Suggestion: If Rift does go F2P...

[Kelimbror]

*snip*

While you offer lots of great points, it doesn't take some things into account that refute his arguments. It actually somewhat supports that if a game needs a new 'lease on life' that it wasn't good enough. The problem is more complex than that.

Every product out there has an audience. Some audiences are larger than others. This is true of really anything. Whether it's toilet paper or bacon or an MMO. Some products are going to naturally appeal to a more niche customer base. LotRO is an example of this. I think it was wishful thinking or poor initial calculations that led to the need for F2P. I honestly don't think it had anything to do with the game and more to do with the niche that the game fit in.

It was also developed at a time when there was relatively little experience making games like this. A LotRO MMO was being planned since the late 90's by a few different companies, Vivendi one of them, but Turbine acquired the rights and announced LotRO in 2005. This was right after WoW launched basically.

It still is a niche game, like many F2P games, but those games deserve a place in the market as well. The amount of people playing or the need to be F2P doesn't have any correlation to the quality of the game. There's no causality there for generalization.

[Arbs]

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.

I loved Warhammer , If it weren't for EA being the greedy buggers they are & actually drop the sub I would be playing that game 100% on my off-time & days.

[Lathais]

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.

Exactly. It's a fall back. It's what you do when your game is not worth the sub. It's not something any game should want or consider unless they need to. Rift obviously does not need to and any discussion about what model it should or would use just adds to the already crazy rumors and thoughts that it is and/or should go that route. They do not need a fall-back plan at this point as they are steadily growing and SL sales exceeded their expectations.

There are other ways to re-engage your players. Rift has used them. There are many players playing now who said they tried it at launch and did not like it, after all the changes, they now love it. Did Rift need to go F2P to do this? Well, if you consider free weekends, free weeks and free trials a F2P model then I guess so. Rift has proven that, again when done right, you do not need F2P to bring people back.

As for barrier to entry, pre-SL, was almost non-existent. Not even counting Steam Sales, Raptr promos and all the like, the game is $5 on their site. I do admit that barrier to entry is the largest problem in a P2P game, especially when it is really B2P2P. I mean I already bought the game, now I have to pay more? I think the way P2P games should be is, free trial to 10-20 or whatever works for the game, then you want to keep playing, sub up. No box to buy, no game to purchase, just add that sub to your account and go, and that is barely enough. You should be able to get a taste of end-game in that trial, since that is the meat of the game. Hence my "F2P" model that includes 1-50 for free then if you want to continue you sub.

[Tharkkun]

That's why when people scream for F2P I think to myself...you're going to pay more if you actually want more than the basics. For example I tried to return to EQ2 but in order to play my existing Iksar character I needed to pay. It was not one of the free race/class combinations. I promptly uninstalled.

The market for normal MMO players is long saturated so what you're seeing is players pulled in from different types of gaming and the thought of a subscription is unbearable. Dropping $20 every couple months seems perfectly legit.

Lathais: You're definitely imagining a F2P model with a Trial mentality. If it was F2P you would have no limit on the primary zones, quests, etc. But you might be limited to 1 character slot, 3 souls per class, a couple bags, 1 bank slot, no upgrades with world currency, etc. Your character will be crippled in a sense but the content wouldn't be limited.

You could then either subscribe with no limits (until your sub drops) or pay micro transactions to open up what you believe is necessary. This is the traditional and successful F2P model that many are jumping on.

[Trialtm]

Its quite depressing logging in everyday and seeing this thread. Its really the last thing i want to think about when coming to these sub-forums.

[Edge-]

That's why when people scream for F2P I think to myself...you're going to pay more if you actually want more than the basics. For example I tried to return to EQ2 but in order to play my existing Iksar character I needed to pay. It was not one of the free race/class combinations. I promptly uninstalled.

In good models (EQ2's model is about as bad as SWTOR's), you don't need to pay more as they deliver the majority of the game for free, or for very little. You shouldn't have had to pay for your Iksar character as SoE grandfathered in all existing characters allowing them to bypass the race/class restrictions. For gear though...you'd be SoL and would have to buy the unlocks for legendary and higher gear.

Its quite depressing logging in everyday and seeing this thread. Its really the last thing i want to think about when coming to these sub-forums.

Why? Ignoring something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's not as if people here are calling for Rift to go F2P, just discussing the hypothetical business models that could be used if it did go F2P, and discussing the business model as a whole in relation to MMO's.

[DeltrusDisc]

Why? Ignoring something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's not as if people here are calling for Rift to go F2P, just discussing the hypothetical business models that could be used if it did go F2P, and discussing the business model as a whole in relation to MMO's.

I think it will be a while until this happens, but first, we need to stop associating "F2P" business models with "lesser" MMORPGs/games. I realize I am very much a victim of this thinking, and I'd like to change it, hopefully soon. Path of Exile sure is helping, though it does have a good amount of trolling Diablo 3, so it has some of that "free community of children" sort of thing going on, where they are running wild and rampant and doing all of the crap that we don't want. I don't want to name names, but I think you all know the F2P games and their communities I'm talking about, that are known for more immaturity among their ranks than paid-for games.

Change the fact that F2P makes people think "it sucks" and get the communities to behave just a lick better, and a thread like this might not draw so much attention.

[Edge-]

I think it will be a while until this happens, but first, we need to stop associating "F2P" business models with "lesser" MMORPGs/games. I realize I am very much a victim of this thinking, and I'd like to change it, hopefully soon. Path of Exile sure is helping, though it does have a good amount of trolling Diablo 3, so it has some of that "free community of children" sort of thing going on, where they are running wild and rampant and doing all of the crap that we don't want. I don't want to name names, but I think you all know the F2P games and their communities I'm talking about, that are known for more immaturity among their ranks than paid-for games.

Change the fact that F2P makes people think "it sucks" and get the communities to behave just a lick better, and a thread like this might not draw so much attention.

Every new game in a genre that comes out has trolling at the start. Tera, Rift, SWTOR, GW2, everything. It's part of the nature of early adopters, the community is shit. Most F2P games do end up "evening out" and stabilizing as far as trolls/community goes, just as they do with subscription based games. Eventually the trolls get bored (most do) and leave for a newer game. Look at older F2P games where the communities have stabilized and you don't see the kind of nonsense you do with freshly launched games. Heck, some of the F2P games have better communities than I've seen in subscription based MMO's. CoH is the best example of this, and it still has the friendliest and most helpful community of any game I've played to this date (FFXI would take that crown, but it was only one guy and not a ton of them).

I agree with the "F2P is an equal and not lesser business model" mentality too. I've seen games using that model come a long way in quality, and rather than it being a "failure" of the game as a subscription based game, I view it as a tool to reinvigorate the game with an influx of new players (See the recent Star Trek Online producer letter where he says there are over 2 million accounts now. He doesn't specify if they're all active or not, but that's still pretty solid). Those games aren't all worse because of the F2P business model, it's just a different model. I can name my fair share of mediocre subscription based MMO's as well, and the mediocre ones that transitioned to F2P are still mediocre games.

I'd be happy with it as a F2P/hybrid game and wouldn't view a business model change as a bad thing (I'd most likely remain subscribed anyways), but it's not as if I want them to change. Again, I'm totally happy with Rift as a subscription only game and with the level of service that's being delivered.

[DeltrusDisc]

Every new game in a genre that comes out has trolling at the start. Tera, Rift, SWTOR, GW2, everything. It's part of the nature of early adopters, the community is shit. Most F2P games do end up "evening out" and stabilizing as far as trolls/community goes, just as they do with subscription based games. Eventually the trolls get bored (most do) and leave for a newer game. Look at older F2P games where the communities have stabilized and you don't see the kind of nonsense you do with freshly launched games. Heck, some of the F2P games have better communities than I've seen in subscription based MMO's. CoH is the best example of this, and it still has the friendliest and most helpful community of any game I've played to this date (FFXI would take that crown, but it was only one guy and not a ton of them).

I agree with the "F2P is an equal and not lesser business model" mentality too. I've seen games using that model come a long way in quality, and rather than it being a "failure" of the game as a subscription based game, I view it as a tool to reinvigorate the game with an influx of new players (See the recent Star Trek Online producer letter where he says there are over 2 million accounts now. He doesn't specify if they're all active or not, but that's still pretty solid). Those games aren't all worse because of the F2P business model, it's just a different model. I can name my fair share of mediocre subscription based MMO's as well, and the mediocre ones that transitioned to F2P are still mediocre games.

I'd be happy with it as a F2P/hybrid game and wouldn't view a business model change as a bad thing (I'd most likely remain subscribed anyways), but it's not as if I want them to change. Again, I'm totally happy with Rift as a subscription only game and with the level of service that's being delivered.

I didn't want to name games, but you did, so I feel compelled to say, the game whose community I've really not seen have much improvement after years of existence is League of Legends. Don't get me wrong, I have a number of mature friends that play it, but for every one of those I know, it seems there are another 5 I am introduced to this way or that, who seem to have not even a fraction of their maturity. I'd also know because I've seen at LAN parties how a lot of these folks behave.

Take for instance my old college computer club's LAN parties: the three most popular games (I typically would be flying solo in Rift) were SC2, L4D2, and LoL. Those that would play SC2 (I may join on a rare occasion) were generally very quiet, only a small yell here or there, but mostly very intense and focused, no BS on the screen between players, either. L4D2 turns up the yelling, but it's mostly just logistics and such. LoL takes a ridiculous turn into immaturity with suddenly everyone wants to throw out curse words (which I as a former officer would help try to stop) left and right and it's all about pointing and laughing, pretty much.

SC2 costs money, L4D2 costs less money, LoL is entirely free.

It doesn't paint a very pretty picture or make me particularly interested in a F2P community. (Thus why I turned off General/Trade chats in Path of Exile, as I've read enough about what one can expect in those channels here in the mega thread on mmo-c.)

[Edge-]

Heh, Leagues community is a byproduct of the genre. The entire ARTS/Moba/whatever you want to call is is trash, and has been since Dota. It was horrid in Dota, horrid in HoN, horrid in League, and horrid in Dota 2. You can put a price in front of it (HoN did) and the community would still be shit.

It's the nature of the type of game (low time commitment per match). Being F2P absolutely doesn't help out League, as banned players can come right back on a new account, but it's not something specific to League alone.

Outside of League though, that kind of behavior is reserved for launch months and then it trails off though. I know I remember late beta/early Rift (early Rift from hearing stories from friends who played, as I didn't play at launch) and how horrid the general chat and player interactions could get. It was just as bad in Tera (which I did play at launch).

I will agree though, that the initial purchase price helps keep out repeat offenders. The other thing that does is long-term time investments. I'd be surprised to see people who spent a hundred+ hours getting to max level and getting some good gear acting like complete asshats in a MMO. In League, it doesn't take too long to hit 30 so the loss of an account with few or no champs unlocked and few runes isn't too big.

[DeltrusDisc]

If anything, I'd hope they would keep the requirement to buy the game in there.

[Edge-]

If anything, I'd hope they would keep the requirement to buy the game in there.

If they were to make a transition, B2P has some good support behind it. The GW1/2 model has proven to be pretty popular, and I know TSW's transition met with good success for the game (70k new sales in the first month for a decidedly niche title).

[DeltrusDisc]

Alright. $100 buy in fee, go!

[Chickat]

*sigh*

Been hearing F2P talk from the start about Rift. Rift is not going F2P anytime soon if at all. They have a steady and growing population. They are profitable. The reasons games go F2P is either because they were designed that way from the start, they are bleeding subs, or they are not staying profitable. Their business model and design philosophy is creating a product worth the subscription price. They are not planning on changing that anytime soon.

I've been hearing this Rift is gonna go F2P shit for about a year now and am getting sick of it. Please, stop it stop it stop it.

I'm not saying that it isn't true, but what proof do you have that Rifts population is growing? Not bashing love the game.

[DeltrusDisc]

I'm not saying that it isn't true, but what proof do you have that Rifts population is growing? Not bashing love the game.

They've only shown the shard's online populations increasing in the past several months, not the opposite, nor stagnant.

[Chickat]

They've only shown the shard's online populations increasing in the past several months, not the opposite, nor stagnant.

Trion is releasing shard information? Can i get a link?

[Edge-]

Trion is releasing shard information? Can i get a link?

http://www.riftstatus.net/shards/na/trends

Scope the trend pre-SL till now (November 11 - today). It's to be expected to see a population boom with an expansion launch, but it's remained pretty steady since peaking at the end of the year.

[DeltrusDisc]

http://www.riftstatus.net/shards/na/trends

Scope the trend pre-SL till now (November 11 - today). It's to be expected to see a population boom with an expansion launch, but it's remained pretty steady since peaking at the end of the year.

My hero. <3

This is actually pretty good, I must say!

[Edge-]

My hero. <3

This is actually pretty good, I must say!

Yeah, I'm sorta surprised that the post-holiday bump seemed to be more steady than the post-expansion bump. Seems to be a trail off in the month after Christmas, but we'll see how it plays out by mid February. Overall a pretty strong increase though.

[Chickat]

Yeah, I'm sorta surprised that the post-holiday bump seemed to be more steady than the post-expansion bump. Seems to be a trail off in the month after Christmas, but we'll see how it plays out by mid February. Overall a pretty strong increase though.

So do you think the games population is more or less than at launch?