Discussion in 'WildStar General' started by MiZTiiX, Jun 25, 2012.
Well most upcoming f2p games focus purley on selling microtransactions and not content
F2P games are becoming more and more common, if you check out all of the new f2p games, they look just as good if not better than p2p games. Also you can choose wether you want to invest money in it or not, nobody is forcing you so "easily cost me more money per month than p2p games" is purley your choice. Considering upcoming f2p games are moving more to selling microtransactions, you are not forced into paying a single dime.
i didn't say the game is dying, i said thats not very succesful if you only have 500k. This is supposed to be the best mmo, these are the words of carbone studios. They will not settle for only 500k, they will want a wider player base and the onyl way i see that happening is getting rid of the subscription fee
why would yo0u rather pay $15 and be forced to get the most out of it? why woulden't you want a game taht you can jump into, and if you enjoy it you can support the developers by buying items from a cash shop at your own pace? or just paying for a box then playing forever would make alot of money for teh devs
If they got 500k average subs per year, that means they get about $90 million per year. I don't know how much they've put into the game so far, but that sounds like a rousing success for an indie MMO. That money then goes towards expansions/patches/new content. Sure, they might make similar money if they get 2 million people playing with a small % of them paying microtransactions, but the developer makes more money in the long run if they use a subscription model.
The only time that isn't the case is if their userbase is small, which is why LotRO and other F2P MMOs are successful is because they drew more people in by being F2P. Usually F2P signifies (for an MMO) that the developers don't have a lot of faith that people will continue paying for their product.
Back in the 1950's, tater tots were invented. They were originally extremely cheap and did extremely poorly. So poorly, that the company who was making them was going to stop making them. Then, based on a study at Iowa State University, they determined that their product (tater tots) were too cheap. When they raised the price, people began buying them like crazy. Essentially, what I'm saying is that if the game is good enough, it will get the players it deserves even without being cheap.
This is one of those endless arguments.
The camp which believes Free to Play = Poor Quality dead-end games, will never believe the free to play model will ever work.
The camp which believes Free to Play = The way forward, will never believe the subscription model is sustainable for long term game survival.
I'm firmly in the first camp I'm afraid. World of Warcraft, Rift, EvE Online and many other successful MMOs have proven the 'F2P model being the only viable one' idea to be false. They are still going, still subscription based, and even a few of the free ones I believe have a optional monthy sub giving people who pay monthly access to all the content and some other perks.
In general, F2P is the last refuge of the failed MMO, or at the very least it is seen as such.
its not about being cheap though, it's about being accesible to players, allowing as many playersto joint he game. They will then support the game no matter what. LoL porbably makes 3x more than any sub game. Also you cannot compare food to games. if food is cheap it means it is bad for you, there is no way of checking if its good. F2P games will ahve many reviews and youtube videos, f2p mmos are goign to have a high standars. Look at the mmos comming out in the fututre, why would ipay for firefall with all these excellent mmos? many may be asking that question if they were looking for a new mmo to play
You're comparing Apples to Oranges when you look at MOBAs vs. MMOs. LoL makes that much because the game is relatively simple, cosmetic differences actually make a difference because everyone plays essentially the same characters and because skins are cool looking, you don't need a great machine to play, to unlock the new characters you need to spend $5 or have played in 50+ games, and lastly (most importantly) they have one of the biggest player bases in the world right now.
Let's just do some simple math, if 500k subscribers is equivalent to $90 million over the course of 12 months. To get the same amount of money from microtransactions in a F2P game, 100% of the people would have to spend $15 on microtransactions over the course of an entire year. But, most people don't spend money in a F2P game, so let's say that 20% of the players buys cosmetic items, to get $90 million a year, they would need 100k players to spend $75 a month. I'm guessing that 20% of the players aren't rich enough to do that, so let's say that 5% of the player base spends money on the microtransactions. In order to get $90 million a year on 5% of the player base spending money, WildStar would need that 5% to average $20 a month with a player base of 7.5 million people.
Keep in mind that the servers needed to effectively serve 7.5 million people is much more than what's needed for 500k. Now, WildStar might get more than 500k subs with a F2P model, and might get less than 500k subs in a P2P model, but for the F2P model to be as profitable as the P2P model, they would need 15 times the player base in the F2P vs. the P2P. And that is with 5% of that player base spending $20 a month on average.
thats a lot of money, but bare in mind renting servers hardly costs any money now adays. That is one of the main reasons p2p games came around, but the reason they have stayed is because people still think renting servers is very expensive so developers don't mind letting people pay a sub (ofcourse $$) Also, if you do the math again with the addition of $60 per unit (because i think buy the box play forever is also a good pay method) Then that's alot of money. Games that have no sub fee but an initial price get alot of money, its more than enough
This top[ic really is one of the endless debates that no matter what will wage on. Maybe F2P gets more players, but overall, and I believe JarNod has explained it best, a P2P Model with a successful title will profit more in the shorter amount of time than a F2P.
We shall see what direction WildStar takes. Personally, I want to pay a subscription.
You don't need to buy 'boxes' either. EvE -HAS- no 'box' to buy. You -ONLY- pay the £10/month subscription. The game download and all expansions/game updates are 'free'.
Sort of the opposite to the GW2 Buy the box, pay no sub model. Heh.
Gamers are not as loyal as they used to be -- the really loyal core are still playing their pre-2006 MMORPG, which includes WoW as one of the few that is not f2p by now, I believe
Some of the old loyal type players stopped playing at all.
We are many more gamers than in last decade, but the typical gamer now is more of a shopper, it is entertainment, as exchangable as a DVD movie or music on Spotify. If they do not like the full package, they move on, and they are not comming back to be intrigued by new content and depth unless they get free weekends or similar - and let's face it, making a full package likable to more than 500k gamers, so they stick around more than 3-6 months is a feat all on its own. There is several fairly decent games the past 2 years that proves that.
Even WoWs numbers will slowly be diluted because there is more and more games, and if each of them grab 100k-1mill gamers, some of those gamers will be unsubbing from WoW or whatever else they were playing and start shop around for the new sparkly.
The quality of f2p/microtransaction games will improve to keep up with the competition for gamers. Depending on the game genre and if it is a game, that has room for fluff F2P is a good option. There is fairly good games out there already. EQ2 is a perfect game for a f2p variation model - not totally f2p, not totally sub - due to how integrated "fluff" is already - housing, mounts, appearance armor, player made dungeons, etc.
This is why new games will meet a growing problem with implementing the traditional "buy game, sub game, stay loyally subbed" game model. I see the two variations where the game is free (maybe 10 levels), but the playing is month sub OR where the game/new content/DLC is charged, but the game time is free.
Then there is the SOE way, limited f2p, unlimited playtime, with sub as a nearly requirement, if one sticks around and plan to play max level - personally I am sub, but I have also used the cash shop for fluff, so I averaged about 20-25$ a month until SOE sold me out to Prosieben
Trion was pretty successful with Rift, and their 20 levels free is inspired as an alternative to f2p without selling off the subscription model. However, wether having to pay for the initial game is counterproductive can be debated. I think it is, the idea with f2p trials is to not have initial costs to try playing.
Actually, isn't there just about as many f2p models and extended trials as there is f2p games? Would be nice if they could be divided into types.
New games mostly get the critical disillusioned gamers, who are hunting the perfect (hence not going to be satisfied with f2p, since they are automatically tagged as substandard atm), who expects 5 years of depth, the total toolbox of features, visions and innovation, and anything but whatever grind the last game they played had. They will move on after a while if everything is not perfect - and as we can see, if a game is not "perfect" and loose half its initial players after a couple of months, it must be a bust /sarcasme
Perfect is a highly relative term in the eye of the beholder and it is the holy grail of game developers, you can sense it, visualize it, believe in it, but it will slip through your fingers like water.
There is always something to complain about. The PVP is bad, the PVE is not working, there is/is no a dungeon finder, there is/is not addons, the game is/is not healer friendly, the there is/is not enough sandbox play, it feels like a single player game, it is not friendly to soloing, there is too much crafting, the crafting is too easy, there is/is not housing, the devs placate "put in whatever group of gamers you want here", the devs do not listen to the community, the combat mechanics is boring, the combat mechanics are too complicated, there is/is not a item score.
If there is a group who likes one thing, you can put your money on there being another group, who does not like it. Only thing universally agreed in is that devs are not doing enough bug fixing, but then the discussion is about what to bug fix first
As a side note: there is an amazing number of people, who rejects devs working on anything they are not themselves into. Not into roleplay, pfft, don't waste time on role play elements, do something for the PVP'ers. Not into raiding, wah wah stop balancing raid encounters, and do something for the casuals. Not into housing, gawd, will you stop tweaking houses for the (put insult in here) and make some real content for endgame. The devs always work on features for (put in one group here), (put in another group here) are never heard /whinewhinewhine.
It is as if in their mind, if the devs are not working on their own favorite playstyle, the game is going to hell. Let's not pretend for one moment /sarcasme again/ that it is a benefit to balance a game and community around more than one singleminded playstyle.
WildStar may win on that account, noone can start playing WildStar with a set belief that the devs will only carter to their prefered playstyle if they complain loud enough long enough. So maybe the players will be more accepting about devs working on something a little outside their own playstyle, which opens the playing field for innovative ideas.
Anyways, I am going to get WildStar, from what I have seen so far it is at worth the initial cost to try out and most likely good for a sub some months every year, like a couple of other games I would like to return to now and then.
TBH a game has to be totally unplayable to not be worth a months entertainment, but I expect a lot better than unplayable of the WildStar team considering what they have shown so far.
Above is my opinion and has no numbers or anything to verify by, just my general impression from reading forums, game sites, game chats etc. I do believe in some f2p/mixed business models to be the future of games, because competition will require it. Not this year, but in 4-5 years it will be more visible - unless someone stats publishing games in packages, so one can subbed to 6 games for the price of 1-2 subs, but only be logged on to one of the games at the time.
Wonder which 6 games I would pick, if it was free for all...
and I talk too much, luckily most will just pass textwalls like mine and skip to the next post
To agree with ImmortalExile, this is an endless debate. I just want the game to come out...
I'm replying to you because I wanted such a huge post to be mentioned at least twice. Plus, you had a lot of good points in it.
And technically EvE also has a micro-transaction/F2P model too, but I'm ignoring that due to the fact it only works due to the sandboxy nature of the game, and how the in-game economy works.
Basically you can buy 30 game time 'items' in EvE and are able to sell them in game on the market. Or redeem them for 30 days game time. The time cards are sold in game for in game cash (and lots of it). If as a EvE player, you can earn enough in game currency/month to keep up with the trends of the 30 day game card, you can essentially play EvE for 0 real money. (Although realistically -someone- bought the game time. Just not you.) It's quite successful. enough 'successful' players can get away with not spending their own cash to pay their sub, and loads of people want quick easy in game cash to pay for ships and fittings.
I'm not sure if a similar model can't work for WildStar or not.
One of my friends just resubbed to WoW for the money he made on the Diablo 3 RMAH, and since he made enough to cover the initial cost of Diablo 3 too, you could say his WoW is F2P also.
My favorite part about Eve is hearing about the heists that have billions of SDK (or whatever the currency is) stolen, the article always explains that it is worth some huge amount of real $$ when converted into game time.
So. it's 2015. WildStar has been out long enough for an expansion to have been released. (Recently) I have been playing Guild Wars 2 for a while, gotten kind of bored with it for now, never heard of this 'WildStar' game before.
I surf to the website of the game. Oh cool... 2 week free trial! All I need to do is download the client, make an account, then a character, and start playing. Hell I even get the expansion content as well! Cool!
It's 2 weeks later nearly. My trial is nearly done. I can't get enough of this game... £10/month isn't too bad. If I stop paying, it's just another £10 and download whatever patches, game content have been released whenever I want to play again... I can bounce between this and GW2.
[This of course is -MY- personal 'ideal world', but then, you might have noticed my slight EvE Online Fanboyness. ]
I do think that after a month or two of game, there should be a free trial of 2 weeks. It helped get me into WoW when I played. But the best way that WildStar will be successful, whether it's F2P or P2P, will be if friends recommend it.
well why don't we settle at buy to play? No subscription and $60 a box is allooott of money, more than enough