Murasakikitsune Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 The Free to Play option is intended to give people a chance to like the game enough to buy it. If people play it and like it, they will subscribe. But as it is now, I feel restricted just from reading about it. This feeling is all in the language. Everything listed here says "limited": http://www.swtor.com/free/features(This is slightly less harsh than another list I had read somewhere, which I can't seem to find.) New players will feel like they only get half a game. WoW had this very same problem and fixed it early. If you go out and adventure too long, you get an "unrested experience penalty", and only earn 50% experience. Everyone hated it. So they changed the name, and made unrested experience normal, and rested experience a bonus. It was loved, and still loved to this day. Rather than telling new players their experience is going to be restricted, tell them what they do have access to. Battle to max level!3 species to choose from!Equip up to rare-quality items! (blues)Learn a profession!Fight enemy players in warzones or take on challenging flashpoints. Up to three a week each! Subscribe to receive:More species!Equip more powerful items!Learn additional professions!Extra access to warzones and flashpoints!A sprint ability!etc. This way, a subscription will feel more like a desirable bonus, rather than free-to-play feeling like half a game.It's entirely semantic, but semantics count. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lionflash Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 I understand what you're saying. Right now it actually makes the subscribers (me) happy. All that limited/restrictive language makes me feel glad I'm subbing, but I didn't think how it might look to a fresh player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drudenfusz Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 I understand what you're saying. Right now it actually makes the subscribers (me) happy. All that limited/restrictive language makes me feel glad I'm subbing, but I didn't think how it might look to a fresh player. Sadly I cannot say the same. I am also a subscriber and don't won't to change that any time soon, but seeing all those restrictions tells me that my friends won't return to SWTOR... and I really hoped that the F2P option might do that, but BioWare don't treat F2P members in a way they might feel welcome here and so that I as a subscriber have an advantage to have them around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murasakikitsune Posted November 14, 2012 Author Share Posted November 14, 2012 Sadly I cannot say the same. I am also a subscriber and don't won't to change that any time soon, but seeing all those restrictions tells me that my friends won't return to SWTOR... and I really hoped that the F2P option might do that, but BioWare don't treat F2P members in a way they might feel welcome here and so that I as a subscriber have an advantage to have them around. Indeed. As a subscriber, I want the game to improve as much as possible. I want it to be the best it can be! But it needs capital, and inviting new players is the #1 priority for capital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commomp Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 (edited) I play Lord of The Rings Online regularly as a life time player. When free to play came out, they had tons of restrictions for the people who chose to play without paying a month to month subscription. Even today the restrictions are there and as a player who do not pay are severely restricted by what they can do. I mean, I run around with people who can't cross a border of a river just because they don't have the expansion pack. That area that the person wants to go into doesn't have a great big wall that is apparent to the person until they try to pass it. Restrictions within a free to play game is a norm and they shouldn't get all the kicks we pay to play players receive. I mean, though it seems the world is focusing on entitlements and all, we are not entitled to anything for free. Nothing is free in life, and nothing in a game should be free either, it just isn't good business sense to give everything you have for free and expect to make any money. I mean, utopia is just a dream. Edited November 14, 2012 by Commomp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommot Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 I couldnt agree more. I thought the same thing when I first started reading about the descriptions. Instead of focusing on what F2P DOESNT get, they should focus on what they DO get. It will sound much better to the uninformed, new player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelha Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 /signed. I'm a huge supporter of this, and mentioned as much when free to play was first announced. How the free game is perceived is crucial to growth, and aside from the language itself, the implementation needs to feel inviting and not punitive. It's obviously too late to change it for release, but I hope that for the next few weeks the team will focus on adjusting the free to play model to be the best it can be. As a subscriber from day one, I am saying YES: PLEASE focus on making free to play enjoyable and INVITING, even if it comes at the expense of content. I realize this will rub a lot of people the wrong way, and others have already gotten up in arms about the "promise" of content every six weeks (please remember, they are going to try to be hitting at or as close to 6 weeks as they can for updates, but it may be late or early sometimes). For this game to succeed and continue to run, as I dearly hope, it needs to get this step right. Someone else mentioned in a different forum topic- you only get the chance to do this once. Initial release was smooth, all things considered, so remember your successes from that and apply them here. To ensure that the players drawn in from free to play remain, and HOPEFULLY SUB, their introduction needs to be INVITING and NOT PUNITIVE. (Sorry I went caps crazy on this post- just for emphasis.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andryah Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 (edited) But it needs capital, and inviting new players is the #1 priority for capital. I hear what you are saying.. but I do not agree as it is a severe over simplification of the business model IMO. Yes, they need to attract new customers. And the F2P model will. If the mere phrasing of restrictions in playing free turns someone off, that person is never going to contribute to the commercial success of the game anyway.... so it's actually better for everyone if they pass and move on to something else. People very much tend to read into something they want to hear and overly sugar coating to entice will just result in an unhappy customer. Some of the posts in this forum over the last year should be ample proof of what I am saying here. In reality a dual access subs/free model for MMOs is more complicated then any single variable or opinion of the player base. Many factors are at play and the end goal is to maximize and sustain active accounts and to extract revenue from those accounts. And it's not a cast-and-release model like some play and discard single player game. It will adust and evolve over time to adapt to and draw customers. Rather then opine on and on about what is wrong with their business model, I personally perfer to take a wait and observe approach. They have an entire team within their staff dedicated to growing and monetizing the business model, with detailed analytics and marketing data to use to drive their decision process. They are in a much better position to make informed choices as to the specifics of their business model moving forward then anyone or any dozen in the forums. /2-cents Edited November 14, 2012 by Andryah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murasakikitsune Posted November 14, 2012 Author Share Posted November 14, 2012 I hear what you are saying.. but I do not agree as it is a severe over simplification of the business model IMO. Yes, they need to attract new customers. And the F2P model will. If the mere phrasing of restrictions in playing free turns someone off, that person is never going to contribute to the commercial success of the game anyway.... so it's actually better for everyone if they pass and move on to something else. People very much tend to read into something they want to hear and overly sugar coating to entice will just result in an unhappy customer. Some of the posts in this forum over the last year should be ample proof of what I am saying here. In reality a dual access subs/free model for MMOs is more complicated then any single variable or opinion of the player base. Many factors are at play and the end goal is to maximize and sustain active accounts and to extract revenue from those accounts. And it's not a cast-and-release model like some play and discard single player game. It will adust and evolve over time to adapt to and draw customers. Rather then opine on and on about what is wrong with their business model, I personally perfer to take a wait and observe approach. They have an entire team within their staff dedicated to growing and monetizing the business model, with detailed analytics and marketing data to use to drive their decision process. They are in a much better position to make informed choices as to the specifics of their business model moving forward then anyone or any dozen in the forums. /2-cents I meant that with regards to adding the F2P model in the first place. Thanks for the input though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zilik Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 The Free to Play option is intended to give people a chance to like the game enough to buy it. If people play it and like it, they will subscribe. Thoughts? IMO... Wrong. If people play and enjoy the game with what they have for free, they will not out of the goodness of their heart say "hey i want to support the game so ill give them money", at least enough to make any difference. Its like downloading stuff off the internet, you find a song you like and download it, you generally then don't go to i-tunes or whatnot to buy a second copy just to support the band. Some might, but again IMO (Opinion) not enough to keep the company afloat and making money, it is a business after all and they need to try to entice people to spend money not just hope they will because their nice enough to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lankybrit Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 They want it to be offputting. They want Subscribers to be the preferred class of player, and want to make it really clear that at F2P, you get a much more limited experience. I see nothing wrong with that. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andryah Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 (edited) I meant that with regards to adding the F2P model in the first place. Thanks for the input though. I see. Well, moving to F2P early was a brilliant move for Bioware IMO as that end of the MMO market is growing very fast and the subscription-only market is shrinking very fast. If WoW were not counted not in the mix..... the market would be 95% Freemium today. Essentially...the entire MMO market will be off the subscripion-only model once WoW makes it's final nosedive. Edited November 14, 2012 by Andryah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katsuragisama Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 [sNIP] Battle to max level! 3 species to choose from! Equip up to rare-quality items! (blues) Learn a profession! Fight enemy players in warzones or take on challenging flashpoints. Up to three a week each! Subscribe to receive: More species! Equip more powerful items! Learn additional professions! Extra access to warzones and flashpoints! A sprint ability! etc. This way, a subscription will feel more like a desirable bonus, rather than free-to-play feeling like half a game. It's entirely semantic, but semantics count. Thoughts? I think... that you should write EAWare's marketing schemes for them. Not joking, as it's the way you worded it. I believe telling people what they could do, would definitely work better for them in the long run compared to telling people what they wont get to do. As I feel many returning players would only look at what they cannot do, and not give it another thought, or a second chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murasakikitsune Posted November 14, 2012 Author Share Posted November 14, 2012 They want it to be offputting. They want Subscribers to be the preferred class of player, and want to make it really clear that at F2P, you get a much more limited experience. I see nothing wrong with that. Cheers. It's the difference of making the game seem good by default with subscription as an irresistible bonus, rather than crap by default and a subscription is required just to make it good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andryah Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 (edited) It's the difference of making the game seem good by default with subscription as an irresistible bonus, rather than crap by default and a subscription is required just to make it good. The thing is though... in the broad playerbase that plays MMOs.... "crap" is a relative term, not an absolute metric. Edited November 14, 2012 by Andryah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knightsire Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Right now, subscriptions are there main source of income. If cash shop ever becomes more profitable to them than subscriptions, then I think we may see a reversal...as well as maybe more restrictions being lifted from the F2P cash shop players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoobooMagoo Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 I agree with the OP. The actual restrictions are fine and everything, but from an advertising standpoint, putting those restrictions in a positive light will draw more people in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achromatis Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 I agree the language is coming off as too "limited", but my main concern is some of the restrictions themselves are too... restrictive. Things like Hide Head Slot, or titles, are just plain wrong IMO. People should be able to get the feel of the more social aspects of the game, especially since its already severely lacking social elements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Urtani Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 EAware is just shooting themselves in the foot. Their F2P model is probably one of the worst things I've ever seen, and if they keep it, the game will definitely die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterdaemon Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 You are right. It's simple marketing. It's worded as if to avoid backlash from cynical subscribers rather than to attract new people. A happy medium should have been found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arodin Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 I'm glad they make it clear that F2P is very limited. Whenever I've tried out a F2P game before, I always knew going into it that the game would be anything but "free." There's always a catch. But a lot of those F2P games try to hide the fact that it's not really free. They put "PLAY FOR FREE NOW!" in giant letters on the home page and you have to really dig to find any information about what "free" really means. I like that Bioware's approach is more transparent. They call it the Free To Play Option, and it's clear that there are going to be a lot of limitations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitrikzoltan Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 The Free to Play option is intended to give people a chance to like the game enough to buy it. If people play it and like it, they will subscribe. But as it is now, I feel restricted just from reading about it. This feeling is all in the language. Everything listed here says "limited": http://www.swtor.com/free/features (This is slightly less harsh than another list I had read somewhere, which I can't seem to find.) New players will feel like they only get half a game. WoW had this very same problem and fixed it early. If you go out and adventure too long, you get an "unrested experience penalty", and only earn 50% experience. Everyone hated it. So they changed the name, and made unrested experience normal, and rested experience a bonus. It was loved, and still loved to this day. Rather than telling new players their experience is going to be restricted, tell them what they do have access to. Battle to max level! 3 species to choose from! Equip up to rare-quality items! (blues) Learn a profession! Fight enemy players in warzones or take on challenging flashpoints. Up to three a week each! Subscribe to receive: More species! Equip more powerful items! Learn additional professions! Extra access to warzones and flashpoints! A sprint ability! etc. This way, a subscription will feel more like a desirable bonus, rather than free-to-play feeling like half a game. It's entirely semantic, but semantics count. Thoughts? You are right, they are using negative language. But I think that is not meant for new F2P players, that is meant for us, subs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts