Originally posted by Lidane

Originally posted by sepher

Expect SOE to further move in this direction; and not in a way of RMT co-existing with subscriptions, but in a way of RMT gradually replacing subscription-based models. This is their plan, and its been made evident over and over again through Smedley interviews on the topic.

Heh. I guess looking back now, we both had some idea of where this new strategy by SOE would go, although in retrospect, you were closer than I was:

www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/134331/page/1

:)

Checked a couple of days ago so it may have changed. But still I am quite shure that you have to pay a subscription fee.

So, nah, not even close yet.

Originally posted by Orphes

Checked a couple of days ago so it may have changed. But still I am quite shure that you have to pay a subscription fee.

Actually, what I was referring to is the fact that two years ago when that NYT article first surfaced, sepher was the one who first pointed out that SOE's change in direction towards RMT would by design have to impact the current games just because of the timeline they set for themselves. I was sure they were going to abandon VG and their current games over time for their new model, but I was wrong. They're just going to incorporate the same business setup across the board, which is what he said back then.

Hence, he was right, I was wrong, although I could see that something was going to change at the time.

Given the state of Vanguard at release and the limited development resources that have been assigned to the game in the time since, Sigil/SOE should have never charged more than $9.99 from the beginning. 

Originally posted by Lidane

Originally posted by Orphes

Checked a couple of days ago so it may have changed. But still I am quite shure that you have to pay a subscription fee.

Actually, what I was referring to is the fact that two years ago when that NYT article first surfaced, sepher was the one who first pointed out that SOE's change in direction towards RMT would by design have to impact the current games just because of the timeline they set for themselves. I was sure they were going to abandon VG and their current games over time for their new model, but I was wrong. They're just going to incorporate the same business setup across the board, which is what he said back then.

Hence, he was right, I was wrong, although I could see that something was going to change at the time.

(I'm sorry, I don't only miss to type words I also miss to type out sentences. If I'm going to be sarcastic. ;)

What didn't write up was that what I remembered alot of the discussions to be about was changing current games(in this case Vanguard) to F2P with cash-shop. I didn't mean really to say that you or anyone else specific said so.

But my (general) feeling is that it have been alot of discussions about that and they are not there yet.)

Some people have stated that a cash shop would not work in VG due to the game needs to be built around it.  I don't think it would be to hard, SOE was able to implememt one in EQ 2.  The only stumbling block would be SOE would have to invest  resources in the game.

You don't have to introduce game breaking items like top notch gear into the cash shop, you can already buy that through Live Gamer (when it goes live)  The only thing I would introduce which may give players a slight advantage is things like XP, health, mana pots and maybe things like faction coins for people who want to fore go the named boss mob grind.

I would introduce loads of fluff like appearence item clothing, mounts, housing items and different skinned house's (blueprints, you still have to gather the resources to build it).  Also you could include pets, boats and extra character slots.  New content should be introduced like adventure packs i.e. Splitpaw Saga in EQ 2, but allow station pass holders to get the content for free.  I know most raiders would not be interested in fluff items, but there's alot of casual players/roleplayers who would be.

I think VG is at that stage  that SOE would have nothing to loose  by going to the F2P model.  At present the management have given up on VG, minimal dev support (they have done great on the limited resources given to them), long time periods between premier content, content not fully tested and bugs reported but not fixed before going live.

The game has got a low population, most people would put it around 20k tops.  If it went F2P and SOE advertised it I could see the population grow to well past 100k and beyond and the use of the RMT services would surpass the loss of the subscription fee with money left over to plow back into the game.  I could even see Sartok PvP server given a new lease of life.

SOE won't go F2P as it will take one game away from the graveyard of games that currently populate the Station Pass. 

Originally posted by ivan50265

SOE won't go F2P as it will take one game away from the graveyard of games that currently populate the Station Pass. 

I agree and also they want people to use these type of (RMT) sevices and still cough up the monthly sub.

Originally posted by sepher

Originally posted by Lidane

Originally posted by bjgladitsch

SOE is grasping at whatever will sucker people into spending money. 

I don't currently play any SOE games, but I'll play devil's advocate for the moment. Are they really grasping at something, or are they just evolving their business model from one that depends solely on subscription fees and the StationPass to one that allows for the use of RMT and microtransactions to make money?

Think about what they've done over the past years-- the Legends of Norrath game in EQ and EQ2, StationCash, the RMT/microtransaction based games they've bought over the years like PoxNora, etc. Taking that into account, no one should have been surprised by LiveGamer coming to Vanguard, or to any other SOE game.

What do they have coming down the pipe in the near future?  FreeRealms which isnt really free  (cash shops will rule as usual) and i think The Agency.  For a company is large as SoE..they should be cranking something new out at a faster rate than what they are doing.  EQ and EQ2 expansions are ok..but yo need something to excite players on a much higher level than Sony wants to commit too.

Free Realms, The Agency, DC Universe Online, and whatever that mysterious "flagship" game is that they're working on, which folks are assuming is EQ3. That's four new games in the works at the same time, and it's damn near guaranteed that all of them will incorporate StationCash and LiveGamer in some regard. That's the direction Sony is going in as a company, so why would any of their online games be immune?

 

 

And it's been no secret, Smedley said years ago that he'd be shifting the company away from subscription-based revenues to other models: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/business/worldbusiness/11sony.html?_r=2&oref=slogin

“Right now our revenue is almost all subscriptions,” John Smedley, the unit’s president, said in an interview. “In two years, we would like to see no more than 50 percent of our revenue coming from subscriptions, and five years from now we think less than 10 percent of our revenue will come from subscription sources.”

That interview was from June of 2007; so those "two years" are almost upon us already; and if anything it seems like SOE might be behind schedule when it comes to lessening their revenue from subscriptions.

Expect SOE to further move in this direction; and not in a way of RMT co-existing with subscriptions, but in a way of RMT gradually replacing subscription-based models. This is their plan, and its been made evident over and over again through Smedley interviews on the topic.

Two years... now it will  be three years.

Who will be first, LOTRO or VG?

I'm just saying, is Smed to be blamed for that aswell or is he (haha) just being honest on how things are/how things will turn out to be?

I think it's already been decided. No need for a poll since Turbine has announced their plans and SOE has spent 3 years doing nothing with VG.

Originally posted by Murashu

I think it's already been decided. No need for a poll since Turbine has announced their plans and SOE has spent 3 years doing nothing with VG.

Yeah, you are right ofcourse an all three points.

Still is it not a tiny bit of irony here? I remember all talk, all that comparisment made VG vs LOTRO. And then things like this, that I was quoting.

Smed getting his usual bashing in threads, like this and like threads that was made when that original interview was made. And now we see Turbine adding cash shop in LOTRO and making it F2P aswell. VG getting getting lashed at, F2P... RMT... cash shop...

(The first thing I did was laugh when I read the email I got about LOTRO. And yeah, I never had anything against LOTRO and I still do not.)

Adding: All I can see now, three years after the interview, he was just being honest on how the market is. Look back 3 years, Turbine had their mouths shut.

Year old thread resurrected fools people in thinking it's a new thread.

Shows ya how much has changed.

Just make it $9.99 a month.

If VG went F2P, I'd be all over it in a second!

This thread is very old. Please do not necro-post. Locked.

hmmm lock post but no lock :o

Originally posted by DLangley

This thread is very old. Please do not necro-post. Locked.

What, pray tell, is wrong with resurrecting an old post?  This is a good post and goes to show how long people have considered/offered the idea the OP was speaking of.

I agree that Vanguard should go F2P.  SOE should study Turbine's F2P model *very* closely as it is a *proven* money-maker.  Not only that, but it literally breathed life into the once-dead DDO.

Vanguard has *much* potential.  The main thing missing from this vibrant universe is players.  Telon is a world that is begging for population.  With F2P the game would gain the one ingredient that could make it great:  population.

Of course, that's my opinion.

Ok i'll bite. IMO I loved LOTRO and have both xpacs. I will never play LOTRO again just because it went F2P. Vanguard like LOTRO is a vey very good game. People just seem to not want depth in a game anymore and just want to max level in a few days.I think if there were major updates and/or a xpac for VG it would be much better. Again though the amount of hard core mmo players out there are getting slim and theres a lot more to choose from on the market.

I played LotRO at beta.  I played LotRO as a paying subscriber.  I play LotRO as a F2P.  The game now is FILLED with new players, and I've yet to meet ANYONE that has caused me to have a negative view of the game.  F2P has helped LotRO's population.  Not only that, but the SPIRIT of the game is STILL there.  That means that the majority of people that HAVE come to LotRO are GOOD for the community.

Imo, those that leave *just* because it went F2P aren't giving it a chance...at all.  The F2P doesn't affect the PAYING subscribers AT ALL....other than give you FULL access to the game material you OWN.  So, ya don't like the F2P aspect?  Guess what?  PAY for it!  You then have access to full features without ANY (perceived) drawbacks that you complain about.  Give it a chance.  You might be pleasantly surprised...I know I was.  The population is *really* nice.  This wouldn't be the case if it was *just* numbers.  I'm talking about a *like-minded* population that seems to enjoy LotRO.  This makes a huge difference.  This is why I would love to see Vanguard done the same way.  It wouldn't hurt the game...well, unless they actually *change* the game like they did with Galaxies :(.

Originally posted by verenov

I played LotRO at beta.  I played LotRO as a paying subscriber.  I play LotRO as a F2P.  The game now is FILLED with new players, and I've yet to meet ANYONE that has caused me to have a negative view of the game.  F2P has helped LotRO's population.  Not only that, but the SPIRIT of the game is STILL there.  That means that the majority of people that HAVE come to LotRO are GOOD for the community.

Imo, those that leave *just* because it went F2P aren't giving it a chance...at all.  The F2P doesn't affect the PAYING subscribers AT ALL....other than give you FULL access to the game material you OWN.  So, ya don't like the F2P aspect?  Guess what?  PAY for it!  You then have access to full features without ANY (perceived) drawbacks that you complain about.  Give it a chance.  You might be pleasantly surprised...I know I was.  The population is *really* nice.  This wouldn't be the case if it was *just* numbers.  I'm talking about a *like-minded* population that seems to enjoy LotRO.  This makes a huge difference.  This is why I would love to see Vanguard done the same way.  It wouldn't hurt the game...well, unless they actually *change* the game like they did with Galaxies :(.

I found lotro to always have a large Pop. Could be the servers I was on, but I never ever had issues finding groups. I will admit though that VG has Pop issues, but not because its a bad game. Its because it was pretty much made and then just thrown out there. Its odd because if they actually put energy into updates and xpacs I think more people would sub. So even if it did go free to play, I still wouldent see it working the way the game is now.

I will never play a f2p game.

More specifically, a game with a "item shop".

First, its more expensive to actually play such a game.

Second, it makes the game even more unbalanced in chances. You will actually see how much money players have. Thats a big no-no to me.

This is a game. I want to have fun, not check out virtual characters of rich people. Or even worse, show off myself.