It's not the subscription model that has failed, it's MMOs that have failed. If people were worried about the price then the 1.7 million subscribers they had in March wouldn't of stayed in march from launch or better yet stay for one month or even buy the game. People left not because of the $15 but because the game itself lacks content and interest. If the game was good or updated regularly then those accounts would have stayed and eventually expand, just like WoW. F2P is just another gimmick to increase revenue from an unsuccessful game. There have actually be no real reports on if a F2P game (one that went from P2P) has been a very successful model in the long run. We've only been given details if it's success in the short run. But even P2P games has had great success in the short run right?

Dude... You have to Buy GW2 to play the game. LOTRO you don't have to buy to play it that but you have to buy restricted access. Sure both games don't have a sub, but they're NOT Free to Play. Free to Play is just a marketing ploy to make you THINK the game is free to play. Hell no. You either A. have to buy the game, B. buy additional purchases within the game, or C. Pay a sub and buy the game (WoW model). There is no Free to play. It's technically only free if you do not have to buy the game and can install it for free then play the free to play parts of it (non-restricted content). Otherwise if you want to play the restricted content get your credit card out and pay for it.

Isn't that what I am saying? There's a difference between the two. Income is generated differently between the two. Both games have cash shops, but they're different. One requires purchases for you to progress further in the game while the other doesn't. One you have to BUY to play the game while the other doesn't.

Think you're missing the point. You don't have to play the basic game of LOTRO with any purchases. LOTRO is basically free to play until you get to a point where you don't have access to content you wish to participate. Now the option to buy that content is up to you, you can buy it and continue the play or just stop playing therefore completely playing the game for free. Also some expansions of F2P games are actually free, but some of the content within those expansions cost money. Which leads you back to square one, play the basic free parts of the game and decide if you wish to participate in premium content. GW2 is B2P. The game isn't free you need to buy it before you play it. Once you buy it however, you have access to all content in the game without any restrictions (unlike many F2P games). However, GW2 will make their additional money from cash shop items that are once again optional. They will also make their money from expansions which are also B2P. Bit of a difference between the two there.

No, you don't know what you're talking about. LOTRO has the hybrid option too. You can either play it for free with restricted access or you can play all content if you pay sub. SWTOR is doing something similar where you can play certain things for free or you pay with a sub and play all content. Though with SWTOR I think you have to pay $15 initially.

Yeah but Diablo III is still the number 1 selling PC game globally and has been since release.

GW2 is B2P not F2P, there's a difference. Second GW1 was B2P as well and they never added any P2W options. Therefore, I doubt we'll ever see any P2W options in GW2.

Honestly, probably various games single player? Or perhaps they're just done with the game. If you think about it the last three Expacs had noteworthy raid bosses in them (including Vanilla had some). Arthas, Illidan, Kel Thas, Kel Thuzad, Sapphiorn (sp), Kil J, Sarages, Death Wing, and etc. I don't even know who the F*** is in MoP lore wise. So I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the Warcraft fans left since pretty much all the important lore bosses were killed.

I'll probably rise some but I don't think they're going to recover the 3 million subs.

Not surprised but where's the link? Nvm found a bunch.

Content? More like convience. I mean people were calling 1.3 Convience rather than content, because it didn't actually add any content other than LFG, and Rated WZ. So how is a new mount and color crystal considered content?

Hey I am just showing you the information and the information says F2P less than their P2P peak. We're not talking margin of error here. I love how you spin things around. But I get it you're a fan of F2P and think that games that tend to go F2P will save the game. Well if the model is successful why hasn't WoW gone F2P yet? And why did BW/EA wait until SWTOR is bleeding subs until they decide to go F2P? In fact why do all MMOs go F2P when they experience a huge decline? Yet none of them say how well the model is doing a year down the road?

So what you're giving me is all speculation.

You said they were above* their p2p levels, but they're lower than their p2p levels. So no you're wrong.

Are you ignoring all my posts? lol I think this about 3 times now. HERE IS THE LAST TIME. http://youtu.be/3xGDL6QVL-8

Based on this. http://users.telenet.be/mmodata/Charts/Subs-2.png

My graph represents paid subs and active accounts and LoTROs has dipped below their P2P peaks even after going F2P.

No it's not. LORTO are a little below what they had from their peak in 2009. The F2P clearly spike their numbers for a few months but later dropped like a rock and dip a little below their P2P peaks. http://users.telenet.be/mmodata/Charts/Subs-2.png So are you done listening to the bed time stories of F2P?

Justin Bieber and Twilight might not be Shakespeare or Mozart, however; they're successful because of A LOT OF PEOPLE LIKE THEM. For this game a lot of people still like it (so far) however, at the same time a lot of others did not like it. This game went F2P due to the game not the pay model. Once it goes F2P initially it'll gain activity but in the long run it'll be back to point A where people leave (even though it's free) due to the game itself. This has happened with all F2P games, even LOTRO.

LOTRO is back to where they were pre-F2P. F2P is not a successful model, it helps in the short run but in the long run it still turns out bad. http://users.telenet.be/mmodata/Charts/Subs-2.png

Actually you can't count Isengard as a part of the F2P credit. If anything it would be credited from the subs that were generated the priors months to even a year. Isengard was released about 2 months after F2P. That means Isengard was already nearly done before LOTRO went F2P. Therefore, since F2P they've only had one expac.

Can't really say FTP is a huge success either. We don't know how much $$ is generated from games that have gone to FTP. SWTOR won't be a better game pvp wise. Whenever there's gear involved in pvp the pvp is already tarnished because of the grind.

You missed his point completely LOL.

Just to be fair NCSoft invested heavily into GW1 as well. I'd like to see a link of those finanical reports because really companies don't show where revenue is actually generating from on a specific product. To find that out you'll have to be an actual investor or participate in investor call meetings or have a transcript of the call meetings. Otherwise just because NCsoft isn't doing well doesn't mean that it was related to GW1 sales. It obviously did well since there were many xpacs and not to mention over the years the game sold well. So I am not sure what you're argument is Cash shops? Poor story? I think you're being a bit biased.

There are surprises in a 3 faction situation, however; the problem still lies that all factions are after the same goal, so if there's 1 Big faction and 2 Smaller factions all fighting, there's a chance that the 3rd faction doesn't even participate in the battle, instead while the Zerg and the smaller group fiights it out, they steal resources (a base) that was occupied by the zerg. Which does make for a bit of dynamic play however, the zerg will quickly retrieve the lost resources sooner or later. Open world pvp doesn't work well when their's an unbalance of population and that's just population. Usually in gear eccentric games world pvp doesn't work well at all because reward objectives often get in the way of pvp. That's why Warhammer (and even Illum) sucked while, DAoC was successful (in the early years). DAoC at first wasn't gear eccentric until Darkness Rising x-pack. Also WoW pvp (early Tol Brad) experienced the same thing, players were after the gear rather than pvp for pride or fun. Illum stopped because of server stability yes, but also because players weren't pvping to pvp, they were pvping for rewards which often meant don't kill the opposing players until (if at all) they complete their objective.