curtkram Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 some of those games cost $50 million to make, some cost $200-300 million to make. there is a difference. ok, so i'm just a guy posting on an internet forum. i'm not managing a staff of hundreds of people developing an mmo. i'm not making the decision as to what payment model these games follow. what i'm doing is reading the stuff that yoshi-p said and the stuff that matt firor said. and i say to myself, who understands this business model better? me, the guy posting on an internet forum that does something unrelated for a profession in real life, or the people who spend their lives and bet their livelihoods on these decisions? since i'm humble, i came to the conclusion that they know what they're talking about better than i do. i'm not actually that humble, the degree to which it is incredibly obvious that they know more than i do is immense. i have also considered the perspective of other forum posters, who suggest that these guys are wrong. from what i know of said forum posters, they probably don't have the same qualifications as yoshi-p or matt firor to be making these judgement calls. the bottom line is that if you're developing an mmo on a $50 million dollar budget, there is a trend that suggests you might be going f2p. for mmo's that spend 10 years and/or $100+million, the trend is to release with a subscription model. swtor broke the trend. an mmo with that large of a budget should be able to easily maintain the required population to keep a subscription model viable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicKat Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 ... The industry trend is F2P, regardless of how you arrive there. My hope is that these studios would start to embrace it and design their games as F2P or B2P from the get go and avoid all the things the make the conversions annoying. IMO the industry trend is to... 1) Spend huge amounts of money to develop MMO's for people who do not play MMO's and have shown no desire to ever play MMO's. 2) Fail spectacularly to attract new customers to MMO's and simultaneously alienate the existing MMO audience. Hopefully TOR was the last gasp of this trend and they will get back to making MMO's for MMO players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yungscion Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 some of those games cost $50 million to make, some cost $200-300 million to make. there is a difference. ok, so i'm just a guy posting on an internet forum. i'm not managing a staff of hundreds of people developing an mmo. i'm not making the decision as to what payment model these games follow. what i'm doing is reading the stuff that yoshi-p said and the stuff that matt firor said. and i say to myself, who understands this business model better? me, the guy posting on an internet forum that does something unrelated for a profession in real life, or the people who spend their lives and bet their livelihoods on these decisions? since i'm humble, i came to the conclusion that they know what they're talking about better than i do. i'm not actually that humble, the degree to which it is incredibly obvious that they know more than i do is immense. i have also considered the perspective of other forum posters, who suggest that these guys are wrong. from what i know of said forum posters, they probably don't have the same qualifications as yoshi-p or matt firor to be making these judgement calls. the bottom line is that if you're developing an mmo on a $50 million dollar budget, there is a trend that suggests you might be going f2p. for mmo's that spend 10 years and/or $100+million, the trend is to release with a subscription model. swtor broke the trend. an mmo with that large of a budget should be able to easily maintain the required population to keep a subscription model viable. Keep in mind at the end of the day Yoshi and Matt are trying to sell you something. Never 100% trust anyone trying to sell you something. I love GW2, but a lot of what was said during development to the fan base was simply not true. Why? They were trying to get me to buy the product. Sub model will attract the core audience the want (old school hardcore) while not completely driving away the ancillary market they hope to capture (casual goal oriented players). But if they fail at one or the other and the numbers aren't there, I wouldn't be surprised if they are able to just flip a switch and have a full blown F2P model ready to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivy_Blackrose Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 as a Beta tester for both FF14 the 1.0 version and ff14 the 2.0 version I can honestly say FF14 1.0 was a colossal failure on an even bigger scale than many of the other failures out there. when I first got invited to the ff14 2.0 version I was like OMG why even bother testing it, but finally towards the end of closed beta I logged in and tried it.....the result was absolutely amazing, the game had changed 360 degrees, I honestly think and feel that ff14 A realm reborn is going to succeed it is gorgeous it is fun it is fast paced and there is plenty of content. I like SWTOR as well so I will play this as my second MMO but I definetly LOVE ff14. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hadoken Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 as a Beta tester for both FF14 the 1.0 version and ff14 the 2.0 version I can honestly say FF14 1.0 was a colossal failure on an even bigger scale than many of the other failures out there. when I first got invited to the ff14 2.0 version I was like OMG why even bother testing it, but finally towards the end of closed beta I logged in and tried it.....the result was absolutely amazing, the game had changed 360 degrees, I honestly think and feel that ff14 A realm reborn is going to succeed it is gorgeous it is fun it is fast paced and there is plenty of content. I like SWTOR as well so I will play this as my second MMO but I definetly LOVE ff14. That's hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilora Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Wildstar is Carbine's first MMO. While the company is made of industry veterans this is their combined first effort. We will see if they work well together TESO is Zenimax Online's first offering. Again same as Carbine this isn't the individual employees fist foray into the industry, but this is their first attempt as a team. Rift had a ton of industry experience but was Trion's first, they are now F2P The industry trend is F2P, regardless of how you arrive there. My hope is that these studios would start to embrace it and design their games as F2P or B2P from the get go and avoid all the things the make the conversions annoying. The industry trend is only F2P if you acknowledge that the trend is caused by failures of games. Trion did a horrendous job with Rift. It is a WoW clone, and much like SWTOR went F2P because it wouldn't survive otherwise. None of the F2P MMOs (including those that went F2P after a sub-launch) could be considered anything close to a AAA game. ALL of the sub-based MMOs that are currently running could be considered AAA MMOs. WoW, FFXI, EVE. Possibly FFXIV:ARR -- depending on how launch goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curtkram Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 (edited) 360 degrees puts you back where you started. . . Edited August 21, 2013 by curtkram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilora Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 360 degrees puts you back where you started. . . I was giving them the benefit of the doubt, hoping it was just a language-barrier thing. It is funny, though. "Completely changed" mixed with "complete 180" mixed with "100% better" maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockaday Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 The industry trend is only F2P if you acknowledge that the trend is caused by failures of games. Trion did a horrendous job with Rift. It is a WoW clone, and much like SWTOR went F2P because it wouldn't survive otherwise. None of the F2P MMOs (including those that went F2P after a sub-launch) could be considered anything close to a AAA game. ALL of the sub-based MMOs that are currently running could be considered AAA MMOs. WoW, FFXI, EVE. Possibly FFXIV:ARR -- depending on how launch goes. lol, final nail in the coffin for credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakler Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 No mention about the game's voice acting fail. "Full voice over! ... Wait, no. Just the main story." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImpactHound Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 No mention about the game's voice acting fail. "Full voice over! ... Wait, no. Just the main story." I wouldn't mind, just like in DCUO. I don't need voice acting for why I'm killing ten droids on the side. It's forced and fake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicKat Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 No mention about the game's voice acting fail. "Full voice over! ... Wait, no. Just the main story." And how did voice acting save TOR exactly? People like it when it's done well but nobody ever played any game specifically for the voice acting. Any MMO will live or die based on the strength of the gameplay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaximusRex Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I don't think there is a firm grasp of the market. To be a successful Sub Only game you most likely need to be the players only MMO. But the MMO market is saturated, and MMOs have a large time investment, so unless a player is really not happy with their MMO they are not likely to give up their current MMO for some other MMO. F2P bypasses that argument entirely, and F2P MMOs are able to take advantage of the gaps in content that occur as part of the development cycle. Sub to F2P MMOs started in the West with DDO that was failing, so as a last ditch effort to recoup their investment they moved it F2P, and that did amazing things for the game fiscally, which allowed them to do a lot more with it content wise. And this has largely been the case with most Sub MMOs that have gone F2P. But, as even is evident in this thread, there is a stigma to F2P MMOs, largely because the early ones were severely hobbled unless you paid into them. We are still a bit in the Sub to F2P conversion phase, but we are also starting to see some western MMOs purposefully launch as F2P games. For a Sub only MMO to be successful it has to have a large studio to back it, and it has to quickly capture fairly significant market share, and then hold onto it over the long haul. And the bigger the initial investment into the creation of the MMO, the larger the player base needs to be. I think its pretty telling when the MMO market has very few Sub only MMOs left in it what the real market conditions are. And even at that I think even Blizzard sees the writing on the wall, they have already started to work on an in game cash store for WoW, which will allow them to transition the game to F2P down the road should they decide to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andryah Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I don't think there is a firm grasp of the market. To be a successful Sub Only game you most likely need to be the players only MMO. But the MMO market is saturated, and MMOs have a large time investment, so unless a player is really not happy with their MMO they are not likely to give up their current MMO for some other MMO. F2P bypasses that argument entirely, and F2P MMOs are able to take advantage of the gaps in content that occur as part of the development cycle. Sub to F2P MMOs started in the West with DDO that was failing, so as a last ditch effort to recoup their investment they moved it F2P, and that did amazing things for the game fiscally, which allowed them to do a lot more with it content wise. And this has largely been the case with most Sub MMOs that have gone F2P. But, as even is evident in this thread, there is a stigma to F2P MMOs, largely because the early ones were severely hobbled unless you paid into them. We are still a bit in the Sub to F2P conversion phase, but we are also starting to see some western MMOs purposefully launch as F2P games. For a Sub only MMO to be successful it has to have a large studio to back it, and it has to quickly capture fairly significant market share, and then hold onto it over the long haul. And the bigger the initial investment into the creation of the MMO, the larger the player base needs to be. I think its pretty telling when the MMO market has very few Sub only MMOs left in it what the real market conditions are. And even at that I think even Blizzard sees the writing on the wall, they have already started to work on an in game cash store for WoW, which will allow them to transition the game to F2P down the road should they decide to do so. Nice assessment. Refreshing to see someone gets what is happening and the dynamics involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hadoken Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 No mention about the game's voice acting fail. "Full voice over! ... Wait, no. Just the main story." heh that reminds me of Age of Conan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaceen Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 (edited) http://venturebeat.com/2013/06/17/final-fantasy-online-director-defends-monthly-subscriptions-in-the-golden-age-of-free-to-play-exclusive/ Great article there on why sub only mmos are better then free to play games. from the article: Again, we're not saying one is better than the other, that free-to-play is better than subscription or subscription is better than free-to-play. Edited August 21, 2013 by oaceen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImpactHound Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I think its pretty telling when the MMO market has very few Sub only MMOs left in it what the real market conditions are. And even at that I think even Blizzard sees the writing on the wall, they have already started to work on an in game cash store for WoW, which will allow them to transition the game to F2P down the road should they decide to do so. Haha, how many years are people going to predict WoW going F2P before they get the message? Apparently the developers coming out and saying itinterviews every year isn't enough, nor is explaining that the cash shop is an experiment to supplement the asian market's cafe-centric build. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yungscion Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Haha, how many years are people going to predict WoW going F2P before they get the message? Apparently the developers coming out and saying itinterviews every year isn't enough, nor is explaining that the cash shop is an experiment to supplement the asian market's cafe-centric build. Not saying you are right or wrong, but Trion did the same thing, up until the moment they announced F2P. There is a stigma around F2P, no developer (or at least the PR mouth piece in developers clothing) will openly admit that their game is going F2P until the writing is on the wall and they have no choice but to go F2P to survive. WoW is losing a lot of ground as of late (this is undeniable fact they are bleeding subs at the moment) and there may be a point where Blizz puts F2P into motion (starting the cash shop is an ominous sign that they are at least prepared for this). I can remember before I left Rift at the F2P conversion that tons of players were defending Trion's stance of P2P using all kinds of investor data and what not, then boom F2P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curtkram Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Sub to F2P MMOs started in the West with DDO that was failing, so as a last ditch effort to recoup their investment they moved it F2P, and that did amazing things for the game fiscally, which allowed them to do a lot more with it content wise. And this has largely been the case with most Sub MMOs that have gone F2P. But, as even is evident in this thread, there is a stigma to F2P MMOs, largely because the early ones were severely hobbled unless you paid into them. We are still a bit in the Sub to F2P conversion phase, but we are also starting to see some western MMOs purposefully launch as F2P games. I'm only responding to part of your post, but it seems you're claim is that game content used to suffer in f2p games, but that is no longer the case. i haven't played very many mmo's, but it does seem to me that f2p games still suffer content-wise in a way that subscription games do not. i think this is necessary, because both models have to bring in enough money to support their infrastructure and staff. in a subscription game, they just have to release good enough content to make sure not too many people quit. in a f2p game, they have to use in-game systems to attract people towards spending rl money. if they don't do that, they won't get money and they'll fold. i think swtor follows this. after f2p they were able to release some content that they were already working on like makeb and cathar. then there was a fairly significant lull in content like flashpoints and warzones. i think there is a much greater focus on 'fluff' now. maybe in a couple years we'll look back and there will be something as big as the czerka moon released every 8 weeks. even then though, it would be hard to say if it's the f2p is paying for that or subscriptions. maybe in a couple years swtor will somehow be able to return to a subscription based game, too, and focus more on subscription content instead of f2p fluff. on the other hand, if they keep releasing the same sort of content a subscription based game releases, but don't require people to pay a subscription for it, there is a possibility people who would otherwise subscribe will switch to f2p. there is nothing wrong with f2p games, but what f2p games do is different than what subscription games do. f2p games have to update their games in such a way as to get people to pay them extra money. the stigma is only on f2p games that are pretending to be subscription games, with regular content updates available to everyone. if a f2p game is honest about it's revenue source, i don't see why there would be a stigma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilora Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 lol, final nail in the coffin for credibility. Lol. Bad troll is bad. Please stop the harassment ^.^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klarick Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 so anyway, eso just released their payment model and they agree with everyone else that when designing a new game, they don't listen to andryah or bioware white knights. I was just thinking this very same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klarick Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 a) correct. there is no industry, really, as there is no cut-off for inclusion. These 3 studios, however, would EASILY be considered the veterans and leaders. b) this is true c) not a single AAA MMO has ever been released F2P, or converted to F2P. The three we are talking about, however, are on track to be AAA MMOs. Meaning they are not bucking the trend at all, they are solidifying it. d) I'd say survive, not flourish. I've yet to see a F2P MMO that is actually a quality product. e) that has been a trend with games that were overly-hyped and released as sub-par You need to chck your definition of AAA MMO. Just google it, then come back and edit your post. Youre welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hadoken Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 You need to chck your definition of AAA MMO. Just google it, then come back and edit your post. Youre welcome. Yea AAA refers to how much cost/marketing was put into it, not how much they ended up making off it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilora Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 (edited) Yea AAA refers to how much cost/marketing was put into it, not how much they ended up making off it I'd disagree based on where the term AAA comes from. A AAA bond would never be equivalent to something like SWTOR. Edited August 21, 2013 by Kilora Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hadoken Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I'd disagree based on where the term AAA comes from. A AAA bond would never be equivalent to something like SWTOR. SWTOR was marketed/advertised and released as an AAA MMO, regardless of how you want to define it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts