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

Reader Comments (46)

Posted: Sep 8th 2011 10:51PM Pingles said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Fabius Bile

You really need to try a few F2Ps.

I can't think of ANY of the F2Ps I've played that were anything like that.

Certainly not Zentia, Runes of Magic, Iris Online, Eden Eternal...
Reply

Posted: Sep 8th 2011 1:34PM Yellowdancer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
PS2 is getting a dynamic PVE content? This game has too much stuff.

Posted: Sep 8th 2011 1:51PM urgan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Why did they kill Agency to shift resources to this, WHY??!! :(

Posted: Sep 8th 2011 2:05PM eLdritchZ said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@urgan because nobody cared about it? James Bond stuff is so last century
Reply

Posted: Sep 8th 2011 3:04PM Interitus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@urgan

Actually I think the resources from the agency were shifted to payday. PS2 has been going on for a while. Although I would still have The AGency over PS2 anyday. And I loved the original.
Reply

Posted: Sep 8th 2011 1:52PM Seffrid said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"a struggle to control territory between three factions."

That'll have the DAoC crowd wetting themselves with anticipation...

Posted: Sep 8th 2011 2:01PM Chriskovo said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ren54

LOL works if people keep buying the new heroes and skins which alot of people do. Not sure what your problem is. They are releasing new heros like every 2 weeks they have their new map and gaming style comming out soon with another in development. ONly time i see queue times is when they release a new hero, which means they are keeping their player base with every update. If you dont like it dont play it but dont bitch about it either when it is working.

Posted: Sep 8th 2011 2:03PM treehill said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
hope the zones are huge. not little 32 people matches. 100+ players w/ no ghosting and the ability to see EVERYONE.

Posted: Sep 8th 2011 2:08PM eLdritchZ said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@treehill did you not read the part where he said the maps will support 2000 players at a time? Basically, Battlefield 2142 meets DAoC
Reply

Posted: Sep 8th 2011 2:03PM eLdritchZ said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ren54 seriously why can't you just go away? I don't mind that you are always taking the negative position on pretty much any topic but all you do is blurt out some halfbaked truths and idiotic comparisons... that is not acceptable mate...

LoL is not an MMO... it doesn't need constant content updates... as a MOBA it's "content updates" are the champions they regularly release for the game. Smedley saying he likes what they are doing (right after he hates on Blizzards real money AH scam) basically means that he appreciates LoLs system of not selling power for real money... and i happen to agree with him. A lot of F2P goers can learn a lot from LoL's way of doing F2P

Posted: Sep 8th 2011 3:07PM SolitudeZero said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm surprised no one made the comment of avoiding SWToR now b/c Smed says he's going to play it, lol.

Posted: Sep 8th 2011 3:22PM Space Cobra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@SolitudeZero

In regards to SOE and SWG and the LucasArts conspiracy?

Meh, Smedley is a business guy. He may play it (or not) but that comment is to show there is no hard feelings and he's moving on. While I don't like that they scuttled SWG, he's just putting on a business face. He may like SWTOR or not, it's just something that looks good.

But I do think he's right. SWTOR may or may not be the "last big-time sub game", but there are not that many, if any, coming out compared the the F2P trend at the current time. F2P has won the game wars (and that's not a bad thing IMO). Hybrids will still be out there. Let the F2P bickering continue, it's shown that it's profitable for those companies, regardless what anyone else says on the Net against it now or in the past.
Reply

Posted: Sep 8th 2011 3:31PM Seffrid said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Space Cobra

"Let the F2P bickering continue, it's shown that it's profitable for those companies, regardless what anyone else says on the Net against it now or in the past."

P2P games have been profitable for up to a dozen years. Let's see if the same can be said for the present F2P games in a few years time.

At the end of the day the long-term successful games are those with the depth and variety of content, and I don't see any pure F2P games that fit that criteria. Perhaps they'll evolve, perhaps the hybrid model will be the way forward, but the sub-based games will still be around for a while yet, even if they move towards the hybrid model a few years after launch, especially if the players vote with their wallets against the mediocrity and shallowness of the increasingly pay-to-win cash shop games.
Reply

Posted: Sep 8th 2011 4:02PM silver001 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Seffrid I hate to tell you but not as many ppl are interested in paying a monthly sub as in the past. We have some many MMOs at the moment that, some even great MMOs will not get that many sub. So the f2p models, allows ppl w/o the money to play a game long enough to get hooked then start paying for it. So while, p2p wil still be around, the market for it will only shrink while, f2p will continue to grow. some f2p ppl might switch to p2p games but morely than not, they will switch from p2p to f2p.

Another thing, right now WoW is making tons of money but most companies will tell you that grow is more important than profits sometimes. Just look at HP they are living the computer making business even though they are the leader in PC sell, but the growth for personal computer is about 5% and that is too low to sustain a business.

Tl;dr
f2p gives less impressive and even some great games, a place to shine. They might not make WOW money, but WOW isnt making WOW money as of recently. Low entry fee, makes more ppl can try out said game.
Reply

Posted: Sep 8th 2011 4:24PM Seffrid said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@silver001 : "I hate to tell you but not as many ppl are interested in paying a monthly sub as in the past. "

Where's your evidence for that? There are still a number of sub-based games doing very well. All games have reduced populations because of the amount of competition these days, what used to be successful with 400,000 players is now successful with half that or less, but there are still a lot of those players willing to pay subs. I dare say a good many who start the hybrid games on a F2P basis soon switch to a sub when they realise it offfers them better value for money.

Most pure F2P games aren't competing with the pure sub-based games, they're aimed at a different market, and the hybrid models maintain a decent balance between the two types of players. A considerable number of players are still playing pure sub-based games tho' and there's no evidence that they are in significant decline. SWTOR will demonstrate as Rift has done before it (and WoW continues to do) that people will still pay subscriptions if they deem the game warrants it.
Reply

Posted: Sep 8th 2011 4:34PM Space Cobra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@silver001

"Just look at HP they are living the computer making business even though they are the leader in PC sell, but the growth for personal computer is about 5% and that is too low to sustain a business."

Yeah, business (and accountants to businesses) are really strange in that regard; they love to see "growth", even if you make your profits. If you look at the stock market, a company that meets it's expected profits may see it's stock go down as opposed to a similar company that beats its expected profits. In "reality", if I can pay the bills and payroll and make the same profit, I'd be happy. Sure, I understand "more profit is better" but same profit is still good money IMO.

Some older business still stick with this tenet, but there are not too many. All business want to grow, but there is lack of foresight in that sometimes you can only grow so far and have to diversify or whatever.

"Growth" is such a buzzword nowadays, but for me, growth and retention are key. And heck, if you have your standard stable of customers giving you money day-in/day-out that's good, as long as your expenses are covered. (Yes, just a slight-off-topic, yet on-topic rant.)

@Seffrid

I think sub-based games will stick around and there may even be a few new ones, but the entry level a studio/business can achieve with f2p is undeniable. I hope there are still a few "grand MMOs" out there, but there will be more f2p's, based on a few factors.

From a practical point, you are correct to "wait and see" the evidence of longevity of the f2p model. Who knows? You may be right. But I've seen enough evidence, even surprising evidence in the Western hemisphere that suggests to me that f2p is strong. I hope it continues to evolve and hyberdize, just as I'd hope p2p does (heck, the whole genre of games could use a few more infusions of creativity IMO).

In any event, the years will tell in hindsight, but there are certainly strong indications atm. p2p startup costs do seem higher than the f2p equivalents and like any game, p2p or f2p, content can be fitted in over time...but, of course, will content come? That's up to the particular game studios and how they want to spend/keep their profit/money.
Reply

Posted: Sep 8th 2011 6:01PM silver001 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Seffrid
Look at what is happening to WOW, its losing numbers each quarter and it will continue to bleed numbers. See, WoW has been successful because it has manage to appeal to a lot of demographs and there hasnt been any serious contender to take its place. Over the past 6 years, most of the Other mmos have been mainly WOW clones or shitty games. why start over in a game that is exactly like your previous game except?

Also, will there by sub games around probably, my original point (my intended) is that unless you have a pretty strong IP behind your game, you are better off going f2p or b2p or freemium. while the sub model will still be around, more companies are gonna be considering other models. Till recently every game from a major studio automatically had a sub model, now it wont be the case, because of the amount of competition.

Just like with console games being pushed to back months to avoid CoD, MMOs are gonna be considering other payment models to avoid being lost in the crowd.
Reply

Posted: Sep 8th 2011 8:51PM Furdinand said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@silver001 Maybe WoW is losing numbers, but as far as we can tell, most of them are going to the P2P Rifts. People didn't play AoC or CO because they were terrible games at launch, not because they were subscription based. From what I have heard, the F2P conversion followed significant improvements to both games. From where I am sitting, F2P was just a marketing tool to get people to pay attention to those games again. People pay for games that they enjoy, they don't pay for games due to the way that those games extract payment.
Reply

Posted: Sep 8th 2011 3:21PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ren54 10 years ago we still had the lingering effects of the Clinton economy before Bush hosed it globally. Times change. Markets change. Technology changes.

Posted: Sep 8th 2011 3:46PM Donau said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The major problem with P2P is consistently providing a level of new content that makes the monthly fee seem worthwhile. Many MMOs tend to lose steam and stagnate, Blizzard has dedicated tons of resources to mitigate this effect. Constantly reworking and adding new content to keep subscribers involved in the game, thus subscribed.

Most developers however cannot compete on that level, Blizzard has multiple teams working on different parts of the game at all times. While not as many as they had during the original creation of WoW they still have enough to churn out major patches and expansions consistently.

Smedley is saying SWTOR will be the last, I doubt that, it takes a lot of dedicated people and resources to keep an MMO of that caliber interesting. Some publisher in the future will see the benefits to a superior quality product like this. Sure, we will see more devs pushing F2P games they only have to devote a small team to maintain, but those games won't retain players like WoW or SWTOR.

A player might get on for a week to see what they added but ultimately quit when they lose interest, which is what I see as a big problem in the F2P market. F2P games are easy to show large revenues because as soon as the player buys a whizzbang of the store the dev can immediately add that to earned revenues, whereas with P2P games the Devs MUST deliver the players all the time they have paid for before they can consider said money to be accrued revenue.

I think the attraction of immediate revenue is what drives pubs and devs to F2P because unlike EA and Activision they can't afford to maintain and update due to their limited capital.

Economics!

Featured Stories

Make My MMO: November 16 - 22, 2014

Posted on Nov 22nd 2014 8:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW