[Megathread] Wildstar - Now F2P

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Given their almost non-existent communications, let alone marketing, as well as destroyed hype from Annus Horribilis 2014, throwing away that potential returner playerbase seems like madness...

Knowing how these things typically go down, I'd be inclined to think that Carbine's budget has been slashed quite significantly, and they don't have nearly as many resources to work with any more. People at the company are probably worrying alot, and perhaps too preoccupied with scrambling for deadlines and present a solution to the execs on how their going to save the ship. Still - staying in communication with the community is a should have, and is free of cost.

[Edge-]

Honestly, meaningful communication isn't too common for gaming studios through December. Most are all but shut down for the last few weeks, and even before then a whole lot of people are taking additional time off before the holidays for a longer break.

I don't doubt they don't have they budget they had at launch, but I don't think NCsoft has pulled the rug out from under them yet. We haven't heard of another round of layoffs (only the initial big one) and they still have hundreds of employees.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

I don't doubt they don't have they budget they had at launch, but I don't think NCsoft has pulled the rug out from under them yet. We haven't heard of another round of layoffs (only the initial big one) and they still have hundreds of employees.

1. We'll just have to be watching for the weeks to come; January is the time of year when companies get a solid look at what this year's budget is going to be, and that's when they start picking out what - and who - has to go.

2. A large portion of those employees probably have absolutely nothing to do with the game itself - devs and producers don't make up that large a portion of a game company. The rest are the website servicemen, the server engineers, customer service, etc. Wouldn't be surprised if they were the first to go out the door if there are layoffs soon™.

3. If Carbine is able to hang on to their staff for now with a slashed budget, that doesn't mean they still lose resources. Sub-contractors might be thrown, loaned assets, server money, etc.

Only time will tell, but I've seen this happen to too many devs, especially MMO devs to know that this probably will happen. Be it Turbine, Cryptic, NetDevil... even giants like Bioware. Blizzard has layoffed before, though it's unclear if it was related to WoW.

[Acidbaron]

Seen quite a few threads popping up of people returning. Now what i would like to see when i return is some sort of catch mechanicsm for the the whole and Amp and especially tier points, there's quite a large power gap between your average 50 with none and a fully maxed out one.

[Collected]

Free 14-30 days to anyone who purchased WildStar to go along with Drop 4 when it hits.

I propose one step further... make the game F2P. Bite the bullet and hope for the best. It's what every other non WoW MMO is having to do. Wildstar might as well do it too. Grant any returning players an XP boost on all characters that's decent enough to motivate them to work on their characters. Perhaps offer a starter dungeon gear kit when they finally hit max level to allow them to at least experience some raid content with their friends.. an LFR style scenario. And just hope the game is solid enough to keep hold of the players.

Same with supporting Streamers and YouTubers more.

Trouble is this requires streamers and YouTube content creators to actually want to play the game. As of peak time EU on Twitch there are six Wildstar streamers with 22 viewers in total. Everquest 1 has more viewers. It's debatable how important this is as Rift doesn't have that many viewers either. I just don't see social media support as being a quick fix. The people on the other end of that relationship need to want to play the game first.

[Acidbaron]

F2P isn't the magic cure for everything and even with F2P i don't think most games would do well if it wasn't paired with a P2P system, i mean look at that other game that is B2P, i hardly see people going "wow we got great amount and interesting content this year!" What is what basically was predicted and came to be.

F2P as an introduction to the game would work, i remember it worked great for anarchy online back in the day when they allowed a large chunk of the game to be free.

[Deleted]

F2P isn't the magic cure for everything and even with F2P i don't think most games would do well if it wasn't paired with a P2P system, i mean look at that other game that is B2P, i hardly see people going "wow we got great amount and interesting content this year!" What is what basically was predicted and came to be.

F2P as an introduction to the game would work, i remember it worked great for anarchy online back in the day when they allowed a large chunk of the game to be free.

WildStar could pull off SWTOR, F2P except housing and raids only for people who pay monthly.

[Calfredd]

WildStar could pull off SWTOR, F2P except housing and raids only for people who pay monthly.

Hopefully they don't make the f2p option as sadistically limited as they did with SWToR should they ever go the f2p route. Also instead of completely removing housing for f2p, they could just make it limited like with an item cap where you can only have so many items. Housing was one of the major features of Wildstar so having a limited version seems kind of fair. But again, that is for if they should ever go the f2p route.

[Katchii]

I enjoyed Wildstar and would come back if given free time to check out Drop 4, but there's no way I'm going to sub to this game when there are (IMO) at least 3 better options out there to play that don't have the same issues as Wildstar.

My main concern at this point though would be as Acidbaron said, a catch up mechanism that would help bring people who left shortly after launch up to par with people who may have stuck it out and maxed out their AMPs, etc... player power parity vs time invested is a paltry concern when compared to keeping the game itself afloat and ensuring new or returning players enjoy their time so they sub.

[Deleted]

My main concern at this point though would be as Acidbaron said, a catch up mechanism that would help bring people who left shortly after launch up to par with people who may have stuck it out and maxed out their AMPs, etc... player power parity vs time invested is a paltry concern when compared to keeping the game itself afloat and ensuring new or returning players enjoy their time so they sub.

There are quite a few new ways to get AMP / Ability Points already, veteran shiphands will give a pair in drop 4 and think there were renown rewards too.

[Deleted]

Started to actually see more and more players out in the game world....time and tide could be turning!

[Katchii]

There are quite a few new ways to get AMP / Ability Points already, veteran shiphands will give a pair in drop 4 and think there were renown rewards too.

That's good to know. Regardless, I still hope Wildstar goes F2P. IMO, the MMO landscape just doesn't have room for a subscription based game that bombed the release and is failing to produce worthwhile patches or fix bugs when there are other more polished and established options out there with a subscription. FFXIV: ARR is an exception simply because the company was willing to completely revamp the entire game and spent millions fixing it from the garbage it was at 1.0 launch... I don't think Carbine has the luxury of being able to do that.

Going F2P would allow for millions more players to get into and experience the goodness of Wildstar and spend money on what they enjoy, piecemeal, and keep Carbine and therefore Wildstar afloat. As a sub I just think this game will go the way of Tabula Rasa....

[Gray_Matter]

F2P isn't the magic cure for everything and even with F2P i don't think most games would do well if it wasn't paired with a P2P system, i mean look at that other game that is B2P, i hardly see people going "wow we got great amount and interesting content this year!" What is what basically was predicted and came to be.

F2P as an introduction to the game would work, i remember it worked great for anarchy online back in the day when they allowed a large chunk of the game to be free.

First, to address your "dig" at the "other game that is B2P" as you call it. They released a lot more content over the 18 odd months preceeding WoD compared to WOW. They have released a fair amount of content. It's in their interest to do so because they monetize the new content. People aren't standing on the rafters shouting about all of the content but you can be sure they would be if there was no new content. The same way that they did while waiting for WoD. A couple have actually been complaining of late because there was a 2-3 month gap in new content. You may not like the content that they release but there is definitely content being released.

You seem to have this misconception about P2P. You are not paying for the content with P2P, you are paying for the right to play. You can't stop paying and still do the "old" content that you already paid for. It's in the companies interest to keep releasing content to keep people playing. This used to be a necessary evil because of the costs associated with hosting a MMO (server, staff, support, network, internet, etc) but most of the costs have dropped dramatically. The only cost that has increased is staff costs and there are more ways to automate a lot of things so less staff should be requried.

The pros and cons as I see them are as follows:

Pros

F2P - Free
F2P with P2P option - Free for some users, people willing to pay for extra benefits can do.
B2P - Developer gets money for their effort and users get what they pay for. There are a lot of games that you buy. Why should an MMO be any different. The server hosting costs are minor.
B2P with paid expansions - As with B2P except developers have an incentive to release more content. Users get lots of content and don't get ripped off. Developers have an ongoing revenue stream.
P2P - Pay gate on gold sellers and percieved exclusivity.
P2P with paid expansions - Very little chance that new games will be released this way in the future is the only pro.

Cons

F2P - There is a big danger that these become P2W. Nothing is free and they have to make money. The most lucrative way to make money with this model is P2W.
F2P with P2P option - The P2P people are effectively P2W. The only difference is that you are paying a set amount every month to win instead of paying as much as you can to win. It almost impossible for F2P players to stand on an equal footing with the P2P players.
B2P - Where is the future money coming from? Releasing drips and drabs and then monetising it is not great for players.
B2P with paid expansions - IMHO, not a lot.
P2P - Monthly cost, no guarantee of content. You are paying for bug fixes and support.
P2P with paid expansions - Face it, the developer has their cake and is eating it too and I have an active WOW subscription so I am also a sucker.

There are situations where the above can break from the mould. For example, F2P could rely solely on cosmetic items and services (transfers, char slots, etc). Only practice will prove how companies choose to implement the model. B2P and P2P have the advantage of putting a barrier in front of gold sellers, etc. P2P games can also start selling boosts and fancy gear in a cash shop.

IMHO, the best option for studios is F2P + P2P. They get the best of both worlds and if they can fool the players into believing that they are not P2W then they have a real winner (SWTOR I am looking at you).

The best option for players is B2P + paid for expansions. They get to chose what they want to pay for. Studios can still make a decent amount of money. I think that WS should have gone this route. They could have let people buy expansions with CREDD. If they can push out the expansions every 6-9 months then so much the better. Put cosmetic and housing stuff in the store and you are made. You can even let people buy raids.

BTW, I do agree with you. F2P is no guarantee for success. It's certain to increase the number of players, at least for a temporary time but there needs to be a way to make money from people.

[Katchii]

F2P - There is a big danger that these become P2W. Nothing is free and they have to make money. The most lucrative way to make money with this model is P2W.
F2P with P2P option - The P2P people are effectively P2W. The only difference is that you are paying a set amount every month to win instead of paying as much as you can to win. It almost impossible for F2P players to stand on an equal footing with the P2P players.

I just don't agree with this. Most lucrative are the ones with all the cosmetic stuff and some cool luxury items that don't give any real performance benefit with a subscription option that gives subs additional perks, that again don't really have any performance benefits, because then more players play the game as a whole and the company is getting more money from more people. P2W games piss off too many people and have smaller player bases to be as lucrative a model as a model like SW:ToR.

SW:ToR could be argued to be P2W for subs, but all of the unlocks and stuff are available to F2P players too, they just cost credits instead of being automatic.

[Acidbaron]

I'm not taking a swing at your precious GW2 gray, that's how people who play GW2 feel and what has happened to that sort of model. I heard about that content, shall we go visit the forums of GW2 here how much they praise that content... oh wait it isn't out there.

If anything regarding B2P, arenanet should take lessons from Funcom's TSW how to deal with it.

If a P2P game offers me nothing more to do i stop paying, it's that simple it does give developers more room to work with and it does not mean that they have to sit around a table going "hmm how can me make MORE money from that content, what can we insert that would make people go and buy things from our store" that's why i dislike it and monetization is a reality on that front. A monthly sub means developers get that much funds and based on that "steady" income they can generate content players like and want.

Were as with the rest the money making has to be integrated in the content, what is how the whole P2W came to be and the whole class division in players. What i dislike as i find all content should be accessible for a single fee, so yes i don't like the whole mount and pet situation from blizzard or do i like the clothing store in TSW, although as a life time member and thus sub forever i get points for free every month making it so any cosmetics are easily acquired together with other content packs.

Don't need an entire list of things of your own personal take and thus heavily biased cons and pros to figure that out. I've been in this genre for over 10 years and i've seen many transistions and how things came to be, so calling my views misconceptions just shows how little you know


I wouldn't mind if WoW or other games became B2P, but not Arenanets version of that model but Funcoms, as i still remember the greedy first halloween event from Arenanet and that's were they showed their true colors of how low they would go to earn money.

[Deleted]

If a P2P game offers me nothing more to do i stop paying, it's that simple it does give developers more room to work with and it does not mean that they have to sit around a table going "hmm how can me make MORE money from that content, what can we insert that would make people go and buy things from our store" that's why i dislike it and monetization is a reality on that front. A monthly sub means developers get that much funds and based on that "steady" income they can generate content players like and want.

Were as with the rest the money making has to be integrated in the content, what is how the whole P2W came to be and the whole class division in players. What i dislike as i find all content should be accessible for a single fee, so yes i don't like the whole mount and pet situation from blizzard or do i like the clothing store in TSW, although as a life time member and thus sub forever i get points for free every month making it so any cosmetics are easily acquired together with other content packs.

Agreed with that. Reason why I hate cash shops is that best looking armors in games are ALWAYS there. Even if you do the hardest endgame stuff, gear from that looks like a brown sack compared to 20 good looking real $$ armor sets.

Now, people might go like "yeah, but its only cosmetic" well, for me getting that good looking set without any effort ruins the game. Making your character look good should take some effort other than typing your credit card info.

[Gray_Matter]

I'm not taking a swing at your precious GW2 gray, that's how people who play GW2 feel and what has happened to that sort of model. I heard about that content, shall we go visit the forums of GW2 here how much they praise that content... oh wait it isn't out there.

Just for the record, I am not playing GW2 at the moment. Forum users are very quick to complain when they don't like something, not the other way around. That aside, every couple of weeks when there is a content release Karizee posts a thread about it and normally the people either compliment or complain about it on those threads. There have been quite a few compliments about the releases.

If anything regarding B2P, arenanet should take lessons from Funcom's TSW how to deal with it.

Now we are getting somewhere. If you had read my post, I actually agree with this. I don't like the way GW2 is releasing content because the content that they release is monetized in every way, shape and form. I am happy to pay for content because if you don't pay for it with money you will pay for it in other ways, some which will be at the games expense. I prefer the B2P + pay for expansions approach. My comment to you about GW2 was that you can't say that there is no content being released. There is content being released, you just don't like it.

If a P2P game offers me nothing more to do i stop paying, it's that simple it does give developers more room to work with and it does not mean that they have to sit around a table going "hmm how can me make MORE money from that content, what can we insert that would make people go and buy things from our store" that's why i dislike it and monetization is a reality on that front. A monthly sub means developers get that much funds and based on that "steady" income they can generate content players like and want.

Were as with the rest the money making has to be integrated in the content, what is how the whole P2W came to be and the whole class division in players. What i dislike as i find all content should be accessible for a single fee, so yes i don't like the whole mount and pet situation from blizzard or do i like the clothing store in TSW, although as a life time member and thus sub forever i get points for free every month making it so any cosmetics are easily acquired together with other content packs.

The thing is, none of the systems will guarantee anything. P2P can just as easily start milking players for extra cash and a F2P company could stick to their guns and play the straight and narrow. It all depends on how companies implement their option.

Don't need an entire list of things of your own personal take and thus heavily biased cons and pros to figure that out. I've been in this genre for over 10 years and i've seen many transistions and how things came to be, so calling my views misconceptions just shows how little you know

You are merging the two parts of my post together. The first part was about your dig at GW2 and what I see as a misconception you have about P2P, the second part was my pros and cons of each approach.

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed with that. Reason why I hate cash shops is that best looking armors in games are ALWAYS there. Even if you do the hardest endgame stuff, gear from that looks like a brown sack compared to 20 good looking real $$ armor sets.

Now, people might go like "yeah, but its only cosmetic" well, for me getting that good looking set without any effort ruins the game. Making your character look good should take some effort other than typing your credit card info.

The thing is, you want people who can pay extra to do just that. If some whale is willing to come along and throw $5000 at the game then that's a good thing. Companies need to make a profit and those people will subsidize your game play. There will be more money to build content. As long as there is a way for players to get the same things in game (e.g. game currency to XXX to items) then I don't have a problem with it. Serious raiders can get a BOE item, sell it for 100k in game currency which could then be traded for 10 of XXX.

What I don't understand is how you can say "getting that good looking set without any effort ruins the game". How does what one person looks like or how they play the game effect your gameplay?

[Kelimbror]

I don't like the way GW2 is releasing content because the content that they release is monetized in every way, shape and form.

That's funny. I log on and play the content for free every single patch. Prior to Season 2, living story wasn't monetized at all. Now it's B2P if you miss it when it is current, which is fair. I have a large difficulty seeing how something completely free to experience is 'monetized in every way, shape, and form'. That's a quite distorted view from what is actually happening.

OT, but needed to be clarified.

[Gray_Matter]

That's funny. I log on and play the content for free every single patch. Prior to Season 2, living story wasn't monetized at all. Now it's B2P if you miss it when it is current, which is fair. I have a large difficulty seeing how something completely free to experience is 'monetized in every way, shape, and form'. That's a quite distorted view from what is actually happening.

OT, but needed to be clarified.

I don't think it's off topic as it goes to a suggested payment option for WS.

when I say 'monetized', I don't mean that you have to pay for anything. I mean the outfits, etc that are released with the patches. The gem store items that pretty much accompany every content release. If there was a fairy invasion then there would be fairy outfits, fairy weapon skins, fairy dyes, etc. To me it takes a bit away from the game. If users are paying for "expansions", there would be more focus on content and less on how to draw revenue from it. F2P is even more reliant on that because they don't have the box sales to fund the initial game development so they need to recover those costs along with the ongoing content costs.

[Kelimbror]

I don't think it's off topic as it goes to a suggested payment option for WS.

when I say 'monetized', I don't mean that you have to pay for anything. I mean the outfits, etc that are released with the patches. The gem store items that pretty much accompany every content release. If there was a fairy invasion then there would be fairy outfits, fairy weapon skins, fairy dyes, etc. To me it takes a bit away from the game. If users are paying for "expansions", there would be more focus on content and less on how to draw revenue from it

Ok, good clarification. I totally misinterpreted you. However, either way it goes they are still trying to find ways to make you pay and keep playing. Whether they create an armor set you pay for or they add it behind a rep, it's no different. We'd be naive to think differently. The end result is simply what you pay for.

In sub only games, you cannot even log in to look at your character until you pay up. In B2P or F2P with a cash shop, you can always log on and any items you paid for in the past are always available to be enjoyed. It's a difference of paying for access and paying for extras. I prefer to pay for extras. Paying for access doesn't guarantee you anything. At least with the other payment models you can choose where your money goes.