Trending Games | Guild Wars 2 | Shards | World of Warcraft | WildStar

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,905,461 Users Online:0
Games:757  Posts:6,294,384
Above and Beyond Technologies | Official Site
MMORPG | Genre:Sci-Fi | Status:Development  (est.rel 2014)  | Pub:Above and Beyond Technologies
Distribution: | Retail Price:n/a | Monthly Fee:n/a
System Req: PC | Out of date info? Let us know!

The Repopulation Forum » General Discussion » Free to Play, why?

8 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Last Search
150 posts found
  Eir_S

Novice Member

Joined: 8/07/11
Posts: 4703

GW2 socialist.

4/30/13 11:03:18 PM#21
The opinion that P2P keeps out the "undesireables" is just that, an opinion.  The best community I've ever seen was in a B2P title.  The worst was in a P2P one.
  Asheram

Advanced Member

Joined: 3/24/10
Posts: 1912

What happens when you get 5 stars do you get a cookie? ;)

4/30/13 11:15:41 PM#22
Originally posted by Eir_S
The opinion that P2P keeps out the "undesireables" is just that, an opinion.  The best community I've ever seen was in a B2P title.  The worst was in a P2P one.

+ 1

I agree, I have seen far worse communities in some P2P games I have played than any of the f2p games I have tried.

  ReaperUk

Hard Core Member

Joined: 9/20/06
Posts: 622

4/30/13 11:49:05 PM#23

I don't know why so many people are in denial regarding F2P and B2P being the predominant business models for MMO's going forward. You've only got to look at the games list on this site to see how few MMO's use the subscription model anymore. Most of the ones that do are aging games with tiny player numbers too. Eve and WoW are the notable exceptions.

I realised last year that it's unlikely I will ever be tempted to buy a subscription game again. I have bought and played numerous ones over the years but have never stayed with any of them beyond the first two or three months other than SWG, which I played for about eighteen months continuously until the CU ruined it., Indeed I had multiple subscriptions being a mayor and guild leader.

That is the way the MMO industry worked back in the early days and the alternatives also required a monthly sub so there wasn't much choice. However, Guild wars turned everything on its head by being buy to play and a year or so later, I got into the early stages of the LotRO closed beta and was impressed enough that I leapt at the chance of a lifetime sub when it launched in 2007. Since then, I've tried a few F2P games and never felt ripped off by any of them. I just bought  things as and when needed, on a pay as you go basis. Most recently, I've been playing GW2 and Defiance, both B2P and with most of the sub games I played in recent years also going F2P once their populations fell I now have a pretty large choice of games available to me that don't require a sub.

Any new game has to appeal to people like me and I'm sure the Repopulation people are going in the right direction with their financial plans. I'm really looking forward to this game and just hope it turns out as good as it sounds. It's not like I'm expecting something for nothing, I've already pledged a chunk of money to help with development costs but if it had been slated as a monthly sub game, I probably wouldn't have done that.

  Hodo

Advanced Member

Joined: 6/05/08
Posts: 559

5/01/13 10:10:29 AM#24
Originally posted by reaperuk

I don't know why so many people are in denial regarding F2P and B2P being the predominant business models for MMO's going forward. You've only got to look at the games list on this site to see how few MMO's use the subscription model anymore. Most of the ones that do are aging games with tiny player numbers too. Eve and WoW are the notable exceptions.

I realised last year that it's unlikely I will ever be tempted to buy a subscription game again. I have bought and played numerous ones over the years but have never stayed with any of them beyond the first two or three months other than SWG, which I played for about eighteen months continuously until the CU ruined it., Indeed I had multiple subscriptions being a mayor and guild leader.

That is the way the MMO industry worked back in the early days and the alternatives also required a monthly sub so there wasn't much choice. However, Guild wars turned everything on its head by being buy to play and a year or so later, I got into the early stages of the LotRO closed beta and was impressed enough that I leapt at the chance of a lifetime sub when it launched in 2007. Since then, I've tried a few F2P games and never felt ripped off by any of them. I just bought  things as and when needed, on a pay as you go basis. Most recently, I've been playing GW2 and Defiance, both B2P and with most of the sub games I played in recent years also going F2P once their populations fell I now have a pretty large choice of games available to me that don't require a sub.

Any new game has to appeal to people like me and I'm sure the Repopulation people are going in the right direction with their financial plans. I'm really looking forward to this game and just hope it turns out as good as it sounds. It's not like I'm expecting something for nothing, I've already pledged a chunk of money to help with development costs but if it had been slated as a monthly sub game, I probably wouldn't have done that.

What you said is exactly how I feel.   I cant expand on it any further, well said.

So much crap, so little quality.

  Darkcrystal

Hard Core Member

Joined: 5/06/10
Posts: 793

5/16/13 1:06:17 AM#25

I have replied about this on a different post, I study Game Production and been in the industry the market is moving away from F2p, because its  a bad method,  some games it works for, some it doesn't , this game it won't work.  They shouldn't go sub based either, most people hate subs today, I like them, but I been running a community for 14 years most games play 2 -4 games and can't afford a sub with all these games, they should do what Defiance, TSW and GW2 does, Buy the game and sell stuff in the store.

 

I mean F2P ruins community's and cheaters will take over watch and see...  I have high hopes for this game minus the F2P model, they need to hire someone with some marketing sense, alot of companys fail short due to bad marketing and no sense of payment model

This game may not do that well with F2P, because any gamer with any sense will leave due to all of the cheaters and whiners, that F2P bring, so they need to rethink this, which I doubt this will, which I think could be the death of it, I have played every MMO to date nearly and can tell you what these games bring, and by making games, and studying I think this game would do well if they sold it, for like 50 bucks, like the other MMO's... Sell stuff in the store and be done with it, win , win for everyone.....

 

F2P sigh.... Who ever is in charge of this, should be open minded.......

  JC-Smith

Hard Core Member

Joined: 5/02/11
Posts: 353

5/16/13 2:28:18 AM#26

@DarkCrystal: Defiance, TSW, GW2 had huge advertising campaigns running, pre-existing IPs, and were on store shelves. You don't see the difference between that and an indie company with online distribution? Putting a barrier of entry on this game would prevent many gamers from trying it in the first place. There is a stigma against indie titles after many disappointing games over the past few years. 

My background is also in the MMO game industry since 1997, starting in the media and database development, and moving on to more of a technical and development role in the later years. To say that the industry is moving away from F2P is highly debatable. Yes, a handful games have begun moving to box + store. Not so much to keep out the free to play players though, but because the box sales are a quick injection of cash, and then they can use the store in place of subscription. It should also be noted that TSW did not start as a box + store model, it started as subscription and moved to free like so many games before them. T

I don't think you can say that the subscription communities are much better than free to play communities at this point. Have you tried using the Group Finder in WoW recently? When you have a large number of players who will often never see each other again and do not need one another, its easier for people to be jerks. That happened when games all became very soloable. In the old days people had to be relatively social due to the forced grouping mechanics. If they were jerks they would only really have other like-minded players willing to group with them. Those players have certainly always existed though. Subscription or no subscription. Now it's easier for them to get away with things like power looting, clicking Need on things they just want to sale, or generally just acting in poor manners. Because even if their group boots them, they are just one group finder or one battleground away from a new one.

There is more to lose from being a problem player due to the up front cost, but that doesn't seem to stop trouble players. It is only really a problem in entry level areas, because while players may not be investing $50 up front, they are investing time. Nobody wants to have a character they have spent, weeks, months, years progressing get banned, even if they never paid a penny. And it certainly doesn't stop gold farmers. There are other avenues that can be taken to fight things like spammers. An option to block global or area chat from non-members, for example, as well as the normal ignore options.

We don't want to put up any barriers of entry on players. The more players we can get exposed to our game, the better. If the game doesn't meet up to their expectations, they can move on with zero risk. That puts the honus on us to retain those players. That's all we can ask for really.

  Eir_S

Novice Member

Joined: 8/07/11
Posts: 4703

GW2 socialist.

5/16/13 8:35:55 AM#27
Originally posted by Akerbeltz


I think the ideal model for a substantial MMORPG is a subscription based one

Unfortunately (for you anyway, I prefer B2P), more companies are moving away from subscriptions all the time.  What's really left that has stayed a sub game for more than a year or two?  WoW and EVE.  Nothing else stays that way, even if it starts that way.

  DeVoDeVo

Apprentice Member

Joined: 1/07/13
Posts: 89

5/16/13 8:59:38 AM#28

A subscription model does not provide game stability.  What it does provide is no way for the developer to recoup income when a player cancels his subscription.  Subscription models are no more stable than FTP models because players can and do cancel their subscriptions at any time.  With a dual sub/FTP model, the developer at least has a revenue stream if subs drop.

Games like Neverwinter have just about perfected the pure FTP model.  They have learned the hard way through STO trials on the best way to provide a game for free by using the player base to farm for whales.   You can best bet that any newer subscription games coming out already have contingency plans for a FTP conversion.  And they won’t hesitate when the subs drop.

  CrazKanuk

Elite Member

Joined: 10/06/09
Posts: 1458

5/16/13 9:06:18 AM#29
Originally posted by Akerbeltz

Thing is the other day I almost fell of my chair when I found out in The Repop Website that the payment model was to be Free to Play based.

 

Why would you fall off your chair? I would fall off my chair if it had been announced as subscription only. There hasn't been an MMO released in the past couple years which has survived a subscription model. So as disappointed as you might be, I'm sure you'd be more disappointed if you subbed for 8 months and then they shut it down. F2P is the most sustainable model at the moment. B2P is another good model to achieve high initial sales, but it's the maintenance that suffers down the road, so cash shops usually come in anyway. Subs are like horror stories these days. There isn't a single subscription sweetheart I can think of in years upon years. Who would be your subscription posterchild? Dont' say WoW or EVE. 

Crazkanuk

----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------

  Yalexy

Novice Member

Joined: 12/17/10
Posts: 1039

5/16/13 9:19:22 AM#30

Look at the feature-list of The Repopulation and then tell me that it's not going to be a P2W-game if it isn't subscription based but F2P instead.

Another game down the drain before it even went live.

Competitive PvP, especially in a sandbox title with territorial warfare etc, you need a leveled playingground, which is only achievable by giving everyone the same access to the game. PvP turns into P2W as soon as you make the game F2P and sell items like potions or gear in the cashshop. The Repopulation FAQ states that they won't sell such items, but you can be 100% certain that there will be, as they have been in every F2P-title so far.

Bad decision is bad...

  Loktofeit

Novice Member

Joined: 1/13/10
Posts: 12401

Currently playing EVE, SMITE, ArcheAge, and Combat Arms

5/16/13 9:23:39 AM#31
Originally posted by JC-Smith

The three largest reasons:

  • For an indie title, getting people to try the game is half the battle. You don't have a large marketing budget. You spread through word of mouth. It's much easier to gain players in a free to play title because there is no barrier of entry. If someone tells their friend to try a game, it's easy for them to hop right in and play together.
  • It's tough for any game to maintain a healthy audience long-term as a subscription title with so many free options out there these days. The result is games generally sell well, then die off more quickly than they did in the days when there were few options and trying each had a price tag.
  • Players generally will cancel old subscriptions to try new ones, which takes players out of your world and worsens the experience for everyone else. Free to play titles allow players to play other games, but check in from time to time, which aids the community as a whole.
  • Many titles now ship with subscription to get their box sales and initial profit, and then switch to free to play later when it's clear that they are hemmoraghing players. The problem in that case is that the perception is then that they are doing poorly which hurts customer opinion. Server merges create a similar problem.
I'm not saying that the subscription model doesn't work. It definitely does. But there is also a reason the bulk of upcoming titles are going the free to play (or the box price and no subscription) route. It's simply a healthier model for most games.
 
I think a lot of players dislike F2P simply because of the implementations in certain games they have played previously. It is annoying to have paid a box price and subscription for a game, to see it later turn free to play and you notice that you would have spent so much more to unlock all the classes, races or content than if you had just paid the box price and subscription. To see that it's free to play but the only way to unlock everything is to still pay a subscription. Or to find that the only way to play competitively is to spend money.

Those are problems with the implementation though and not the model. Developers are still trying to find what they can and can't do, and some are still trying to nickel and dime players for as much as they can get. That's certainly not the approach being taken with Repop though. We value free players. And the membership options are similar to just a box price with no subscription (with the lower end ones being cheaper). Aside from some skill gain bonus potions (which give a much smaller bonus than in many of the other titles out there), there really won't be any performance gain from cash shop items. You'll be unlocking perks (more bank space, more inventory space, more mission slots, etc), purchasing cosmetic items (purely cosmetic/no stat differences), and the like.

The difference really just comes in how developers perceive free players. A common way early on of treating non-paying players was to make their lives difficult so that they either quit or paid. Some games still use that same approach. But the approach Repop (and numerous other free to play titles) is taking is that free players are valuable to the game. Sure you need paying customers to stay afloat. But when you create a game where only paying customers can play effectively,  you drive away free players. And that is a bad thing. Those players add to the community. Maybe one day they turn into a paying customer, maybe not. But maybe they introduce someone else to the game who does. Maybe they have or become friends with players who are and their being around makes the other players happy.

Noone enjoys an empty world. MMOs are about being social. We'd rather have 50,000 players with only 5,000 of them paying than we would to have 5,000 subscribers. And the reality is with free to play, if you build it they will come. Getting a large number of players to try your game isn't difficult with a free to play title. They have nothing to lose except for download time. Free to play gets them in the door, and then it's up to developers to create a product that will keep them there. That's all you can really ask for.

That's not to say free to play is a perfect model. It is more difficult to get rid of problem players without a barrier of entry. But noone likes to use months (or years) of work. The problem players in free to play titles are generally gold spammers and things of that nature. You can circumvent them with ignore commands, report and auto-detection methods. Overall you just have to weigh the bad with the good. And there are more positive things to be gained from free to play than a subscription model for this title.

Stop posting, dammit. Every time you post here or update the KS project i want to throw money at your team. You're making me think irrationally, and I do not like it. ><

That said, PMing you with questions about bumping a pledge.  :o

 

"And wikipedia is as accurate as Britannica. Wikipedia is very reliable. You would be hard pressed to find a more reliable source for these kinds of things." -fivoroth

  itchmon

Hard Core Member

Joined: 1/21/07
Posts: 1603

5/16/13 9:24:50 AM#32
Originally posted by Dihoru
Originally posted by CyclopsSlayer
F2P is the death of Community. Players seem to feel much more dedicated to a P2P world, when it comes to things like Guilds and group activities. In every F2P game I have played so far guilds and such groups seem to fail time and time again as people feel little need to log on and work together. RP seems to be in need of a strong group and coordinated activity, F@P does not support such.

Aside from EVE and WoW name two communities of P2P games which are dedicated to their game more than the best F2P communities, until such a time keep your opinions under the format of opinions not facts.

FF11 comes to mind.

the "freemium" communities of LOTRO-Landroval and EQ2- Antonia Bayle as well.

RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.

Currently Playing EVE, DFUW

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.

Dwight D Eisenhower

My optimism wears heavy boots and is loud.

Henry Rollins

  keenber

Advanced Member

Joined: 7/10/07
Posts: 439

5/16/13 9:37:43 AM#33

Damn bad news i thought this was gonna be a good game and they ruin it like this oh well . And to the guy who was talking about crfting stuff drop from mobs wont make it ptw well doh they can just make the combines fail untill you buy stuff from the shop.

Well at least we have EQnext coming at that gonna be freemium so i can get my sub and not wory about bag space and other silly stuff.

  Yalexy

Novice Member

Joined: 12/17/10
Posts: 1039

5/16/13 9:47:44 AM#34


Originally posted by JC-Smith
The three largest reasons:
  • For an indie title, getting people to try the game is half the battle. You don't have a large marketing budget. You spread through word of mouth. It's much easier to gain players in a free to play title because there is no barrier of entry. If someone tells their friend to try a game, it's easy for them to hop right in and play together.
  • It's tough for any game to maintain a healthy audience long-term as a subscription title with so many free options out there these days. The result is games generally sell well, then die off more quickly than they did in the days when there were few options and trying each had a price tag. Players generally will cancel old subscriptions to try new ones, which takes players out of your world and worsens the experience for everyone else. Free to play titles allow players to play other games, but check in from time to time, which aids the community as a whole. Many titles now ship with subscription to get their box sales and initial profit, and then switch to free to play later when it's clear that they are hemmoraghing players. The problem in that case is that the perception is then that they are doing poorly which hurts customer opinion. Server merges create a similar problem.
I'm not saying that the subscription model doesn't work. It definitely does. But there is also a reason the bulk of upcoming titles are going the free to play (or the box price and no subscription) route. It's simply a healthier model for most games.   I think a lot of players dislike F2P simply because of the implementations in certain games they have played previously. It is annoying to have paid a box price and subscription for a game, to see it later turn free to play and you notice that you would have spent so much more to unlock all the classes, races or content than if you had just paid the box price and subscription. To see that it's free to play but the only way to unlock everything is to still pay a subscription. Or to find that the only way to play competitively is to spend money.Those are problems with the implementation though and not the model. Developers are still trying to find what they can and can't do, and some are still trying to nickel and dime players for as much as they can get. That's certainly not the approach being taken with Repop though. We value free players. And the membership options are similar to just a box price with no subscription (with the lower end ones being cheaper). Aside from some skill gain bonus potions (which give a much smaller bonus than in many of the other titles out there), there really won't be any performance gain from cash shop items. You'll be unlocking perks (more bank space, more inventory space, more mission slots, etc), purchasing cosmetic items (purely cosmetic/no stat differences), and the like.

The difference really just comes in how developers perceive free players. A common way early on of treating non-paying players was to make their lives difficult so that they either quit or paid. Some games still use that same approach. But the approach Repop (and numerous other free to play titles) is taking is that free players are valuable to the game. Sure you need paying customers to stay afloat. But when you create a game where only paying customers can play effectively,  you drive away free players. And that is a bad thing. Those players add to the community. Maybe one day they turn into a paying customer, maybe not. But maybe they introduce someone else to the game who does. Maybe they have or become friends with players who are and their being around makes the other players happy.

Noone enjoys an empty world. MMOs are about being social. We'd rather have 50,000 players with only 5,000 of them paying than we would to have 5,000 subscribers. And the reality is with free to play, if you build it they will come. Getting a large number of players to try your game isn't difficult with a free to play title. They have nothing to lose except for download time. Free to play gets them in the door, and then it's up to developers to create a product that will keep them there. That's all you can really ask for.

That's not to say free to play is a perfect model. It is more difficult to get rid of problem players without a barrier of entry. But noone likes to use months (or years) of work. The problem players in free to play titles are generally gold spammers and things of that nature. You can circumvent them with ignore commands, report and auto-detection methods. Overall you just have to weigh the bad with the good. And there are more positive things to be gained from free to play than a subscription model for this title.


There's a solution to the problem you identified....

FREE or EXTENDED TRIALS.

Give everyone a 21day free trial-time with only a very few restrictions necessary to fight gold-sellers and voilá, everyone can extensively try your game without paying. Or for a level-based MMO, simply let everyone play for free until LvL (50% of max).

F2P simply isn't going to cut it for a competitive MMO with lot's of PvP. It'll be P2W in the end, no matter how hard you try not to.

  CrazKanuk

Elite Member

Joined: 10/06/09
Posts: 1458

5/16/13 9:49:54 AM#35
Originally posted by Yalexy

Look at the feature-list of The Repopulation and then tell me that it's not going to be a P2W-game if it isn't subscription based but F2P instead.

Another game down the drain before it even went live.

Competitive PvP, especially in a sandbox title with territorial warfare etc, you need a leveled playingground, which is only achievable by giving everyone the same access to the game. PvP turns into P2W as soon as you make the game F2P and sell items like potions or gear in the cashshop. The Repopulation FAQ states that they won't sell such items, but you can be 100% certain that there will be, as they have been in every F2P-title so far.

Bad decision is bad...

Not if you make cash shop currency available for trade for in-game currency, a la Neverwinter most recently. After that, if people complain then what can you do. The only fact in the matter is that if you believe that the game could survive as a subscription game then you're delusional. Although, maybe the company behind the game has seen success with subscription in their previous games..........

Crazkanuk

----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------

  Yalexy

Novice Member

Joined: 12/17/10
Posts: 1039

5/16/13 10:22:33 AM#36


Originally posted by CrazKanuk

Originally posted by Yalexy Look at the feature-list of The Repopulation and then tell me that it's not going to be a P2W-game if it isn't subscription based but F2P instead. Another game down the drain before it even went live. Competitive PvP, especially in a sandbox title with territorial warfare etc, you need a leveled playingground, which is only achievable by giving everyone the same access to the game. PvP turns into P2W as soon as you make the game F2P and sell items like potions or gear in the cashshop. The Repopulation FAQ states that they won't sell such items, but you can be 100% certain that there will be, as they have been in every F2P-title so far. Bad decision is bad...
Not if you make cash shop currency available for trade for in-game currency, a la Neverwinter most recently. After that, if people complain then what can you do. The only fact in the matter is that if you believe that the game could survive as a subscription game then you're delusional. Although, maybe the company behind the game has seen success with subscription in their previous games..........

A MMO can easily survive with a subscription. The problem is the greedy developers and publishers, who want more and more.

Look at EvE Online and how it started and where it is today. EvE never had millions of subscribers or anything like that. But CCP kept going as it was still making a profit, even when it just had some 100k subscriptions.

For a MMO to be succesful and make a profit you don't need anymore then some 100k subscriptions, and 100k subscriptins is quiet easily achievable for The Repop.

  lizardbones

Elite Member

Joined: 6/11/08
Posts: 10942

I think with my heart and move with my head.-Kongos

5/16/13 10:28:27 AM#37


Originally posted by Loktofeit
Stop posting, dammit. Every time you post here or update the KS project i want to throw money at your team. You're making me think irrationally, and I do not like it. ><

That said, PMing you with questions about bumping a pledge.  :o

 




Heh. One of the better posts today. :-)

I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  DamonVile

Apprentice Member

Joined: 11/22/05
Posts: 4909

5/16/13 10:32:06 AM#38
Originally posted by Dihoru
Originally posted by CyclopsSlayer
F2P is the death of Community. Players seem to feel much more dedicated to a P2P world, when it comes to things like Guilds and group activities. In every F2P game I have played so far guilds and such groups seem to fail time and time again as people feel little need to log on and work together. RP seems to be in need of a strong group and coordinated activity, F@P does not support such.

Aside from EVE and WoW name two communities of P2P games which are dedicated to their game more than the best F2P communities, until such a time keep your opinions under the format of opinions not facts.

Almost every p2p game that's gone f2p had a much better community before. Just because a game can't survive anymore on p2p doesn't mean the community doesn't suffer for it.

If you can name a single one where the community got better not worse I'll agree it's just an opinion.

  udon

Hard Core Member

Joined: 12/23/07
Posts: 1631

5/16/13 10:32:50 AM#39
Originally posted by Akerbeltz

Good day:

 

My idea of a filling and fun MMORPG is one that ideally provides with a virtual world with a high degree of freedom and interaction. In this sense, The Repopulation looks very interesting, and the more I read and see about its features and current status, the more convincing I find it.

Thing is the other day I almost fell of my chair when I found out in The Repop Website that the payment model was to be Free to Play based.

I think the ideal model for a substantial MMORPG is a subscription based one: it gives a sense of exclusivity to the gamer, very especially when a particular MMORPG looks oriented to a niche public that looks for a long-term gaming experience. In addition to this, I think the subscription model in certain way ensures customer’s tranquility with regards to maintenance, missions updates, dev run events and the so. No need to mention that, in my opinion, a subscription model discourages undesirable MMO fauna (trolls, kids, MMO tourists…).

For the reasons given above, I have the sensation that FTP might not be the best model for The Repop. Anyway, this could be a personal prejudice or perhaps there’s something I’m not getting.

What is your opinion about this?

Thanks in advance!
 

I'm not opposed to a sub model in a game as I sub to EQ2 but it has to be a really good game to hold my sub for more than a month or two and I don't tend to go back to sub games after I let them drop like I might F2P or B2P games.

I think repopulation could look to Perpetuum and ask themselves if that's the level of success they wanted?  If it was then a sub might work if they are setting their sights higher than F2P is probably a better way to get people in your world and playing even though the rough patches that game is sure to experience given how small budget it is.

  Burntvet

Elite Member

Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 2790

5/16/13 10:35:17 AM#40
Originally posted by h0urg1ass

Free to Play instead of Free Trial.  Sigh.

Oh well.  Another game filed into the "could have been decent" bin.

Guess I won't be taking a break from EVE after all.

 

My feelings the same. I was following the development of this game with interest, but no longer. Never played a "F2P" game worth my time, let alone my money. If "barrier to entry" was the problem, offer the box at $20-30 and offer a cheaper sub fee (if you think a $15 sub is a bad thing). F2P is exactly the wrong thing for a game like this... "sandbox" (or a game trying to have good crafting) and cash shop don't mix.
8 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Last Search