Life some restrictions for F2P?

[LordArtemis]

I would argue that they are two very different genres, MMORPG versus MMO, that appeal to different types of gamers. I very much doubt that SWTOR could compete, both in the character of the game and the number of players required in the pure F2P arena. World of Tanks needs all those players it has and it has the largest (Average Revenue Per User, Monthly) ARPU of all the F2P games. It only has about 9.1 million monthly active users and an ARPU of $4.51. League of Legends has an ARPU of $1.32 so it needs its enormous player base even more than WoT.

 

Source

 

I think it is a fair argument to make that MMO freeps are different than MOBA freeps. I would like to have that discussion. I tend to think they are the same, but I can also see how, since MOBA and MMO players are different at the core, one could consider freeps to be the same way.

 

And, I agree with your ARPU numbers...it was mentioned in another study that WoT seems to have one of the most successful F2P models, with a conversion rate of around 30 percent, compared to LoLs average of only 5 percent.

[Malorey]

I'm a subscriber. I will always be.

Yeah right!

 

To be able to play this fabulous game at all without paying a cent is more than generous as it is!

Edited October 28, 2014 by Malorey

[krisknife]

IMO this was always meant to be a sub game, when BW added the f2p element back in the day , before they could even get the words out to tell us, we were all flipping out. And the consensus we reached back then was the f2p element of ToR is merely a demo to attract players to sub, devs said pretty much same thing to soothe the masses, and they have held to it, it's not a f2p game they shouldn't advertise that. The only reason they do is it puts them in another market, but players in that market aren't going to like this game vs. other true f2ps. Because it is exactly more of a demo to get you to sub and other f2ps are what they are, they get you to spend automatically on everything. So in short , BW will probably stay the course.

 

As far as f2ps go, in over 20 years playing games I have played my share of those, they all start out saying they will only use X items for vanity etc and never game breaking items, that all changes they always do, ALWAYS. f2ps tend to be ticking time bombs meant to make x amount of dollars. So many good games come and go on that market all destroyed from the inside by greed, Want a list of those games it will be in the hundreds, soooo many f2ps past and present all same story, it's a proven industry.

 

F2P are scams, why anyone with half a brain cell in their head sees otherwise boggles my brain. Anyways all this is just my two pennies on the matter anyway

Edited October 28, 2014 by krisknife

[Ratajack]

This was my original list of suggested changes. Note the focus is adding more value to subs, while removing a few of the more draconian restrictions.

 

It can also be said that if the freeps in this game do not pay to reach a percentage similar to the market trend perhaps we should OFFER what other games in the industry offer in their F2P model. So in essence, we would offer more for free, IF that would have an effect.

 

The question is this really...would the following restrictions....

Lack of ability to post in Customer Service or a F2P forum, or receive customer service

Lack of ability to mail coins to their own characters

Lack of ability to craft a reasonable amount of items in que

Travel and movement restrictions

 

...translate into subscriptions? I think the answer is likely not. The other restrictions in place, IMO, are not only non punitive, they DO encourage subscriptions.

 

However, would the following....

 

Ability to earn CC in game other than achievements

Ability to remove mods from armor at no cost

Ability to purchase speeder 1 at level 1

Ability to earn monthly account awards for every month you are subscribed

Ability to be summoned by/summon group members on the same planet to a specific location

Lack of armor repair costs

Bonus to crit chance when crafting of 5/10/15 percent, depending on length of sub

Ability to que 1/3/5 extra crafted items in the crafting que, per companion, depending on length of sub

Ability to add 1/2/3 extra missions to crew mission que, depending on length of sub

Ability to use chat bubbles in groups

Ability to use a brand new appearance system

Access to special decorations (functioning, like other jukeboxes that play game music, gambling kiosks, etc), hooks that can be moved to almost anywhere before they are locked down, large floor hooks that allow open placement

 

....convince folks to sub? I believe they would.

 

We have to have more candy to offer subs, and remove a few of the more draconian restrictions, and I think we would have a winner in the market.

 

In the end, the main focus to convincing Freeps to pay more money should be by offering more to SUBS, not to Freeps.

 

What you see as draconian restrictions, I see as incentive to subscribe. It's all in your perspective, I guess.

 

As I said, I do not think it will make one shred of difference if we remove those restrictions and add more "candy" for the subscribers. I do not think the freeloaders will subscribe to get the "candy". I think the freeloaders will simply complain that it's not fair that they do not get the candy even though they are not paying. They demonstrate their unwillingness to pay every day by NOT paying. Those same people who are unwilling to pay are very willing and likely to complain about the "unfairness" of having to play with restrictions and not getting everything a subscriber gets. Why would removing restrictions and adding "candy" for subscribers change that?

 

I think you will find that in any game that has a F2P element, whether that be a hybrid model like this game or a true F2P with no subscription option, that the percentages of players who spend money are pretty equal. There will always be players looking to get something for nothing, and as much of that something as they can get for nothing. There will also always be players willing to spend either for shinies, or just to play. I think it will generally be the same people in each category, no matter what the game is. That is just my opinion.

[jorill]

IMO this was always meant to be a sub game, when BW added the f2p element back in the day , before they could even get the words out to tell us, we were all flipping out. And the consensus we reached back then was the f2p element of ToR is merely a demo to attract players to sub, devs said pretty much same thing to soothe the masses, and they have held to it, it's not a f2p game they shouldn't advertise that. The only reason they do is it puts them in another market, but players in that market aren't going to like this game vs. other true f2ps. Because it is exactly more of a demo to get you to sub and other f2ps are what they are, they get you to spend automatically on everything. So in short , BW will probably stay the course.

 

As far as f2ps go, in over 20 years playing games I have played my share of those, they all start out saying they will only use X items for vanity etc and never game breaking items, that all changes they always do, ALWAYS. f2ps tend to be ticking time bombs meant to make x amount of dollars. So many good games come and go on that market all destroyed from the inside by greed, Want a list of those games it will be in the hundreds, soooo many f2ps past and present all same story, it's a proven industry.

 

F2P are scams, why anyone with half a brain cell in their head sees otherwise boggles my brain. Anyways all this is just my two pennies on the matter anyway

 

Its not a demo though. What WoW does is a demo where it gives you the first 20 levels free. This game gives the whole class story free if you want it. They have ui restrictions to try and force you to go subscription but you can do it without it. F2P or at least sub model hybrids are the accepted norm now. The last two sub only games are crashing and burning. If you come out with a sub only game now it has to be almost perfect to the masses due to their expectations. Personally id never play a game that was only f2p.

[Gleneagle]

This is absolutely incorrect. All of the evidence that exists in the market proves otherwise, without a shadow of a doubt. So this, IMO, is a ridiculous and uninformed contention.

I haven't seen that evidence. Do you have a cite handy for reference?

[Suromir]

it's already F2P..if people aren't trying it now they're not going too if some restrictions are lifted.

 

lifting restrictions will just further DISCOURAGE people from subbing.

 

Restrictions should absolutely NOT be lifted/lessened.

 

They already get the game for nothing. And if that's not enough to get them to sub...how will giving them MORE benefits to stay f2p benefit anything?

 

that's right, it won't...

[Jadescythe]

I think the preferred model is better than the F2P model. It also isn't hard to become preferred as it only requires SOME purchase in the game or a month sub or whatever. F2P is basically for gold spammers, bots, and for anyone trying out the game. If you enjoy the experience, there is really no reason not to move to preferred even if you can't afford/don't want to pay a sub.

[ItachiZaku]

Becuase it is all relative and SWTOR F2P is severely restrictive compared to this generations F2P model.

 

I don't find it restrictive at all. Seems about right to me.

[DarkDisturbed]

What you see as draconian restrictions, I see as incentive to subscribe. It's all in your perspective, I guess.

 

As I said, I do not think it will make one shred of difference if we remove those restrictions and add more "candy" for the subscribers. I do not think the freeloaders will subscribe to get the "candy". I think the freeloaders will simply complain that it's not fair that they do not get the candy even though they are not paying. They demonstrate their unwillingness to pay every day by NOT paying. Those same people who are unwilling to pay are very willing and likely to complain about the "unfairness" of having to play with restrictions and not getting everything a subscriber gets. Why would removing restrictions and adding "candy" for subscribers change that?

 

I think you will find that in any game that has a F2P element, whether that be a hybrid model like this game or a true F2P with no subscription option, that the percentages of players who spend money are pretty equal. There will always be players looking to get something for nothing, and as much of that something as they can get for nothing. There will also always be players willing to spend either for shinies, or just to play. I think it will generally be the same people in each category, no matter what the game is. That is just my opinion.

The problem with the draconian restrictions is that they drive away players in the early game, then they do not have a chance to play, enjoy, and subscribe.

[Ratajack]

The problem with the draconian restrictions is that they drive away players in the early game, then they do not have a chance to play, enjoy, and subscribe.

 

 

I see no draconian restrictions. I see only incentives to subscribe.

 

Therefore there is ample chance to play, enjoy and subscribe.

 

Of course, many freeloaders will not subscribe or even spend more than the $5 needed to become preferred (if they even spend a dime) on this game, instead choosing to complain that they are being punished for not subscribing.

[hadoken]

The hotbar limitation is pretty draconian IMO. I hadn't seen another game go quite that far in restrictions, actually removing parts of the UI like that. But then I don't do many F2P games either, as I can't stand that system. So either way it doesn't really apply to me.

[cool-dude]

If this game goes completely free to play, they need to reimburse the subscribers for any recent monthly charges and all expansions. Edited October 28, 2014 by cool-dude

[LordArtemis]

I see no draconian restrictions. I see only incentives to subscribe.

 

Therefore there is ample chance to play, enjoy and subscribe.

 

Of course, many freeloaders will not subscribe or even spend more than the $5 needed to become preferred (if they even spend a dime) on this game, instead choosing to complain that they are being punished for not subscribing.

 

I think it is a fair argument to make that there are players that will never spend a dime, and giving those players more would not help the game, other than provide more bodies for the playerbase.

 

It's also fair to say, IMO, that reducing restrictions would give those types of folks benefits they do not deserve, and that they do not deserve the benefits they have now.

 

But of course those are the kind of players that are not the subject of this discussion. As the person you quoted mentioned, the subject is the very real contention that there are players that do not spend money they WOULD spend if they found the game of interest.

 

I contend those kind of folks move on to other games that are not punitive.

 

Naturally punitive is subjective. The point was, at least for me, to add more value to subscriptions.

 

I find it odd that you would stand against adding more to subscription benefits, as that would not give anything to freeps, only benefit those that pay. It may speak to how strongly you feel about freeps.

[Ratajack]

I think it is a fair argument to make that there are players that will never spend a dime, and giving those players more would not help the game, other than provide more bodies for the playerbase.

 

It's also fair to say, IMO, that reducing restrictions would give those types of folks benefits they do not deserve, and that they do not deserve the benefits they have now.

 

But of course those are the kind of players that are not the subject of this discussion. As the person you quoted mentioned, the subject is the very real contention that there are players that do not spend money they WOULD spend if they found the game of interest.

 

I contend those kind of folks move on to other games that are not punitive.

 

Naturally punitive is subjective. The point was, at least for me, to add more value to subscriptions.

 

I find it odd that you would stand against adding more to subscription benefits, as that would not give anything to freeps, only benefit those that pay. It may speak to how strongly you feel about freeps.

 

If I gave you the impression that I was against adding more benefits for subscribers, then I apologize. I am all for adding more benefits for subscribers. I am against removing or lessening the restrictions on those that do not subscribe.

[LordArtemis]

If I gave you the impression that I was against adding more benefits for subscribers, then I apologize. I am all for adding more benefits for subscribers. I am against removing or lessening the restrictions on those that do not subscribe.

 

Ah, ok, well thats fair then. The best method, IMO, to encourage more F2P players to spend money is to make subscriptions more valuable, and my suggestions would be my way of doing that.

 

The lessening of some of what I call the more draconian restrictions would not be necessary if subscriptions were more tantalizing.

 

The BIG one, IMO, is the ability to earn CC using in game methods besides achievements. CC is something that greatly interests freeps IMO. A stipend that provides you with 5.00 worth of coins for a sub is not enough IMO.

 

They need to be able to earn at least 2000 coins a month before the sub would be worth it IMO.

[Max_Killjoy]

The hate for non-subscribers is hilarious.

 

Sometimes the childish invective is so over-the-top that I never mention that I'm actually a subscriber, because I don't want to be confused with the people who spew it.

 

 

The hotbar limitation is pretty draconian IMO. I hadn't seen another game go quite that far in restrictions, actually removing parts of the UI like that. But then I don't do many F2P games either, as I can't stand that system. So either way it doesn't really apply to me.

 

Crippling the UI just seems petty, actually.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Max_Killjoy

[Kalfear]

Crippling the UI just seems petty, actually.

 

getting a sub solves all issues

not paying to support any product you use 10-20-30-40-50 hours a week seems outright petty to me.

 

I actually boardline hate EA as a company

and yet I understand if I play their games

They deserve to be financially compensated the price they ask for.

 

If I dont agree with the price,

I dont play

 

Its not rocket science

[Max_Killjoy]

getting a sub solves all issues

not paying to support any product you use 10-20-30-40-50 hours a week seems outright petty to me.

 

I actually boardline hate EA as a company

and yet I understand if I play their games

They deserve to be financially compensated the price they ask for.

 

If I dont agree with the price,

I dont play

 

Its not rocket science

 

I have a sub.

 

Just saying... is the purpose of the F2P option to get people far enough into the game to entice them to get a sub, or to punish them for not having a sub?

[Jrr_hypernova]

The current model hooked me from FTP after the capital so I'd say it works and any benefit subs get will have people crying that there being punished for not paying literally anything.

[LordArtemis]

It does not matter if people feel it isnt fair for freeps to get benefits. It only matters if Bioware makes money or not. In this case, player concerns over the fairness of freeps and what they get for free means next to nothing IMO.

 

This is a business. That means they will do things that folks feel are not fair for the sake of profit.

 

Now, making subs more desirable, or reducing f2p restrictions may not translate into more money for Bioware. But that is a decision for them to make, and I expect the metrics support the idea that conversion here is not what it should be.

 

In this case (one of the few cases) I would support the idea of making a certain portion of the playerbase angry if it means we can pull in more whales.

 

If you are not spending at least 100 dollars a month, IMO, you are not supporting the game.

 

I have spent that much. If you want to support this game properly, and end the argument all together, open your wallet.

 

Otherwise, if you only pay 15 dollars a month you are no different than than free or preferred players IMO. And you are part of the reason we need more players and revenue.

 

So, if you don't like the idea of having freeps, start forking over the cash. Show GENUINE support for the game.

Edited October 29, 2014 by LordArtemis

[IndigoHawk]

SWTOR does not need everyone to pay to make money with f2p. Many people do not agree with this, which means they must not understand how games like League of Legends are making so much money.

 

With f2p, you get lots of people. You make sure they all have fun and stick around. Then some of them spend money on stuff. You do not care if everyone pays. You only care that enough people pay that you make a bunch of money. So, there's no reason to punish people who do not pay. You just give cool stuff to people who pay. League of Legends does this. The game is free. It does not drive away people by punishing them. You can earn all the champions for free. But if you want to customize, you have to pay (which is exactly like SWTOR, a subscription game, that makes people pay to customize character appearance like it was an f2p game).

 

SWTOR charges a sub, but focuses on cash shop, just like an f2p game. It makes subs pay for big content expansions (Makeb was free after a while, but pay up front, just like Revan). It makes other expansions (GSF, GSH) free to everyone, because it wants people to buy things from the cash shop to use with those expansions. SWTOR is basically a f2p game that charges a sub because it can.

 

For the monthly sub, the main value SWTOR provides besides not punishing players is the CC stipend. Otherwise it's very similar to what I've seen from f2p games. The rate of new content is about the same and the focus on the cash shop is the same.

 

Anyway, it's fine that people like paying a sub. However, it's a bit weird that people don't understand that a sub game is not necessarily more profitable than a f2p game or that SWTOR is more profitable now that it's mostly f2p. I also think SWTOR's development over the last year would have been almost identical with or without the sub. The biggest difference would be that it wouldn't waste resources making things suck for f2p and preferred, and would instead make more stuff that people wanted to buy. So, since development is already focused on f2p, why not just go f2p? The main differences would be that more people would play, SWTOR would have a better reputation among f2p games, and SWTOR would make more money.

 

I also agree that some people would quit SWTOR, because they take pride in paying a sub and won't play in an official f2p game ... even though SWTOR already behaves like a f2p game.

[Kalfear]

Anyway, it's fine that people like paying a sub. However, it's a bit weird that people don't understand that a sub game is not necessarily more profitable than a f2p game or that SWTOR is more profitable now that it's mostly f2p.

 

no one likes paying a sub

you mistake understanding you need to support the product you play with liking to pay for it.

 

And EA has already stated outright (as wa spointed out many times in this very thread) the biggest cartel shop supporters are those that fall under the subscriber title, not the F2P/prefered title.

 

This game sold amazingly well at the launch despite the sub being mandatory

 

MILLIONS accepted and agreed to pay a sub with out an issue or worry (the highest profit time of this game btw)

 

This game didnt loss people because it required a sub

This game lost people because of early bad game design and bad developers and policies.

 

Really wish people would STOP falsifying what happened here to support their F2P claims.

 

Subscription is not why this game came on hard times after launch and F2P has NOT been more successful then the highest sub point in this games history.

 

Truth is most of the money made in this game is made bt EA double and triple dipping from its subscriber base via the cartel market sales. And thats from EAs own mouth so argue with them if you disagree.

[Gleneagle]

no one likes paying a sub.

Well, I guess I'm nobody then. Thanks bunches I always imagined I was somebody. I do prefer to pay a sub when the consequence is a better game among better behaved players. I believe in supporting my developers if they are putting out good product I can enjoy.

 

I do wish they would attend to the continuation of class stories, but I'm just big on interactive fiction and tales well told.

[hadoken]

Well, I guess I'm nobody then. Thanks bunches I always imagined I was somebody. I do prefer to pay a sub when the consequence is a better game among better behaved players. I believe in supporting my developers if they are putting out good product I can enjoy.

 

I do wish they would attend to the continuation of class stories, but I'm just big on interactive fiction and tales well told.

 

Yea I'm in the same boat. For this kind of game I vastly prefer the subscription model to the nickel & dime you model that always costs you far more in the end for quality entertainment.