF Online.

With millions of people prepared to pay out hard earned cash on a regular basis for the pleasure of playing them, Massively Multiplayer Online games have revolutionised the computer games industry.

 

The likes of Lord of the Rings Online and industry behemoth World of Warcraft have accrued millions of players, and the monthly fees to get into the servers and play the game, creating a multi-billion pound industry.

 

The startling rise of broadband connectivity and the obvious desire of the game-playing public to embrace online social networking through both sites like Facebook or MySpace or games such as WoW or LotR, means that companies are flocking to the MMO arena.

 

But, can this burgeoning area evolve into more enticing ways of paying? Can those reticent to pay a monthly fee for a product be persuaded to invest time and money in a different way?

Read the rest at MSN here.

I found this quote interesting

"“We’re the first company to try this with a ‘proper’ MMO. Others have tried it but they tend to be two dimensional or lower quality. I’m not trying to knock that, it’s just that this is a different proposition.”

Hate to burst your bubble buddy but AL and RF Online are two dimensional and definately lower quality. In fact the only reason people play them is because their free.

The reason WoW and other games of similar quality can charge subscriptions, is because - well simply their good games and their worth it.

I have ALWAYS preferred playing subscription based games - there's no comparison between WoW, EQ2, EVE Online, DAOC, AC1 and AL/RFO - none.

Originally posted by zigmund

 

 

I found this quote interesting

"“We’re the first company to try this with a ‘proper’ MMO. Others have tried it but they tend to be two dimensional or lower quality. I’m not trying to knock that, it’s just that this is a different proposition.”

Hate to burst your bubble buddy but AL and RF Online are two dimensional and definately lower quality. In fact the only reason people play them is because their free.

The reason WoW and other games of similar quality can charge subscriptions, is because - well simply their good games and their worth it.

I have ALWAYS preferred playing subscription based games - there's no comparison between WoW, EQ2, EVE Online, DAOC, AC1 and AL/RFO - none.

 

 

Also your logic is incorrect (as usual). The only reason people play them is because their free? You seem to think that after a game choses a micro transaction the game magicaly loses all of it's costs. This is simply not true, the same costs apply for a p2p mmorpg. Server costs, staff, new content etc etc. People ARE paying for the game, it's not charity.

Originally posted by Gameloading

 

Originally posted by zigmund

 

 

I found this quote interesting

"“We’re the first company to try this with a ‘proper’ MMO. Others have tried it but they tend to be two dimensional or lower quality. I’m not trying to knock that, it’s just that this is a different proposition.”

Hate to burst your bubble buddy but AL and RF Online are two dimensional and definately lower quality. In fact the only reason people play them is because their free.

The reason WoW and other games of similar quality can charge subscriptions, is because - well simply their good games and their worth it.

I have ALWAYS preferred playing subscription based games - there's no comparison between WoW, EQ2, EVE Online, DAOC, AC1 and AL/RFO - none.

 

 

RF Online has been more successful then all those games you mentioned save for WoW.

 

Also your logic is incorrect (as usual). The only reason people play them is because their free? You seem to think that after a game choses a micro transaction the game magicaly loses all of it's costs. This is simply not true, the same costs apply for a p2p mmorpg. Server costs, staff, new content etc etc. People ARE paying for the game, it's not charity.

RFO is not more successful than EQ2, EVE Online, DAOC or AC1. Not a chance.  They are good enough to get people to pay to play them. Games go F2P when they can't get people to pay to play them, pure and simple.

If you made a game that was good enough for people to pay to play it you would - it's as simple as that.... as a company you make more money with subscribers than item malls. The only reason you would go to a F2P model is if your game wasn't drawing enough players. So you make it F2P and then hope players are dumb enough to buy mall items to help them get thru the miserable grind of a game.

The majority of players attracted to F2P games are unemployed people or students on budgets who can't afford a subscription fee. A great demographic to base your game's success on.

Tell me something Gameloading why doesn't CM go F2P for LOTRO?

I'm dieing to know "your logic" for that one....

Originally posted by zigmund

 

Originally posted by Gameloading

 

Originally posted by zigmund

 

 

I found this quote interesting

"“We’re the first company to try this with a ‘proper’ MMO. Others have tried it but they tend to be two dimensional or lower quality. I’m not trying to knock that, it’s just that this is a different proposition.”

Hate to burst your bubble buddy but AL and RF Online are two dimensional and definately lower quality. In fact the only reason people play them is because their free.

The reason WoW and other games of similar quality can charge subscriptions, is because - well simply their good games and their worth it.

I have ALWAYS preferred playing subscription based games - there's no comparison between WoW, EQ2, EVE Online, DAOC, AC1 and AL/RFO - none.

 

 

RF Online has been more successful then all those games you mentioned save for WoW.

 

Also your logic is incorrect (as usual). The only reason people play them is because their free? You seem to think that after a game choses a micro transaction the game magicaly loses all of it's costs. This is simply not true, the same costs apply for a p2p mmorpg. Server costs, staff, new content etc etc. People ARE paying for the game, it's not charity.

 

RFO is not more successful than EQ2, EVE Online, DAOC or AC1. Not a chance.  They are good enough to get people to pay to play them. Games go F2P when they can't get people to pay to play them, pure and simple.

If you made a game that was good enough for people to pay to play it you would - it's as simple as that.... as a company you make more money with subscribers than item malls. The only reason you would go to a F2P model is if your game wasn't drawing enough players. So you make it F2P and then hope players are dumb enough to buy mall items to help them get thru the miserable grind of a game.

The majority of players attracted to F2P games are unemployed people or students on budgets who can't afford a subscription fee. A great demographic to base your game's success on.

Tell me something Gameloading why doesn't CM go F2P for LOTRO?

I'm dieing to know "your logic" for that one....

 

You don't make more money with a subscribtion fee. While you will gain 15$ a month from every player, thats the absolute maximum you're going to get. There are many players who spend that amount, and more, each week in item malls games.

Why doesn't CM go F2P for Lotro? That's pretty easy. first of all, Lotro is build as a p2p mmorpg from the ground off. It's difficult to switch from p2p to f2p if it hasn't been implanted from the ground up. Second of all, Item shop models are still a new thing that has been brought over from korea. Turbine (who also has a saying of the subscribtion model CM uses) is simply not up front when it comes to innovation in payment. SOE on the other hand is, which currently has 2 micro transaction MMORPG's in development.

I played RFO and AL. And to be frank, the article on speculation from both of you is quite wrong.

1. RFO goes F2P = CCR.INC insist CM to go F2P in order for them to get full support for further on patches and content expansion.

2. AL goes F2p = Cm wanted more players in the game.

RFO is successful but not in the Western market. 3 regions of game sales currently exist that is Western, Eastern and Asia. And you cant compare RFO with EQ2 or WoW etc..

And oh, RFO is not worth playing. Item shop prices is really insane compare to others. 1 regularly used premium item could cost you a month of any P2P MMO subscription.

This is a bit off topic but in the article on the MSN page here - http://tech.uk.msn.com/features/article.aspx?cp-documentid=6521108  - does anyone know which game the top picture is from?  The one with the blue haired girl and beast thing.  Please let me know! :)

Originally posted by Gameloading

 

Originally posted by zigmund

 I found this quote interesting

"“We’re the first company to try this with a ‘proper’ MMO. Others have tried it but they tend to be two dimensional or lower quality. I’m not trying to knock that, it’s just that this is a different proposition.”

Hate to burst your bubble buddy but AL and RF Online are two dimensional and definately lower quality. In fact the only reason people play them is because their free.

The reason WoW and other games of similar quality can charge subscriptions, is because - well simply their good games and their worth it.

I have ALWAYS preferred playing subscription based games - there's no comparison between WoW, EQ2, EVE Online, DAOC, AC1 and AL/RFO - none.

RF Online has been more successful then all those games you mentioned save for WoW.

 

Also your logic is incorrect (as usual). The only reason people play them is because their free? You seem to think that after a game choses a micro transaction the game magicaly loses all of it's costs. This is simply not true, the same costs apply for a p2p mmorpg. Server costs, staff, new content etc etc. People ARE paying for the game, it's not charity.

I will never ever play a micro transaction game, even if every MMOG in existance adopts this type of revenue system. Subscription based MMOGs are the only way to attempt to keep the playing field level. If the developer is gonna support RMT, then the game is not worth playing.

Originally posted by RedwoodSap

 

Originally posted by Gameloading

 

Originally posted by zigmund

 I found this quote interesting

"“We’re the first company to try this with a ‘proper’ MMO. Others have tried it but they tend to be two dimensional or lower quality. I’m not trying to knock that, it’s just that this is a different proposition.”

Hate to burst your bubble buddy but AL and RF Online are two dimensional and definately lower quality. In fact the only reason people play them is because their free.

The reason WoW and other games of similar quality can charge subscriptions, is because - well simply their good games and their worth it.

I have ALWAYS preferred playing subscription based games - there's no comparison between WoW, EQ2, EVE Online, DAOC, AC1 and AL/RFO - none.

RF Online has been more successful then all those games you mentioned save for WoW.

 

Also your logic is incorrect (as usual). The only reason peopl