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

Reader Comments (54)

Posted: Nov 15th 2011 7:45AM Shirvington said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I am confused as to why every developer believes his product will flourish and prosper as a subscription model MMO in the gaming market at the moment.

This isn't a comment on Earthrise specifically, but developers really need to be introspective about their project and its strengths and weaknesses before launching their game with the obligatory subscription. Some titles deserve to be launched as f2p instead of struggling and flailing as a subscription game when the developers themselves mention "missing polish" and "annoyances that spoil the fun in the game."

Posted: Nov 15th 2011 9:19AM Utakata said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Shirvington

You see there is a secret to that...

...in order for a subscription model to truely work the game being released has to be top notch in everything it is. That is, in inspiration, in game play, in execution and in polish. There is no shirking off, because players will go "meh" and move on. So accountability from developers has to be extremely high. And the game should never appear it has ever cut corners...or run like crap.

You see, I've always stood by Atanasov for the reasons of making this game subscription. But in doing so, there is another step to this to make it work: You can't sell a gem polished with turd....unless you plan on giving it away for free. Just saying.
Reply

Posted: Nov 15th 2011 9:44AM real65rcncom said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Shirvington said:

"I am confused as to why every developer believes his product will flourish and prosper as a subscription model MMO in the gaming market at the moment."
********************************
I think I found the source of your confusion, sir.

Every developer does not believe his product will flourish and prosper as a sub. Most secretly already know it's doomed to fail as that model, but that would be poison to admit that before you launch.

It's better to make a game and then start it off as a "sub", garnering any suckers you can to help pay for the game first. Then when you hit your "magic" number (only the companies know what this is) before the launch hype wears down, you announce that ''after careful review, you've decided to offer your customers more flexibility and blah blah blah" when you realize people caught on and won't pay for a game not really worth it.

So you get infusion cash from launch and shortly afterwards, then convert. It's a win if people wanted to play your game all along.. look at DCUO, DDO, AoC, and LOTRO to prove that.
Reply

Posted: Nov 15th 2011 9:59AM smartstep said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@real65rcncom

That's why I'll tend to avoid companies that'll do that.

I won' invest my money so after a year game change to freemium.

One of reasons I will not play TSW (apart of their awful sub+ cash shop model).

That'll leave me not playing 90% of mmorpg's out there.

So be it.

Either I get what I want from developers or I spent my leisure time in other ways than playing mmorpg's.
Reply

Posted: Nov 15th 2011 10:08AM DeadlyAccurate said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Shirvington I think the "MMOs are money generators" idea still has a hold on the industry. A lot of the devs/publishers seem to think the public will wait out an unpolished release and pay to beta the product. What they forget is that we have so many options now we don't need to. Sure, I *could* pay Development House X every month for an unpolished beta, or I could go over here and give money to any of a number of completely polished MMOs that have had years to add content (EQ2, WoW) or came out of the gate in a polished state (RIFT).

Reply

Posted: Nov 15th 2011 10:27AM Furdinand said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Shirvington I think they believe that because that was the paradigm up until a year or so ago. F2P seems to be hitting a tipping point right now.
Reply

Posted: Nov 15th 2011 10:39AM BeeblesTV said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@real65rcncom How can you take one look at Earth rise and think it would flourish, even as the developer. You would really need to be off your rocker or in serious denial.
Reply

Posted: Nov 15th 2011 3:05PM DancingCow said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Shirvington

Many of us prefer the sub model, and if the game is good (rare these days) then that's also more profitable for the developer. There is, you know, a reason why WoW hasn't gone free to play and why though it was originally planned as a f2p model, they went with the sub instead.

The problem is that the market is saturated with crappy to average games and unfortunately that includes Earthrise. They had some great ideas and if they'd pulled it off I'd have subbed. But it was buggy and laggy to play and that's not something I'll subscribe to.
Reply

Posted: Nov 23rd 2011 3:30PM corpusc said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@real65rcncom

exactly. in this F2P era, i predict MOST people will launch as sub only, cuz there's guaranteed early access people to sell $30-60 boxes to.

why would they throw away that first stage of money and be F2P right off the bat? its throwing away money.

plus this avoids (to a large extent) that huge initial mass of gamers that can bring the servers to their knees. they have some months to get the game stabilized and more robust for the F2P influx.
Reply

Posted: Nov 15th 2011 7:46AM Azules said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Saw that coming. Wish they knew what they were doing, cause the premise was awesome, shame the game itself is shambolic.

Posted: Nov 15th 2011 12:51PM SnarlingWolf said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Azules

I hear you on that. I tried the game out and it was just so awful. First the controls were horrendous. Don't try to reinvent the MMO controls, people won't feel comfortable and will move on. The only time you should reinvent is if you have all new mechanics which they certainly didn't. There there was how the game ran. It ran like shit. They needed to get some real programmers in there to optimize the hell out of that engine.

I doubt this game will do well in F2P either, it is just terribly made.
Reply

Posted: Nov 15th 2011 8:00AM SwarlesBarkley said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Whats funny about all these titles going F2P is that they will now flood the market and so with all of these choices it will come down to quality and most will still fail, even in the F2P market. Going to F2P is no longer anything new and now a more last-ditch effort to stay afloat.

Posted: Nov 15th 2011 8:08AM Lenn said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@SwarlesBarkley The one advantage to f2p is that it removes the threshold for people to try your game, no matter how many games are out there. If they can convince a tiny portion of the undoubtedly large groups of people who will flock to it once it's f2p to spend some cash on the game, it's a win-win.
Reply

Posted: Nov 15th 2011 8:23AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Lenn It's a win-win only if they have quality and something worth coming back to. The AAA games like EQ2 can flourish as F2P. Others.... not so much. The MMO bubble will continue to burst with more games disappearing, more games going F2P.
Reply

Posted: Nov 15th 2011 9:49AM real65rcncom said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@SwarlesBarkley

agree mostly.

But the magic of the FTP is you don't need a steady swath of customers to keep the game running.

You just need to hook a few "whales" (in Las Vegas casino speak) who by themselves will spend thousands on your game because they love it so much.

Just one Whale spending in a cash shop can be equal to what 10 subscriptions at $15/month would have equaled.

So if you convert and 1,000,000 try your game and 10% are whales and will stay.. you make more than if you had steady subs spending nothing when there was no cash shop.
Reply

Posted: Nov 15th 2011 8:04AM smartstep said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This game is just horrible. Awful animations, not interesting content, develpers not listening to valuable feedback and overall it is just bad game.

Artwork were nice, some concepts were nice - but well game itself is bad.

Changing business models will not matter imho. This game will close in 2012 anyway.

Posted: Nov 15th 2011 8:09AM Lenn said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@smartstep Did you read the article, or just knee-jerk your way down to the comments after seeing the title?
Reply

Posted: Nov 15th 2011 8:30AM smartstep said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Lenn

Huh? Developers want to polish it. Ok I know that I read article and I was interested in Earthrise when it still was in production.

So what?

Still currrent state of this game is so bad, that they would need to shut it down completly get into studio and work for 2 more year with slow pace Meathead has. Then it might have good enough quality.

Seriously...
Reply

Posted: Nov 15th 2011 2:23PM Lenn said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@smartstep Because they're not just changing the business model; they're going to polish the game until everyone is satisfied. It just seemed to me you only read the title of the article and then went ahead to comment on the horrible quality of the game and how going f2p won't save it.

Mind you, I'm not defending this game in the slightest. I haven't played it and after having fallen straight into the FFXIV trap I will steer well clear of any title that critics and consumers alike are unanimously burning to the ground. I just think it is commendable that a developer is able to say "our game sucks, but we're going to fix it".
Reply

Posted: Nov 15th 2011 4:14PM j3w3l said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@smartstep
yeh during beta it was common knowledge that the game needed at least another year to be a decent product as it was lacking in every area (content, gameplay, crafting, visuals, optimization) and polish wasn't even part of the discussion then, it was all about getting the game to work.
IIt is kind of a shame they ran out of funding as the concept they had was a great one if only they didn't have to rush it out.
Reply

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW