| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (88)

Posted: May 29th 2011 5:21PM Jef Reahard said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@DarkWalker

Good points all, thanks.
Reply

Posted: May 29th 2011 3:57PM Titan1 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
IMHO, they need to change / update or add to the starting area.

Tortage is nice and all but most folks have been through it at least once.

Posted: May 29th 2011 4:47PM wondersmith said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Tempes Magus

It has always been a joy to read your comments, Tempes Magus. You are a kindred spirit, and I credit your longtime championing of the F2P model with helping the tide of opinion here gradually turn. I especially admired your analogy a while back between P2P and holding our characters hostage for a monthly ransom.

In the words of Galaxy Quest, "Never give up, never surrender!" Please don't stop posting. You ARE making a difference.

Posted: May 29th 2011 4:51PM Poordevil said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"I will not be a mindless sheep. I will not waste anymore time trying to make things better for you or anyone else who won't see reason and willingly defies change for the better while they won't use that same willpower to fight for what is better.

I will shout "Soilent Green is PEOPLE!" no more.
"It's a brave new world."
Reply

Is that a sure fire 100% guarantee that this FtP brave new world business model will be change for the better? You seem convinced, It's nice to be sure.

Funcom must agree after all they are implementing it. I view it more as wait and see. It is a big step, a big change, the biggest development decision with the largest impact on overall gameplay since launch. I hope it all goes well.

Posted: May 29th 2011 5:09PM Loopy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Tempes Magus
I would just like to point out a popular misconception. $15 a month is not the fee you pay to enjoy the content, to be entertained, get updates, or something you use to request/demand from devs since "you are a paying customer". This is not the same as paying $12 for a movie ticket, or $30 for a restaurant meal.

According to most ToS agreements, $15 is the fee you pay to access their servers.

That's it.

No more, no less. You are only paying for the right to log in. AND there is usually a clause that states there may be certain intermittent disruptions to that access. People HAVE TO agree to this ToS in order to play the game.

Any and all "entitlement" ends with this.

Posted: May 29th 2011 5:45PM Ghostspeaker said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Not gonna lie, I'd really like to see more classes available out of the gate for F2P, but overall I agree with you. When I first did the AoC free trial a long while back the class I remember enjoying most in the early levels was the Necromancer, and they're on the F2P list so I'm still gonna give it another whirl.

I agree with you that it should be seen as a very elaborate, somewhat monetized free trial. One thing that bears pointing out, though, is that the trial needs to give enough of a taste of the full content that it will actually entice people to pay money. That's one of the problems with EQ2X's model IMO. I couldn't play the classes that actually sounded fun to play. If I don't have fun I'm not gonna subscribe. Period. Restricting the playable classes as much as EQ2X does and AoC is going to lessens the chances that I'll experience gameplay I find fun considerably. Sure, restrict a couple classes like LotRO and DDO do, but making most of the classes off limits is going too far IMO.

Other than that I think their model is solid. I expect it'll help get the number of players up at the least, and that's to everyone's benefit.

Posted: May 29th 2011 5:48PM Ghostspeaker said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ghostspeaker Sorry, meant Demonologist, not Necromancer. My bad.
Reply

Posted: May 29th 2011 6:11PM Loopy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Tempes Magus Don't get me wrong. I'm talking about the $15 fee from a legal point of view. $15 to access a server is a ripoff.

I was merely commenting on the fact that people seem to think that giving money to somebody automatically means that the other party owes them something, even though the terms of the transaction are clearly outlined in the ToS.

You are absolutely right about one thing - companies should make up their minds whether they are charging for a service or for content.

If it's for the service, the price should be way lower.

If it's for content, we're already paying for expansions - we should be having free access to the game (aside from buying the actual copy).

Posted: May 29th 2011 6:58PM Ghostspeaker said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Loopy

It doesn't really matter if they aren't legally required to provide anything more than server access. What someone is legally entitled to by paying for services and what they want in order to keep paying for those services are two entirely separate things. If they don't provide more than server access then people will stop paying and the point is moot.

Customers do actually have lion's share of the power.

Posted: May 29th 2011 7:10PM Saintwalker31livecom said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
One F Jef. Usually im the first one to shoot you down regarding your articles. That being said.

Bravo on this one. You outdid yourself. Beautifully stated. In particular:

The reality, though, is that no one outside of Turbine knows how successful it is (of course Turbine says its the greatest thing ever and that it is swimming in money as a result, but do you really think the company would be honest were that not the case?). More important is the obvious fact that Funcom isn't Turbine, and what works for one company doesn't necessarily work for another due to variables that your average forum commenter (and columnist) is quite clueless about.

Honest, nonfluff realistic journalism.

Well done sir.....Or more precisely, " one F Jef"......

Posted: May 29th 2011 7:47PM FrostPaw said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm confused.

I thought the term "unrated" meant a lack of classification either because it simply hasn't been rated yet or because it was refused a rating in that country.

Such as an adult or teen certificate for a movie.

but in this context "unrated" means something else?

Posted: May 29th 2011 9:28PM Jade Effect said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@Tempes Magus

Do you also complain to your cell phone provider and ask for a refund on your monthly subscription because you didn't make any calls and nobody called for you a month?

Posted: May 29th 2011 11:21PM Jade Effect said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Tempes Magus

Even though the "pay as you go" payment plan is offered by cellphone companies for years, the market clearly don't seem to think it's as wonderful an idea as you do. There are some who likes it, but that is a very small minority.

"Pay as you go" is a dumb idea for a MMO. Players will rush around, since every minute, every hour is money. They will dump sub-optimal groups because things are not being done within x minutes. Who will sit around and chit chat socialize? That's crazy, you can do it for free in MSN, Xbox Live or Steam community. Who will sit around and wait for raids to get organized? No, it'll just be hurry-hurry.

I don't know why you keep bringing up Guild Wars, since it's never a MMO to begin with. Even ArenaNet calls it a CORPG. If that is a MMO, then Diablo 2 and Call of Duty are MMOs too. Guild Wars 2 is a MMO, but it hasn't been released yet, so nobody knows how well it'll do.

Posted: May 29th 2011 11:45PM AoCPlayer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Jef,

Another good article and you hit the nail on the head by calling out the naysayers who have been crying up and down about AoC's F2P model not giving enough away. FUNCOM is in the business of making money and giving their game away for "free" probably is not in the best interest of making money. However, allowing prospective customers a chance to check out the game for the first time or giving them a second go around at it is in the best interest of making money.

As long as the F2P model doesn't turn into a pay 2 win model, I have no issues at all with the F2P model.

As a pretty hardcore PVPer, I love this F2P model as it will bring more players to the game for me to battle against. That is a very, very good thing. I also love the 1 server/shard feature that will be coming in a future update. In the not to distant future, AoC will have more players to play with and against 9PVE and PVP) than one can shake a stick at and that also is in the best interest of FUNCOM making money as not many people like paying to play a MMO that is more like a single player game (how AoC currently is in the pre 80 levels).

I consider myself a pretty anti FUNCOM and anti Craig Morrison person but I see the F2P model as a win -win unless you cant afford the 15 bucks a month anyways to play the game. But those people are of no concern to FUNCOM as they are not in the best interest of making money. So unless you have no job and still live in your mothers basement, how can you be against the F2P model being offered?

Posted: May 29th 2011 11:59PM Jade Effect said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Tempes Magus

I can see further discussion is pointless, since you have no idea what a MMo is. Instancing require more server resources? Hahaha.

"Guild Wars is, arguably, more of an MMO than WoW is. "

Haha, another good one!

Posted: May 30th 2011 12:01AM SpencerRuler said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I was hesitant to try the game again, but when I heard the news that you could choose any class if you previously subscribed, I'm more inclined to install the game back.

Posted: May 30th 2011 12:15AM Titan1 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Tempes Magus
You know all that writing you did? Maybe 2 or 3 people will read it all and in a couple of hours this article will be buried under a dozen others.

Posted: May 30th 2011 3:22AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I agree that too much whining is going on in the F2P crowd and also believe Funcom providing a sort of Demo for AoC is a good idea , but I ask the author of this self-admitted rant to try to understand some issues that many potential MMO customers face before labeling them "self-entitled" or economically challenged".

I take some offense to being labeled an "economically challenged player" as 15 bucks a month is, to me, an amount of money which I would carefully consider before investing.

When you say 15 bucks, I hear USD 180 per year. Now, I play a couple of subscription MMOs, so adding one more subscription to the mix is pretty much out of the question, unless its premise is exceptionally exciting.

Mind you, I take home ballpark of 20k a year, which in the grand scheme of things is not a lot, so I have to pay close attention to what percentage of my earnings goes to food, gas, interest, insurance and the non-essential purchases (like games). I do not feel entitled to play any one's game but I appreciate the flexibility and the opportunity to experiment that F2P games provide.

Posted: May 31st 2011 8:12AM Fabius Bile said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified) if 15 bucks for a month of entertainment is a spending you have to carefully weight, you ARE economically challenged no matter how much you want to spin it.
Reply

Posted: May 30th 2011 6:27AM Ardanwen said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
There's only one thing I would like to see different for the "F2P"-players, and that is to allow them to access all classes. They only have two character slots anyway. With only 4 classes to choose from, this is going to create a -huge- class population imbalance.

I do wholeheartedly agree with your statement that Funcom should rather look at giving more to the paying players than the free ones. I've said it before and I'll say it again, a 5% discount is simply a slap in the face. Free points for subscribers like Turbone does, or hugely increasing the discount would really be appreciated.

Featured Stories

MMO Week in Review: Are you Elite or Dangerous?

Posted on Dec 21st 2014 8:00PM

EVE Evolved: EVE Online vs. Elite: Dangerous

Posted on Dec 21st 2014 6:00PM

WoW Archivist: A Glyphmas story

Posted on Dec 21st 2014 12:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW