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 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 am glad to see you finally admit that these type of micro transaction driven games are not free as advertised. You used to always argue that they were free.

 

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.

I'm sorry, I afraid you misunderstood my point. I still argue that they are free, you can play every micro transaction game without ever paying one penny. However, I never argued that there aren't people who are paying for the game.

Originally posted by Gameloading

I still argue that they are free, you can play every micro transaction game without ever paying one penny.

not true.  If you are restricted from the content that defines the game, until you pay money to access that content, then you are not "playing" the game and the game is not "free". 

Being able to log in, create a toon, and then Do Nothing doesn't constitute "free play". 

Instead of lying to people they should just be up front and call it "Limited Acces Play" or "Restricted Play" or something that describes what it really is.

Originally posted by Flummoxed

 

Originally posted by Gameloading

I still argue that they are free, you can play every micro transaction game without ever paying one penny.

 

not true.  If you are restricted from the content that defines the game, until you pay money to access that content, then you are not "playing" the game and the game is not "free". 

Being able to log in, create a toon, and then Do Nothing doesn't constitute "free play". 

Instead of lying to people they should just be up front and call it "Limited Acces Play" or "Restricted Play" or something that describes what it really is.

You get access to the entire game in most item shop games. item shops offer things like boosts and costumization. In fact, I only know one game which restricts in maps, and I can count those maps on one hand.

Originally posted by Gameloading

 

RF Online was p2p at one point and had over 1 million subscribers worledwide, and was one of the most successful korean MMORPG's. I don't remember ever hearing those games come over 300k subscribers, let alone 1 million.

I see a press release saying 1 million *players*  after 1 year of launch

www.codemasters.com/press/

similar to Guild Wars saying 4 million sold !

www.plaync.com/us/news/2007/08/ncsofts_guild_w.html

Originally posted by Nadia

 

Originally posted by Gameloading

 

RF Online was p2p at one point and had over 1 million subscribers worledwide, and was one of the most successful korean MMORPG's. I don't remember ever hearing those games come over 300k subscribers, let alone 1 million.

I dont see any press releases saying 1 million RFO subs

 

I see a press release saying 1 million *players*  after 1 year of launch

www.codemasters.com/press/

 

similar to Guild Wars saying 4 million sold !

www.plaync.com/us/news/2007/08/ncsofts_guild_w.html

It's in one of the video interviews on gamespot released before the game was released here, in which it was said the game had over 1 million subscribers.

something the BBC can agree with:

www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A9976512

"first up is RF Online, a Korean MMO that since its release in 2004 has built up a subscriber base of more than a million in the Far East"

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Nadia

 

Originally posted by Gameloading

 

RF Online was p2p at one point and had over 1 million subscribers worledwide, and was one of the most successful korean MMORPG's. I don't remember ever hearing those games come over 300k subscribers, let alone 1 million.

I dont see any press releases saying 1 million RFO subs

 

I see a press release saying 1 million *players*  after 1 year of launch

www.codemasters.com/press/

 

similar to Guild Wars saying 4 million sold !

www.plaync.com/us/news/2007/08/ncsofts_guild_w.html

It's in one of the video interviews on gamespot released before the game was released here, in which it was said the game had over 1 million subscribers.

something the BBC can agree with:

www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A9976512

"first up is RF Online, a Korean MMO that since its release in 2004 has built up a subscriber base of more than a million in the Far East"

Gameloading.... man you just don't get it.

RFO has exactly one server, one server.... that's it - ONE

One server does not make a successful game. Who cares if it's hot in Asian markets, it's not here - Asian games don't do well here in Western markets - they SUCK, plain and simple. They have to make the game free to get people to play it.

CM made RFO free on Oct the 17th, on the 25th they opened up a new server called "Lumen"

Now RFO has a total of 2 free servers.... well duh now that it's free of course you can get people to play the game - and CM is calling their games a success because they have 2 FREE servers - WoW - simply brilliant!

AC1 had 6 servers, EQ2 has 6+ servers, DAOC has 6+

The fact is I don't care about how well Asian games do in Asian markets, There are 3 billion Asians and 350 million Americans, of course Asian games have more subscribers....

DUH.

Geez... use your brain man.

Originally posted by zigmund

 

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Nadia

 

Originally posted by Gameloading

 

RF Online was p2p at one point and had over 1 million subscribers worledwide, and was one of the most successful korean MMORPG's. I don't remember ever hearing those games come over 300k subscribers, let alone 1 million.

I dont see any press releases saying 1 million RFO subs

 

I see a press release saying 1 million *players*  after 1 year of launch

www.codemasters.com/press/

 

similar to Guild Wars saying 4 million sold !

www.plaync.com/us/news/2007/08/ncsofts_guild_w.html

It's in one of the video interviews on gamespot released before the game was released here, in which it was said the game had over 1 million subscribers.

something the BBC can agree with:

www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A9976512

"first up is RF Online, a Korean MMO that since its release in 2004 has built up a subscriber base of more than a million in the Far East"

 

Gameloading.... man you just don't get it.

RFO has exactly one server, one server.... that's it - ONE

One server does not make a successful game. Who cares if it's hot in Asian markets, it's not here - Asian games don't do well here in Western markets - they SUCK, plain and simple. They have to make the game free to get people to play it.

CM made RFO free on Oct the 17th, on the 25th they opened up a new server called "Lumen"

Now RFO has a total of 2 free servers.... well duh now that it's free of course you can get people to play the game - and CM is calling their games a success because they have 2 FREE servers - WoW - simply brilliant!

AC1 had 6 servers, EQ2 has 6+ servers, DAOC has 6+

The fact is I don't care about how well Asian games do in Asian markets, There are 3 billion Asians and 350 million Americans, of course Asian games have more subscribers....

DUH.

Geez... use your brain man.

 

Maybe you don't care about  anything that happens outside the borders of the US, but I do care.

If you don't care, then put me on ignore and stop replying to my posts. If you want to hear the truth about how an MMO is doing or how a business model works, then by all means come to me and I'd be happy to explain it to you, but right now you're just wasting my time with your close minded bullshits assumptions and stereotyping.

Also RF online was mostly popular in South Korea (Something you would have known if you actually did your research first) and unless you want to claim that there are more South koreans than there are Americans, I'm afraid your "logic" has been disproved just once more.

right now I'm done with you. If you want me to continue to explain how the business model works I'll explain it to you if you keep an open mind, send me a PM. But right now you just have this mindset that everything MMO related from asia sucks and western mmo related is always superior.

Fact of the matter is that people are paying for items in micro transaction MMORPG's and these business models are successful. Micro transaction MMORPG's are successful, those are the facts.

one of the quotes from the Austin conference talk about micro transaction model:

"it's now painfully obvious that microtransactions work in North America."

You can either accept those or stick to your own assumptions.

Here we go again, same argument.  Get tired of repeating it, but show me some real numbers Gameloading.

You can't, because there are none that are reliable.  Sure these guys are making money, but to make the ludicrous statement that RF Online is more successful than those other games, come on.  People want facts on this forum, not unsupported opinions. 

Most of these f2p report anyone who even thought of downloading the client and treat them as part of the playerbase, you just cannot get reliable numbers from them.

Sure their are nutcases out there spending lots on these games, most are just ignorant that they can get tons more content and playability just playing one of these subscription games.   

I have not yet found a f2p game with even a tenth the content of many of the subscription based ones.  Most of the people who spend money on these games are short term, once they have reached the top class there is nothing more to do and they just stop playing.  And yes I have tried RF Online, it is not a bad game, yet there is tons more to do in the original release of Wow than this game has currently, where i s the longevity.  Don't get me started on Archlord, talk about a contentless game.

There is a definite niche for these games and they do make money, but let's not exaggerate their success.

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Here we go again, same argument.  Get tired of repeating it, but show me some real numbers Gameloading.

You can't, because there are none that are reliable.  Sure these guys are making money, but to make the ludicrous statement that RF Online is more successful than those other games, come on.  People want facts on this forum, not unsupported opinions. 

Most of these f2p report anyone who even thought of downloading the client and treat them as part of the playerbase, you just cannot get reliable numbers from them.

Sure their are nutcases out there spending lots on these games, most are just ignorant that they can get tons more content and playability just playing one of these subscription games.   

I have not yet found a f2p game with even a tenth the content of many of the subscription based ones.  Most of the people who spend money on these games are short term, once they have reached the top class there is nothing more to do and they just stop playing.  And yes I have tried RF Online, it is not a bad game, yet there is tons more to do in the original release of Wow than this game has currently, where i s the longevity.  Don't get me started on Archlord, talk about a contentless game.

There is a definite niche for these games and they do make money, but let's not exaggerate their success.

I have shown you numbers. Why don't you look up our last debate, where I posted the numbers of Maple Story? You know, the numbers you ignored because they did not fit with your view that those models are unsuccessful.

Perhaps you "forgot" but I'd be more than happy to show you the numbers again, just ask
I don't know the current state of the success of RF Online but what I do know is that it had 1 million subscribers at one point when it was still a subscribtion fee based game.

if Micro transactions are so horrible, then how come now big western MMO companies such as SOE are going to use micro transactions in their MMORPG's?