Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ...
7
8
9
10
11
LastLast
  1. #161
    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    MY own myopic view. Well, it also happens to be the view of Trion Worlds, so it isn't just mine. Yeah, Trion Worlds made Rift with profit in mind. They are profitable with a sub model and choose to stick with it. They have earned my sub and all of you sitting here screaming for F2P as well. Rifts population is healthy and growing and they are profitable, with a sub. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
    Actually, we are more discussing what sort of f2p model would work best for rift. Not demanding it switch to f2p.

    Again, not sure who you are arguing against.
    (Warframe) - Dragon & Typhoon-
    (Neverwinter) - Trickster Rogue & Guardian Fighter -

  2. #162
    Quote Originally Posted by hk-51 View Post
    Actually, we are more discussing what sort of f2p model would work best for rift. Not demanding it switch to f2p.

    Again, not sure who you are arguing against.
    If it isn't something you want for Rift, and just want to discuss interesting F2P models, why is it in the Rift Forums? By discussing it in the Rift forum, you are making it about Rift. Which, as pointed out very early in the thread, just substantiates the rumors and makes people question if Rift players are discussing F2P options, then maybe Rift is gonna go F2P.

  3. #163
    I am hardly "screaming for f2p". It is simply profitable model which is not indicative of laziness on consumer part. It is indicative that people are not going to pay a sub for 3-4 games at a time. Most are going to stick to World of Warcraft, the undisputed giant of the genre and market, or follow small niche games. Such as Rift- which survives by virtue of servicing a small audience.

    Never did I say sub models are nonviable. Only that subs are not as profitable for the majority of the market's games or attractive to it's consumers. Which again, is a definite measurable reality.

    Also companies and corporations can have myopic views of the market to both their detriment or success. We have literal hundreds of examples in history to this fact. Not sure why you would bring that up as some sort of blanket. Seems bizarre.

    Diet Dr. Pepper says, yolo.

  4. #164
    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    If it isn't something you want for Rift, and just want to discuss interesting F2P models, why is it in the Rift Forums? By discussing it in the Rift forum, you are making it about Rift. Which, as pointed out very early in the thread, just substantiates the rumors and makes people question if Rift players are discussing F2P options, then maybe Rift is gonna go F2P.
    Because, as I JUST SAID, its a thread about what would work well with RIFT
    Quote Originally Posted by hk-51 View Post
    Actually, we are more discussing what sort of f2p model would work best for rift. Not demanding it switch to f2p.

    Again, not sure who you are arguing against.
    edit: For swtor I would suggest a different model and for lotro... well. Their model is already really good. lol.
    Last edited by Bardarian; 2013-01-27 at 12:17 AM.
    (Warframe) - Dragon & Typhoon-
    (Neverwinter) - Trickster Rogue & Guardian Fighter -

  5. #165
    I fine with it going F2P, as long as it gets a good F2P model, LOTRO model is, in my opinion, on of the best F2P models out there. If you try hard, you can even play completely free and get all the paid stuff for free, but it requires a big amount of work to be able to do that.

  6. #166
    Pandaren Monk Solzan Nemesis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Where ever the Regent-Lord needs me to be
    Posts
    1,973
    Wait. Rift has not gone f2p yet? I am surprised.

  7. #167
    Quote Originally Posted by Solzan Nemesis View Post
    Wait. Rift has not gone f2p yet? I am surprised.
    You would be surprised how many recruit a friends I get in a week then, too.

    (I'll put it to you this way. I haven't had to pay a subscription fee in a long time and I won't have to for the foreseeable future)

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-27 at 12:33 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Solzan Nemesis View Post
    Wait. Rift has not gone f2p yet? I am surprised.
    Also, Lathias. Look.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    Which, as pointed out very early in the thread, just substantiates the rumors and makes people question if Rift players are discussing F2P options, then maybe Rift is gonna go F2P.
    If anything this thread has taught some people that it is not F2P.
    (Warframe) - Dragon & Typhoon-
    (Neverwinter) - Trickster Rogue & Guardian Fighter -

  8. #168
    Quote Originally Posted by hk-51 View Post
    You would be surprised how many recruit a friends I get in a week then, too.

    (I'll put it to you this way. I haven't had to pay a subscription fee in a long time and I won't have to for the foreseeable future)

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-27 at 12:33 AM ----------



    Also, Lathias. Look.


    If anything this thread has taught some people that it is not F2P.
    and look, it proves that people have a negative view of games that do. They think Rift is so terrible and noone plays it that it should be F2P. The fact that it surprises people means that they may actually consider it, because if it is still growing, then it must be a good game if people are willing to sub for it.

    F2P is looked down on by the community. There are some games it works for, but where are they now? Are they as strong and profitable as Rift? Are the companies that run them able to push out anywhere near as much content as Rift? Are they able to working on several other large games? No, they are not.

    I just fail to see the merits of a F2P system as any thing else than a game going, "Our product is not worth a sub and we ae unable to make it so Instead, let's get free/cheap labor to make fluff that people will pay for, keep putting out mediocre content and then on top of that, if some people still want to give us sub money we'll let them too."

    Rift on the other hand took an entirely different approah by saying, "Let's make our product worth the sub." If the other games that have gone F2P did this instead, they may be better off, no telling, they took the easy way out.

    As I have made clear, I think the sub model, when done right, is clearly, as proven by WoW(in the past) and Rift, the superior model. Rift is the better game and can prove to investors they can make enough money that they lent them more for other projects.

  9. #169
    Quote Originally Posted by hk-51 View Post
    You would be surprised how many recruit a friends I get in a week then, too.

    (I'll put it to you this way. I haven't had to pay a subscription fee in a long time and I won't have to for the foreseeable future)
    What do you mean? Sorry, I just started playing RIFT and I am still new at it, but what is recruit a friends? and how do you get so many in one week, that it lets you play rift for "free".

  10. #170
    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    and look, it proves that people have a negative view of games that do. They think Rift is so terrible and noone plays it that it should be F2P. The fact that it surprises people means that they may actually consider it, because if it is still growing, then it must be a good game if people are willing to sub for it.
    I didn't find what he said to be negative. He was surprised that the 5 year trend has only 2 exceptions. One of which is war-hammer which has about 50k subscribers or something.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    F2P is looked down on by the community. There are some games it works for, but where are they now? Are they as strong and profitable as Rift? Are the companies that run them able to push out anywhere near as much content as Rift? Are they able to working on several other large games? No, they are not.
    Nexon (and I think perfect world international) are all insanely larger than EA or activision (so large that people were concerned that nexon was going to buy EA lock stock and barrel last year) and specialize in F2P games. Many eastern MMOs that are F2P are believed to be much larger than any of the recent subscription mmos. Even within WoW subscriber players make up a smaller percentage of the population compared to PPH players. The fact is you haven't the slightest idea how Rifts numbers stack up against anything so stop trying to pass speculation off as fact.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    I just fail to see the merits of a F2P system as any thing else than a game going, "Our product is not worth a sub and we ae unable to make it so Instead, let's get free/cheap labor to make fluff that people will pay for, keep putting out mediocre content and then on top of that, if some people still want to give us sub money we'll let them too."
    We can tell you fail to see the obvious merits of a adjustable investment model.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    Rift on the other hand took an entirely different approah by saying, "Let's make our product worth the sub." If the other games that have gone F2P did this instead, they may be better off, no telling, they took the easy way out.
    Since the goal of most F2P models is to make people choose "premium status" (subscriber status) you are completely wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    As I have made clear, I think the sub model, when done right, is clearly, as proven by WoW(in the past) and Rift, the superior model. Rift is the better game and can prove to investors they can make enough money that they lent them more for other projects.
    And again, just to point out, most world of warcraft players use an adjustable payment model called PPH which is better than subscription because it doesn't charge you for time you don't spend playing.

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-27 at 12:58 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Komoxiz View Post
    What do you mean? Sorry, I just started playing RIFT and I am still new at it, but what is recruit a friends? and how do you get so many in one week, that it lets you play rift for "free".
    for rift it's called ascend a friend.
    Basically, you have a code / link you can hand out to people and if they get the game and pay more than a months subscription you end up getting a bag of currencies and a free month. Along with a pet, then a hat, then a horse. It's awesome. Anyways, anytime I see someone discontent with their current MMO I ask them what they are looking for, if rift sounds like a good fit I send them a code.
    Last edited by Bardarian; 2013-01-27 at 01:08 AM.
    (Warframe) - Dragon & Typhoon-
    (Neverwinter) - Trickster Rogue & Guardian Fighter -

  11. #171
    Quote Originally Posted by hk-51 View Post
    Nexon (and I think perfect world international) are all insanely larger than EA or activision (so large that people were concerned that nexon was going to buy EA lock stock and barrel last year) and specialize in F2P games. Many eastern MMOs that are F2P are believed to be much larger than any of the recent subscription mmos. Even within WoW subscriber players make up a smaller percentage of the population compared to PPH players. The fact is you haven't the slightest idea how Rifts numbers stack up against anything so stop trying to pass speculation off as fact.
    Really, you're gonna use Nexon? Nexon makes tons and tons of crappy games and nothing anywhere near the scale of WoW. Let's at least try to keep the comparisons in the same genre. You're comparing a 5-Star Restaurant to McDonald's. Yeah, McDonalds makes more money selling cheap burgers because they are all over the place.

    Many Eastern MMOs? So games in an entirely different market, where the culture supports these models because most of the people that play the games do not even own PCs so they have to go to netcafes. That model makes sense under those circumstances. That and as you said, believed to be, bring facts please. You continue to bring up WoW, and mention that PPH works in the east for it. If it is such a great model, why do they not use it everywhere else? Because it sucks for anyone else. It's used there due to government regulations and the fact that people play at netcafes because they do not have their own PCs.

    You know what else "works great" for a lot of Eastern Countries? Communism. Dictatorships.

    Quote Originally Posted by hk-51 View Post
    We can tell you fail to see the obvious merits of a adjustable investment model.
    Obvious merits? They appear to be a pain in the ass. Edge said earlier in any situation you have to question it's a bad model. Sub should always get you everything. Here's the thing, I don't play the game for everything, so I must constantly question. If I have to constantly question something, I am just gonna quit.

    Quote Originally Posted by hk-51 View Post
    Since the goal of most F2P models is to make people choose "premium status" (subscriber status) you are completely wrong.
    No, that is my opinion, therefor it cannot be wrong. My opinion is that these game devs that switch to F2P are lazy. They cannot pump out as much good content as the big guys, their game is not worth a sub. Instead of working hard and making it that way, fixing the game, they go F2P and milk their players for all they are worth. They continue to push out content, maybe slightly faster, because they know the game is on it's way to a slow painful death so they just push everything they have out the door. Sure, you save money if you sub, but you are still paying a game that even it's own developers do not feel is worth a sub. IN MY OPINION(It's opinion, it cannot be wrong, and you cannot prove it wrong) if the games have gotten their shit together, increased their level of content release and quality to something like Rifts, they could have stayed mroe profitable as a sub model. However, they could not hack it.


    and again, that model works in china for very different reasons. If it is such a great model, how come no one uses it here? Because it's shit that's why.

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-28 at 09:28 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by edgecrusher View Post
    If you have to question that then it's a shitty model. The subscription should always be the better option for people who want access to the entire game.
    Just want to add on to this. IMO, all F2P models are shitty then. You see, I question every time I spend cash on anything if that is the best/most effective way to spend it. I'm not rich, I have a wife and a kid and did not even clear 30k last year, so yeah, I question every damn cent. Also, I don't necessarily want access to the entire game. If it's Rift we are talking about, I do not want Dimensions, I do not want extra char slots, I do not need extra bank space, I do not want pets, I do not want mounts. I don't want everything, therefore, I DO have to question it. I have to question if I would be better off buying what I want piece meal. Then I have to worry if my raiders know that the new raid is coming out and if they have access to it. It's just plain dumb.

  12. #172
    The Unstoppable Force Kelimbror's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Bear Taco, Left Hand of Death
    Posts
    21,280
    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    No, that is my opinion, therefor it cannot be wrong.
    Actually, opinions can be wrong. People used to think that the world was flat.

    You say that everyone who plays F2P and develops F2P is lazy. I'm pretty sure you are one of the only people around that think that. That's a pretty sweeping judgment that cannot possibly be right just through knowledge of how businesses work. Not to mention all the other details that can be observed.

    At this point I'm starting to wonder if Lathais is just a controversial character you play on forums and not your true self.
    BAD WOLF

  13. #173
    Quote Originally Posted by Kittyvicious View Post
    Actually, opinions can be wrong. People used to think that the world was flat.

    You say that everyone who plays F2P and develops F2P is lazy. I'm pretty sure you are one of the only people around that think that. That's a pretty sweeping judgment that cannot possibly be right just through knowledge of how businesses work. Not to mention all the other details that can be observed.

    At this point I'm starting to wonder if Lathais is just a controversial character you play on forums and not your true self.
    No, these are my opinions and stances. Also, you cannot prove to me that any of these games are better off now than if they had actually fixed their game, or made it right from the start. They chose to go F2P and continue to get away with not releasing content at the speed or quality of Rift. Rift has proven that it is profitable and I do not see any model out there that would not turn me away from the game.

    Thought of a counter to the magazine counter too. Look at it like this, each month, you can choose to pay for just that month, same a a magazine stand, or you can choose to sub for a year and pay it all up front. Just like with magazines, you get both. If you want to compare F2P to magazines, show me a successful magazine that sells it's articles one by one. You can still buy the ability to play each month, and cancel anytime, or buy the 6 month or year sub options, just like a magazine.

  14. #174
    Herald of the Titans theWocky's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    2,766
    I don't deny that F2P could work. I just think that the game would probably suffer if it did go F2P. I would stick around and monitor it, however. If, during the year that I've already paid for I start incurring costs, I'll probably rather spend that money on single player games. It could be good for the game, though. Would have to see it if it happened.

    This is my personal opinion, but I generally regard F2P mmo games as sub-standard. Can't explain it. I'm not saying it can't be done, but just the way I feel about it.

    Maybe if Trion was ever put in that position and found some way to do it right, I would change my mind.

  15. #175
    The Unstoppable Force Kelimbror's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Bear Taco, Left Hand of Death
    Posts
    21,280
    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    No, these are my opinions and stances. Also, you cannot prove to me that any of these games are better off now than if they had actually fixed their game, or made it right from the start. They chose to go F2P and continue to get away with not releasing content at the speed or quality of Rift. Rift has proven that it is profitable and I do not see any model out there that would not turn me away from the game.
    I can completely prove that they are better off, but what you really mean is I can't change your mind. So I don't really need to try. People like to claim that F2P is brought on by a game dying, but then refuse to admit that the game still existing years later is proof that it's better off. Well...I'm sufficiently convinced the same logic will fail us in this situation so it is what it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    Thought of a counter to the magazine counter too. Look at it like this, each month, you can choose to pay for just that month, same a a magazine stand, or you can choose to sub for a year and pay it all up front. Just like with magazines, you get both. If you want to compare F2P to magazines, show me a successful magazine that sells it's articles one by one. You can still buy the ability to play each month, and cancel anytime, or buy the 6 month or year sub options, just like a magazine.
    Unfortunately magazines can't be used as a comparison at all because they make their revenue from advertising. Clearly they couldn't sell individual articles because they need to have high subscription and distribution numbers to make money. People are the product for magazine companies. The magazine is not the product.

    It's the same reason why if you look for them (or are in college and get spammed with them) you can find magazine deals for up to 95% off the retail price. You only need to pay to cover the paper and ink in your hand. The rest of the money they get from the thousands of ads inside.
    BAD WOLF

  16. #176
    Quote Originally Posted by Kittyvicious View Post
    I can completely prove that they are better off, but what you really mean is I can't change your mind. So I don't really need to try. People like to claim that F2P is brought on by a game dying, but then refuse to admit that the game still existing years later is proof that it's better off. Well...I'm sufficiently convinced the same logic will fail us in this situation so it is what it is.


    Unfortunately magazines can't be used as a comparison at all because they make their revenue from advertising. Clearly they couldn't sell individual articles because they need to have high subscription and distribution numbers to make money. People are the product for magazine companies. The magazine is not the product.

    It's the same reason why if you look for them (or are in college and get spammed with them) you can find magazine deals for up to 95% off the retail price. You only need to pay to cover the paper and ink in your hand. The rest of the money they get from the thousands of ads inside.
    Please do completely prove it. You can't. Because you cannot go back in time and make them release the game when it's ready instead of before it is, then spending months playing catch up, then going F2P. The fact that they are still existing years later does not mean that they could not be bigger and better off years later if they had released a game worth paying the sub for. It just means that's what happened and there happen to be enough suckers that will sit there and pay for fluff.


    My point exactly, however it was an argument Fencers and HK were attempting to use.

  17. #177
    The Unstoppable Force Kelimbror's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Bear Taco, Left Hand of Death
    Posts
    21,280
    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    Please do completely prove it. You can't. Because you cannot go back in time and make them release the game when it's ready instead of before it is, then spending months playing catch up, then going F2P.
    So your new reason for games going F2P is because they are all games that were released before they should have been? Can we please stick to one line of reasoning instead of constantly shifting it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    The fact that they are still existing years later does not mean that they could not be bigger and better off years later if they had released a game worth paying the sub for.
    I didn't realize that arguing a businesses success depends on quantification of alternate reality scenarios. By that argument, every company that makes tablets can't be successful because they didn't make an iPad before Apple did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    It just means that's what happened and there happen to be enough suckers that will sit there and pay for fluff.
    Sure. Your reason (quoted) is the only one why F2P games have grown, put out new content, innovated new features, etc?
    BAD WOLF

  18. #178
    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    Then I have to worry if my raiders know that the new raid is coming out and if they have access to it. It's just plain dumb.
    If you're having to worry about that, then you either don't know/trust your raiders enough, or Trion would be doing a horrible job of delivering the news of what is included in an update. If you're a raiding focused guild, then there should be no questions about whether or not you raiders have the new content on the day it's released. Ever.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    Please do completely prove it. You can't.
    In lieu of me digging up numbers/data doing a ton of work now (at work on a Monday morning -_-), I'll simply provide an example.

    Warhammer Online: Still subscription only, playerbase has dwindled to next to nothing (as per my friend who gave it a shot last year, the one US server has only 1 active guild on it on the "bad" side), and it receives maybe 1-2 minor content updates/fix patches a year. It's basically stagnant.

    Vanguard: Was stagnant for years, not even receiving bug fix patches. Pre-F2P transition, they pulled an actual team on who did a ton of work fixing bugs and improving the game, and have kept the team on 6+ months afterwards. The team has created new content that's live, and is continuing to improve the existing game/fix bugs, and work on new content.

    Lineage 2: I pointed out the success of this after its F2P transition earlier, it's highly unlikely that "Fixing" the issues would have generated more subscribers as the initial box price and subscription are big barriers of entry for many people (Fencers discussed this more earlier in the thread).

    LOTRO/DDO: Two niche titles that are still getting updates/support to this day, years after transitioning to F2P. They're no powerhouses, but they're in far better shape than a game like Warhammer, which suffered from many similar design problems.

    So by examining the states of a few different games over the years, we can easily surmise the F2P transitions have surely helped these games, whereas the games that didn't (Warhammer, and until recently Vanguard) stagnated or shrank.

    Again, I'm not arguing that Rift should go F2P, I'm simply pointing out that the business change has improved, or maintained, the quality of existing games where sticking to the traditional model has not.

  19. #179
    Quote Originally Posted by edgecrusher View Post
    If you're having to worry about that, then you either don't know/trust your raiders enough, or Trion would be doing a horrible job of delivering the news of what is included in an update. If you're a raiding focused guild, then there should be no questions about whether or not you raiders have the new content on the day it's released. Ever.



    In lieu of me digging up numbers/data doing a ton of work now (at work on a Monday morning -_-), I'll simply provide an example.

    Warhammer Online: Still subscription only, playerbase has dwindled to next to nothing (as per my friend who gave it a shot last year, the one US server has only 1 active guild on it on the "bad" side), and it receives maybe 1-2 minor content updates/fix patches a year. It's basically stagnant.

    Vanguard: Was stagnant for years, not even receiving bug fix patches. Pre-F2P transition, they pulled an actual team on who did a ton of work fixing bugs and improving the game, and have kept the team on 6+ months afterwards. The team has created new content that's live, and is continuing to improve the existing game/fix bugs, and work on new content.

    Lineage 2: I pointed out the success of this after its F2P transition earlier, it's highly unlikely that "Fixing" the issues would have generated more subscribers as the initial box price and subscription are big barriers of entry for many people (Fencers discussed this more earlier in the thread).

    LOTRO/DDO: Two niche titles that are still getting updates/support to this day, years after transitioning to F2P. They're no powerhouses, but they're in far better shape than a game like Warhammer, which suffered from many similar design problems.

    So by examining the states of a few different games over the years, we can easily surmise the F2P transitions have surely helped these games, whereas the games that didn't (Warhammer, and until recently Vanguard) stagnated or shrank.

    Again, I'm not arguing that Rift should go F2P, I'm simply pointing out that the business change has improved, or maintained, the quality of existing games where sticking to the traditional model has not.
    Warhammer had it's own entire other set of problems that made it not succeed. However, if it had not had those problems, and the game was released well and bugs fixed quickly and updates in a timely manner, no telling if it would have been better off. Yes, I played it at launch.

    Vanguard: Again, had it's own set of problems. I actually played this one at release. Barely. Was not a fun game.

    Lineage 2: It's highly unlikely that fixing the biggest complaint from players that quit the game would have gotten them to stay? Really? Highly unlikely? We could have a whole discussion on this alone, however, the biggest complaint I heard about it was the grindyness. In it's F2P model you can buy 7-day XP Boosts. This makes it enjoyable to the people who said it was not. If you just granted that across the board to everyone instead of going F2P then charging for it, who is to say they would not have stayed anyway? Neither you or I. We both have our thoughts one way or the other though. So far this is the most compelling argument for a F2P model IMO.

    LOTRO/DDO: Tried both at release, neither were particularly engaging nor made me want to stay beyond the week or so that I did. how do you get people to stay in a game that is not particularly engaging? Let them play it for free. Then give them things to buy that make them want to stay. Again, if you made the game engaging from the start, you would not have to do things this way.

    So by examining games that were boring to play, which Rift is not, we can surmise that if you take something boring and make it free, people will play it because it's free. Then, when they have some time invested, they will spend money on things like XP Boosts or mounts to get you around faster. Now that they have spent money on it, completely voluntarily, they feel invested and must stay and defend their choice.

    Again, I am not saying that all F2P games are shit, ones designed that way from the start are ok-ish, but still not my cup of tea. I'm simply pointing out that games sticking to the traditional model were obviously not providing a service worthy of that fee.

    I will admit, the barrier to entry to get into some sub based games is high. I am not saying the P2P model is perfect either. It could use some tweaks. Free Trials really do not do justice. Some sort of F2P/Trial options that can let a games true features be seen is an excellent idea. However, it should be severely limiting. Also, box costs are typically too high, especially if you have to pay a sub on top of it. I think Rift handles this well though, being able to buy the original game for $5 and having a cheaper expansion than most others.

  20. #180
    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    *snip*
    Every game has its problems at launch, it's just not that every game can fix them quickly or overcome them. Rift had its fair share of issues, but they were super quick to fix them. For those games that can't fix them as quickly as necessary, F2P becomes the "fallback" to help them bring in new players/revenue and improve upon the game.

    Warhammer: Still hasn't fixed most of the underlying issues, and has suffered greatly because of it. I played at launch too and it was a mess, great ideas behind it but terrible implementation. An earlier F2P conversion would have likely helped the game considerably as it would have brought in new players and revenue to help them maintain an actual development team.

    Vanguard: It's a bit unique in that it was basically launched in its pre-alpha phase, I played this at launch too (what a mess that was). It's still the most ambitious game released in the past 5 or so years, but because of the launch issues it stagnated. Even when they did address many of the problems in the post-launch patches (it was playable at least), there was no way they were going to pull back many people who left, or pull in new players. The only way for them to get new blood back in was a transition. It's very difficult to try to re-engage players who have let their subscription lapse for years, or to try and engage new players with an older subscription based game.

    L2: Again, in order to make those sales, they had to re-engage the playerbase. Fixing the "problems" wouldn't matter if it was still a boxed copy with a subscription, because that's a high barrier of entry for people to test out the "fixed" version. As I said with Vanguard, the hardest part for a subscription based MMO, especially a much older one with a stigma attached to it, is re-engaging lapses players and more specifically trying to engage new players. Aion still has the "grinder" stigma attached to it despite the grind being mostly gone.

    LOTRO/DDO: It wasn't engaging for enough people initially (though remember, the market was much different at the time), I agree. However they worked on the issues and by the F2P relaunch, apparently it was engaging enough to play again.

    The idea that people will play a "bad" game that's not engaging simply because it's free just isn't accurate in the current market. It's one of the myths that still exists from years ago (along with myths like "Every F2P MMO is P2W"), but is no longer true. With the number of MMO's out there, both free and subscription based, there is no shortage of games to try out. If you're not engaged with one particular MMO, you're not going to end up playing it. I've uninstalled/stopped playing every MMO that I haven't found enjoyable, because there are plenty of other MMO's that I do enjoy. It's mostly the same for the majority of the MMO playerbase. They're not going to stick around with a mediocre game, and they definitely won't be spending much money on it.

    I agree with you on Rift though, Trion jumped on the issues players had and dealt with them rather quickly. The biggest thing is that the game was all around pretty solid at launch to begin with, so there weren't any really big mechanical or design issues with the game, just a number of minor/medium sized ones that they fixed.

    F2P offered the above games a second "lease on life" essentially. They wouldn't have gotten that chance if they had stayed with a subscription model (as they hadn't after working on addressing the issues and hadn't seen a big return of lapsed players).

    I agree that Rift isn't in a position where it "needs" it by any stretch, the game is still quite healthy and Trion still do a great job of running it and delivering value for the subscription. I've never said otherwise and don't see this changing anytime soon.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •