[Megathread] Wildstar - Now F2P

[Valeron]

Since TSW currency expires after a certain amount of time... lets hope they don't do that (that and funcom couldn't keep up with monthly updates).

expires? mine hasn't expired yet

anyway, I'm just trying to figure out how an optional subscription model would work. I mean with a F2P game it is easy to see but you can't get away with those restrictions that a F2P game typically has if you charge an up front fee in a B2P model.

[zito]

expires? mine hasn't expired yet

anyway, I'm just trying to figure out how an optional subscription model would work. I mean with a F2P game it is easy to see but you can't get away with those restrictions that a F2P game typically has if you charge an up front fee in a B2P model.

It expires after a few months.

Based on information. F2P portion will likely be a trail, B2P for access to some parts of the game, Sub for the rest + sub perks and optional cash shop.

[Edge-]

It expires after a few months.

I've had some of my currency since like...December? and it's yet to expire.

[Collected]

It expires after a few months.

Based on information. F2P portion will likely be a trail, B2P for access to some parts of the game, Sub for the rest + sub perks and optional cash shop.

That seems to make some sense. Let everyone try the game for free and if they decide it's a game they can see themselves playing they then pay. It would show the devs have faith in the quality of the game. And could generate a huge launch audience. A lot of MMOs release a trial far too late IMHO.

[Lycanroc]

If it was B2P it would be $60. Rift wasn't originally $5, it started at $60 (I think). Because of this weird $45 pricing it makes it seem you only get part of the game for 45 and to access the rest you need to pay a sub.

Which makes sense in a way. Pay $45 for X part of the game pay a sub to access the rest but I still don't like it.

I think Rift had the standard edition for 40$ and the Collector's for 60$. I could be wrong, but it was definitely in that range.

I do hope it's not sub based, and I'm hoping more of a B2P with a cash shop kind of like GW2. I feel like releasing a sub base might kill off the game early since most people only have enough money to pay one sub-based game at a time. Every big (Lots of advertisement, big budget.) mmo that's come out recently that's tried a subscription model (Rift/SWTOR) has ended up going F2P eventually. I could be wrong about the sub being the reason they failed. It's likely a combination of things.


However, Guild Wars 2 has been very profitable with its current model. Enough box sales and cash flow from the shop are enough to keep the game releasing continuous content. (Not that the Living Story particularly interests me, but it IS content. And it's released in a very short amount of time. That in itself is impressive.). And since there's no actual money required to keep playing the game, players aren't limited based on financial reasons. That's not to say there aren't problems with GW2, but there definitely isn't problems stemming from the payment model of the game.

[Airlick]

Every big (Lots of advertisement, big budget.) mmo that's come out recently that's tried a subscription model (Rift/SWTOR) has ended up going F2P eventually. I could be wrong about the sub being the reason they failed. It's likely a combination of things.

Rift is just about the worst example of a failed transition to F2P. It's not SW:TOR, TERA or AION, which only transitioned to F2P in order to delay the inevitable - because they had absolutely zero late-game content, and in case of SW:TOR, because it's a horrible, horrible game with even worse F2P model. Rift has massive amounts of content and Trion made the transition with a great plan in mind. A month after F2P release all the Rift servers are still medium/high pop even now, on sunday morning. TERA opened a few new servers right after going F2P, and a month later, they were all back to low/medium during peak times - because the game itself is bad.

Going F2P doesn't have to mean the game has failed. It definitely doesn't in case of Rift.

[kail]

Rift is just about the worst example of a failed transition to F2P. It's not SW:TOR, TERA or AION, which only transitioned to F2P in order to delay the inevitable - because they had absolutely zero late-game content, and in case of SW:TOR, because it's a horrible, horrible game with even worse F2P model. Rift has massive amounts of content and Trion made the transition with a great plan in mind. A month after F2P release all the Rift servers are still medium/high pop even now, on sunday morning. TERA opened a few new servers right after going F2P, and a month later, they were all back to low/medium during peak times - because the game itself is bad.

Going F2P doesn't have to mean the game has failed. It definitely doesn't in case of Rift.

Despite its quality and content, it didn't net enough players to satisfy Trion. It went the same route of the other P2P MMOs that gave up on subs. I'm not saying its a bad thing, Rift is now being enjoyed by more players like it should.

[RoninaThorstone]

Despite its quality and content, it didn't net enough players to satisfy Trion. It went the same route of the other P2P MMOs that gave up on subs. I'm not saying its a bad thing, Rift is now being enjoyed by more players like it should.

There's actually some evidence that Rift got more people than they were expecting as subscription, like selling 13% more copies of SL than they expected.

It's just that F2P makes more money than subscription. Especially with a cash shop as amazing as Rifts.

[kail]

There's actually some evidence that Rift got more people than they were expecting as subscription, like selling 13% more copies of SL than they expected.

It's just that F2P makes more money than subscription. Especially with a cash shop as amazing as Rifts.

It was a 13% adoption rate compared to their anticipated 7%, yes it better than expected. I don't see how theres a way to compare their peak subscription profits to that of their FTP model, considering TRION has been pretty closed mouthed about anything financial. I remember reading an article of how they thought Rift going FTP was a fat chance, so there must have been a reason on the transition (my guess is the sub numbers).

[RoninaThorstone]

It was a 13% adoption rate compared to their anticipated 7%, yes it better than expected. I don't see how theres a way to compare their peak subscription profits to that of their FTP model, considering TRION has been pretty closed mouthed about anything financial. I remember reading an article of how they thought Rift going FTP was a fat chance, so there must have been a reason on the transition (my guess is the sub numbers).

The thing is, there wasn't much change in terms of activity on the servers. 500+ people were still showing up for volan at odd hours of the day.

I think it's more likely that someone did the math and realized that they would make more money as F2P. Hell, EoNs just confirmed that they are sticking with F2P.

[Airlick]

Despite its quality and content, it didn't net enough players to satisfy Trion. It went the same route of the other P2P MMOs that gave up on subs. I'm not saying its a bad thing, Rift is now being enjoyed by more players like it should.

There's never enough customers to satisfy a company. Rift probably could go on with sub like EVE does, only, as you and Bardarian later mentioned, F2P nets more money. I know that over the nearly 3 months that I'm playing Rift I already paid as much as I would for 6 months of sub. :P

[potis]

Rift went F2P because it nets more money and because they had to.

The market is changing, people dont wanna pay to try games to end up going back to WoW because they have time invested there.

They wanna check the game, if they like it continue play/drop money.

Rift is betting on that, its a decent game with minor mistakes, 10 minutes on the forums or online you will there are people around buying mounts/costumes all the time.

I mean i patched the game and entered 2 days before the store got patched in..then when i entered for a few days just to check how it was going, apart from queues i would see mounts everywhere, not on leve 50-60 people, level 10-30 people all over Meridian.

Then you check the forums, pages of "costume this and that".

F2P nets money because some people wont buy and pay the game, but if they will play a maximum of lets say 100 hours over 1-2 months, they are willing to drop money to look as they want, which is more money than a sub etc etc...and the Rift store is rather generous in that aspect.

I am hoping Wildstar is like GW2 model, or F2P wth Rift Store type with logical prices and not SW:TOR or Neverwinter type.

[RoninaThorstone]

I am hoping Wildstar is like GW2 model, or F2P wth Rift Store type with logical prices and not SW:TOR or Neverwinter type.

As much as I wish it were like Rifts glorious model, it's not.
According to ninjas.

We only have a few more weeks till will find out if the subscription is mandatory, on top of the box price. If it is... Then they really haven't been paying attention to the industry.

[potis]

As much as I wish it were like Rifts glorious model, it's not.
According to ninjas.

We only have a few more weeks till will find out if the subscription is mandatory, on top of the box price. If it is... Then they really haven't been paying attention to the industry.

I dont mind buying the box for 50E and paying a second month, i just hope they will have content to keep me above a couple of weeks along with non-buggy abuseable stuff like SW:TOR easy mode and Neverwinter with the massive amount of exploits.

[Tackhisis]

Rift is just about the worst example of a failed transition to F2P.

There is an obvious downward trend as all the people who were attracted by transition had reached level 60 and realized how grindy and boring Rift was and is. In couple of weeks their player numbers will return to old values.

[Deleted]

There's not a video on youtube showing some Chua customization.

[Valeron]

We only have a few more weeks till will find out if the subscription is mandatory, on top of the box price. If it is... Then they really haven't been paying attention to the industry.

They seem like smart folks, I'd be really surprised if it is a sub only model. That will be a huge mistake in my opinion.

[Collected]

Jeremy addresses business models here on KaeyiDream's lunch video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...LDdmnhA#t=575s from what he said I too will be very surprised if they go for a simple monthly sub model.

Oh and next time they do a fan sites thing they need to do it at a quiet bar and everyone needs to be a little bit tipsy.

[RoninaThorstone]

Oh and next time they do a fan sites thing they need to do it at a quiet bar and everyone needs to be a little bit tipsy.

I got my fill of drunk devs from warhammer online.

[wombinator04]

Well going by what the guy said in that video, there's no way it's going to have a mandatory sub.

Video: