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

Reader Comments (36)

Posted: Aug 11th 2011 1:11PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
"According to an article by GameIndustry.biz (pointed out by Eurogamer), Age of Conan subscriptions have crumbled severely, to less than 100,000."

Add the 300k F2P accounts to the existing 100k adds up to a very unimpressive 400k of subscriptions. Those numbers are laughible compared to the top dogs; Wow sitting at 12million paying sub, plus the profits from vainty pets and mounts, plus expanisions. F2P isn't even in the ballpark.

It's not some grand success, it's a fad You put some thought about what F2P means in the long run, it's nothing but disaster.

Pay to win is for losers cut and dry, if I have to argue those merits something is wrong with the universe.

Posted: Aug 11th 2011 1:24PM SocksForYou said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified) Every game's subscription numbers look bad compared to WoW. I think EVE has around 300k players and that's considered pretty dang successful for a subscription game.

With that said, I'm not really impressed by any F2P game that touts big numbers because it's hard to say how many of those people are actually adding revenue.
Reply

Posted: Aug 11th 2011 1:27PM TheMustacheHero said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified) But it's still better than what it was before. Also, they article says it's not going to be Pay 2 win.
Reply

Posted: Aug 11th 2011 1:55PM Super Nerd said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@TheMustacheHero

Pay to win is subjective. Not everyone plays the game for the same reasons. Being able to pay for cool pets/mounts could be considered paying to win in certain peoples eyes. Just because it's not affecting game balance doesn't mean it isn't affecting anyone.
Reply

Posted: Aug 11th 2011 1:58PM Space Cobra said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified) SQENIX-supporter

400,000K unimpressive?

Dude, that pretty much a home run hit! WoW is the aberration with 12 million. CoH has had about 300,000K a year or so ago and they consider it a success.

The true averages of most MMO playerbases are these numbers, even slightly below. Most of the lesser known MMOs are happy and profitable at 100K. Heck, even EA had conservative projections on SWTOR and hoped to get 500K players.

This is why, I always don't trust Blizzard numbers; I know the user-base is astronomical, but given the true averages of this industry, you have to wonder...
Reply

Posted: Aug 11th 2011 2:32PM PanamaAlex said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified) Okay, mister Unverified likes to throw numbers around. I'll take your 12 million subs of WoW and raise you 175,365,991 registered members at Runescape (source: Guinness World Book of Records taken at November 23, 2010). So, F2P's top dog has 175 million plus. Always remember that numbers can always be twisted.
Reply

Posted: Aug 11th 2011 2:52PM augustgrace said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

400k would actually make AoC one of the most successful AAA titles on the market today. In fact I'm not sure that any other western game other than perhaps LotRO has more than 400k.

Does anyone else remember when 100k meant you were in the big leagues? I think the WoW generation needs to keep in mind that a million+ subs didn't exist prior to WoW.
Reply

Posted: Aug 11th 2011 3:19PM Bladerunner83 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@PanamaAlex

Subscription vs. registered numbers...terrible comparison. One makes money, and the other says it's making money.

175million subs = $2,625,000,000 a month.

12million subs = $180,000,000 a month.

If Runescape was that profitable they would be growing exponentially. There would be more than one IP they would be working on, and they would have an expansion for Runescape every 3 months. I highly doubt they are even bringing in $50 million a month. I even gave Runescape a chance, so my registered account is in there from 3 years ago; And I don't play the game now. I consider Runescape a cult classic game, a select group of MMO gamers out there love it and will support it, while many other thrill seekers have no interest.
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2011 4:15AM Fabius Bile said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Bladerunner83
Wow doesnt have 12m subs either.

8 of that 12m are from asian players that do not subscribe, they pay by hour instead.
and the cost of pay-by-hour is REMARKABLY less than $15 a month.


also the pay-by-hour model is a way to artificially inflate numbers, thats how WoW boasts 12m players...

as long as some asian player has a few minutes of play time left in his account he is considered "active", even if he stopped playing 5 months ago...purchased time in pay-by-hour accounts do not run out, unlike monthly subscriptions which go inactive past the date.

Reply

Posted: Aug 11th 2011 1:26PM Sharuk said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I am not a fan of the F2P model but if any game needed this model it is EoN. I don't see people pay monthly subs to play an RTS. There will be enough avatars and colors to sell and make a good profit.

Posted: Aug 11th 2011 5:58PM hereafter said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Sharuk

Agreed, I think this is one game that will benefit from the start. Not to mention, they'll avoid the PR quagmire that is the F2P-switch. Instead of trying to spin bad news into gold, they can focus on providing a quality experience and won't have the failed-game stigma to worry about.
Reply

Posted: Aug 11th 2011 1:39PM Gaugamela said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
At first my reaction was NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
But then I thought of LoL. This might actually work.

Posted: Aug 11th 2011 2:54PM Ziltod said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"CoH has had about 300,000K a year"

Nope. CoH had that kind of numbers around 2005/2006 which was its peak. Nowadays it's more like -from some projections I read on euro/us offcial forums- 60K subs... which would explain the F2P model has been chosen for the game.

Posted: Aug 11th 2011 10:57PM Utakata said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
*"The in-game store will offer a wide selection of items, including customization and convenience items. We will not be selling pay-to-win items that give one player a significant gameplay advantage over another. Most items in the store will be purchasable with either End of Nations Wealth (currency earned in-game by playing) or with Trion Credits (purchased currency)."

I like to see how this pans out before I pass judgement on the decision.

*Source: http://www.endofnations.com/en/game/free-to-play

(Third from the bottom F2P FAQ)

Posted: Aug 12th 2011 1:07AM real65rcncom said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ren54
They aren't doing this because RIFT is doing great.

They are doing this because they won't be able to run both of them on one (RIFT's) income alone.

They are hoping to release EoN and hope that people spend a lot in the cash shops and the game supports itself.

If RIFT was a cash cow, you wouldn't have 40 servers just sitting on the side closed off like they have, or they wouldn't keep giving deals where the box is dirt cheap and the sub can be around $9/month.

Posted: Aug 12th 2011 4:23AM Fabius Bile said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ren54
the outcome of Rift doing great? LOL?

au contraire, mon ami.

they probably are afraid of the bust that Rift was, spreading to their other games.

So they are eager to try the new kid on the block, the model that seems to make more revenue off of those willing to pay to win and those with psychological purchasing disorders.

The veteran subscription players have turned their back on Rift, it has bled subs ever since the first month and its still bleeding.
Its normal they are considering milking the unwashed hordes of teens that gravitate around free to play...

If EoN does fine as F2P (and i cant see why not, theres a sucker born every minute willing to spend five times more in a cash shop than in a standard sub ), I suppose Rift will follow suit in no time.

and at this rate, something tells me Trion's next MMO will be a facebook game...their motto seems to be "follow the retards' money..."

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW