F2P Wow-An expac behind?

[Darkfriend]

Note: Since WOW is the most profitable MMO currently out there (to my knowledge) it doesn't need to go F2P. This is simply a cost/benefit if WOW DID go partially F2p

What if wow went F2P, but an expac behind? So when MOP drops, you can play up to cata for free. HOWEVER you'd have to be on a different server, a F2P server. Certain parts could be linked/instances with other P2P servers, but at least the AH and places like that would have to be seperate.

Just an idea, things like mounts could cost cash instead of being buyable (or faster flying) same for things like bags, etc.

If this hsa been posted before, close it. I was just curious and bored.

[Darsithis]

I can't imagine how easily that'd work, as they'd have to maintain two different codebases & databases in order to accomplish that kind of thing. The cost would be way too high for what they'd get out of it.

[ComputerNerd]

One of several reasons why there are no "vanilla" or other expansion servers already, even allowing for the full subscription cost.
So no chance of it on a F2P model where there is even less certainty over the income.

[Darkfriend]

However, numerous F2P game models work, many in MMO's. I'm not so sure that income being an uncertainty is a good reason. They just need a good pricing model.

[Darsithis]

However, numerous F2P game models work, many in MMO's. I'm not so sure that income being an uncertainty is a good reason. They just need a good pricing model.

They'd have to maintain essentially two completely separate games. That means more staff and more servers and more licenses and more code all to get probably not even close to double the revenue.

F2P works fine for some games, but not side-by-side in the same game as a subscription model, at least not for a huge application like WoW. A browser game? Sure. An MMO played by 10,000,000 people using proprietary software? No.

[luckybeer]

Just keep paying your Dad's 15 bucks a month and stfu

Infracted. Post constructively

[Splatter]

F2P works fine for some games, but not side-by-side in the same game as a subscription model, at least not for a huge application like WoW. A browser game? Sure. An MMO played by 10,000,000 people using proprietary software? No.

LOTRO uses both a F2P and subscription model side by side and that works fine.

[Darkfriend]

So economic feasibility is the number one reason. Yet, servers aside, do they really need to change around code? The Cata stuff is already created.

See, the reason they don't have members based older servers is IMO because people really wouldn't play them, or at least wouldn't continually pay for 2 wow subscriptions.

But the benefit is twofold: Advertisement, getting people in P2P wow, (since up to level 20 is a really shitty demo) and money off purchases.

As well, how much server load could be dictated by the number of people using it.

As to lucky, even though he's banned, I've always paid for WOW by myself. I'd love if my dad did actually, but since I'm in my 20's and don't live at home it'd be surprising if he did. Hmm maybe ask for a Christmas gift? What an idea! Oh and just as a note, its a bad idea to troll when a mod posted not 5 minutes before you :P

[Darsithis]

So economic feasibility is the number one reason. Yet, servers aside, do they really need to change around code? The Cata stuff is already created.

See, the reason they don't have members based older servers is IMO because people really wouldn't play them, or at least wouldn't continually pay for 2 wow subscriptions.

But the benefit is twofold: Advertisement, getting people in P2P wow, (since up to level 20 is a really shitty demo) and money off purchases.

As well, how much server load could be dictated by the number of people using it.

As to lucky, even though he's banned, I've always paid for WOW by myself. I'd love if my dad did actually, but since I'm in my 20's and don't live at home it'd be surprising if he did. Hmm maybe ask for a Christmas gift? What an idea!

Honestly I'm not sure if he was referring to you or me, as I do happen to pay for my father's account. My parents are advanced in age and unable to pay for something like this themselves. Means I have to visit them less \o/

The reason they'd need two code bases is due to changes per expansion. For instance, when Mists of Panderia comes along, it'll include new talent tree systems and changes to the classes. Unless they rolled that out always and just didn't charge, they'd need two separate codebases.

I suppose they could do the LOTR model. Maybe. I suppose they could just charge anyone who purchased MoP and leave all the code in one application.

[Ruffles]

No, there's no point to make a free to play server because the costs might increase + a lot of time will be wasted in modifying code just for no reason. Why do you want it to go free? There's already Starter Edition up to level 20, and that's enough.

[Kebren]

So economic feasibility is the number one reason. Yet, servers aside, do they really need to change around code? The Cata stuff is already created.

Bug fixes is a huge issue with something like this. The sheer number of exploits they patch in a single expansion is pretty staggering. Then you figure you need to apply each patch to two completely different sets of code bases, which in many cases may not even be compatible anymore. Maintaining two code bases while keeping both up to date and bug free is no easy task.

Besides all of that, I'm not really sure what kind of benefit free to play would give Blizzard. There's really only so many people interested in the fantasy MMO genre and I suspect they've tapped a very large portion of them.

[Sarix]

But if it was free they wouldn't make as much money and that's all Blizzard cares about.

[Hanto]

I can see this working only if they cut you off at characters past the previous expansion (so 1-80 playable, any character higher is grayed-out) as well as all content for the current expansion would be barred. That way the only thing they'd have to manage is which accounts are restricted and which are unrestricted. Kind of like the free-to-play style of the trial of the game (I think 1-20?), but letting it be expanded to include the features of the regular game minus current stuff. The only purchase necessary would be that of the previous games (Vanilla-WotLK).

I can see this being a fun thing for those people who enjoy old stuff and just want to twink. It'd be a lot to consider though. I don't agree with the OP's idea of a whole different server. Being able to talk and play with friends is part of the good stuff WoW offers. Simply restricting the content can do this, and would give more people a reason to buy the older games.

[Shostie]

Besides all of that, I'm not really sure what kind of benefit free to play would give Blizzard. There's really only so many people interested in the fantasy MMO genre and I suspect they've tapped a very large portion of them.

The F2P/B2P market is huge, bigger than the subscription market. Many F2P games actually earn more money than subscription games, though that wouldn't necessarily be the case with WoW. That said, I don't see Activision Blizzard doing this because they're lazy and they've been going for the easy money ever since the merger.

[Darkfriend]

No, there's no point to make a free to play server because the costs might increase + a lot of time will be wasted in modifying code just for no reason. Why do you want it to go free? There's already Starter Edition up to level 20, and that's enough.

I don't want it, this is an entirely hypothetical situation. A what if, as it were.

But remember, many people play RIFT/LOTRO/DnDO/EVE/Aion etc. The reason I don't try many other games is because I don't want to pay for the game+ at least a month of game time just to find out if I like it. The WOW system of up to 20 sucks too. Its not enough for people like me, and up to 20 is a pretty poor indication of what the game has to offer anyway.

And this discussion isn't about IF blizzard would ever do it. Its a WHAT If, a cost/benefit discussion purely for entertainment and good discussion.

[Aurabolt]

The WOW system of up to 20 sucks too. Its not enough for people like me, and up to 20 is a pretty poor indication of what the game has to offer anyway.

...You're telling me you can't decide if you'll like the game or not despite having access to almost everything those with the full version have to level 20? I don't believe you.

You're basically getting access to 10 races (Draenei and Blood Elf thrown in for free), and 9 Classes, Battlegrounds, LFD, ALL Professions (Arch is level 20) AND all of Kalimdor and The Eastern Kingdoms. As well as being able to participate in Monthly Holidays + Darkmoon Island. On top of that Trial Accounts have access to the new Race/Class Combinations introduced in Cataclysm (but not Worgen/Goblin).

You're telling me this isn't enough to decide if you wanna get the full game or not? WoW's Trial is WAY more than most give it credit for.

[Deleted]

...You're telling me you can't decide if you'll like the game or not despite having access to almost everything those with the full version have to level 20? I don't believe you.

You're basically getting access to 10 races (Draenei and Blood Elf thrown in for free), and 9 Classes, Battlegrounds, LFD, ALL Professions (Arch is level 20) AND all of Kalimdor and The Eastern Kingdoms. As well as being able to participate in Monthly Holidays + Darkmoon Island. On top of that Trial Accounts have access to the new Race/Class Combinations introduced in Cataclysm (but not Worgen/Goblin).

You're telling me this isn't enough to decide if you wanna get the full game or not? WoW's Trial is WAY more than most give it credit for.

if think your wrong here, When i first started playing wow i thought it sucked, empty zones and lame quests - but my buddy kept telling me the game began at maxlevel, which is true, the trial shows people the weakest most boring part of the game, with virtually no interaction - it does suck, if i had a trial to 20 without having friedns that already play, i wouldnt have bought the game

[Darkfriend]

...You're telling me you can't decide if you'll like the game or not despite having access to almost everything those with the full version have to level 20? I don't believe you.

You're basically getting access to 10 races (Draenei and Blood Elf thrown in for free), and 9 Classes, Battlegrounds, LFD, ALL Professions (Arch is level 20) AND all of Kalimdor and The Eastern Kingdoms. As well as being able to participate in Monthly Holidays + Darkmoon Island. On top of that Trial Accounts have access to the new Race/Class Combinations introduced in Cataclysm (but not Worgen/Goblin).

You're telling me this isn't enough to decide if you wanna get the full game or not? WoW's Trial is WAY more than most give it credit for.

Not at all, no more then I would be able to tell from the first mission in StarCraft II or the first half of the first act on D3. I'm an endgame player. I know the good content is at the end. Up to level 20, no way. Example: the arcane mage class gets fun around level 70-80. Before that its boring. Warriors pre level 40 or so, or pre titan grip are boring. Etc etc etc. You can't get a good feel for what the game is really like.

People play to raid, pvp, play the AH, farm, grind achievements, gather pets, gather mounts, do old content, explore, etc. None of that is available pre near max level. At least on a good scale.

Heck, doing one LFR could you say whether or not you like raiding compared to raiding in a 2-3 night progression guild? Heck no.

[Kebren]

The F2P/B2P market is huge, bigger than the subscription market. Many F2P games actually earn more money than subscription games, though that wouldn't necessarily be the case with WoW. That said, I don't see Activision Blizzard doing this because they're lazy and they've been going for the easy money ever since the merger.

My point was mostly that Blizzard already has a massive amount of the market already. I believe they said at the last Blizzcon that more people have tried World of Warcraft and quit then currently play the game. To me that implies that least 20 million people have tried the game at one point in time. That's a really big number. I would guess that a high percentage of all MMO players have played WoW at some point in the gaming career. Not sure if you can really add to that without losing track of what made the game successful in the first place.

[Darkfriend]

My point was mostly that Blizzard already has a massive amount of the market already. I believe they said at the last Blizzcon that more people have tried World of Warcraft and quit then currently play the game. To me that implies that least 20 million people have tried the game at one point in time. That's a really big number. I would guess that a high percentage of all MMO players have played WoW at some point in the gaming career. Not sure if you can really add to that without losing track of what made the game successful in the first place.

I'd say no. There are a huge amount of Korean/various other asian MMO's, some of which are based upon a pay per hour/block of time scheme. There is no real way to be sure.

Not to mention many people don't want to even try WOW because of the cost. You have to buy all the xpacs and a subscription. If you knew it could be free and with viable end game content, I bet a bunch of people would try. Hell, I know I would have before I came to WOW. It was the cost before that kept me from trying, because I wasn't willing to risk it.