Scott Hartsman: RIFT going F2P would be a 'large net negative' for the game

@aaradun

I might play Rift again once it goes to f2p. As of right now its not worth my monthly sub. ^^ Just my opinion. ^^

@aaradun it's not just a matter of "oh, we only have X subs, make it f2p now"... there is a major design difference between a f2p MT game and a sub that is hard to shoehorn in after the game is released.

Turning a sub game into a f2p takes a lot of time and work. THAT was the point he was trying to make.

@(Unverified) Because in every other MMO, the servers are full at noon during the week?

@(Unverified) because servers are never upgraded... exactly how many is "low" anyway? Last night the population was so "low" that I had to wait for people to move away before I could find enough of the auctioneer to click.

@fallwind
thats because everybody is around the auctioneer. go take a good walk outside the city gates and you will see that you can count how many people you find with the fingers of one head.

I wonder whats the point of making worlds sized over 9000 miles, if you then allow your whole game to be played by staying in a 20m2 plaza

@MtthwRddl

Haha, I know, right? During prime hours, there's usually like 1 low server, about 5 or 6 high, and the rest medium.

@aaradun

I do not understand your comment. How many subscription MMOs have gone past the million sub mark? If you do the math 200k subs = to almost 3 million USD of revenue, since this is a service there is no COGS and the major costs are servers and labor (human capital) so at the end of the day you do not know what their net profit is. But they seem to be putting quite a few patches for a game that is just over 6 months.

Now what I see with RIFT is that the game took the best from other games and created a new IP. It did not went in a different direction, I do not blame them, the game did a lot of good things, so good that now blizzard wants to do public quests yes Rift did not create the idea as far as I know WAR did it (I am most likely wrong) but Rift was smart enough to look for something good and build on it. I cannot tell you if Rift will be able to hold it’s subs when SWOTR comes out but at least we have to give them credit for what they have done and not just flame on them because they are not the BIGGEST or you just did not like the game.

If you do not like the game please move on, the article is a good read but all of the games that are not WOW, GW2 or SWTOR are not meant to fail or become F2P. All of the F2P games are actually doing that because they could not compete in the subscription market not because they were bad (well some are) but because the world is in a recession and guess what having 2 subs may be a luxury in some cases. I agree with Scott Hartsman argument and I think that they should do fine.

In case you are wondering, I play Rift on and off but you have to give them credit for what they have accomplished. Which are:

1 – Have one of the most stable launches in recent years.
2 – Provide new content at an amazing pace for players.

Just because of those 2 reasons they have my vote. It is a good game, do not know what the subs are looking like but when I log in I always find something to do.

@aaradun

By then Rift will have - to some extent - the same key advantage that has kept WoW in top position all this time.

Investment.

Players invest time and effort in their characters. The more they've invested (i.e. the longer they've played) the less likely they are to look at anything else.

+ what attracts many people to Rift is its flexible soul system
+ not everyone likes sci-fi (less competition from SWTOR)
+ not everyone likes cash shops (less competition from GW2)

I'm not expecting Rift to lose a huge number of players.

@(Unverified) and if trion changed server load displays so that the old "low" is now "high" and the old high is now "OMFG! Server's on FIRE!" how would that change your graph? right, it would look like population has skyrocketed when all that changed is the colour of the server at log in.

"low" is as meaningless as "some". If you had actual load numbers (30k players vs 25k players) then you would have something.... in the mean time all you have is a comparative analyses of what the server load is vs *what the server can currently hold*. As that goalpost can (and has been) moved at a whim, your "data" is meaningless.

@aaradun

If a subbed game goes F2P, it's really the invitation to the funeral ;-)

@fallwind
I don't know. I understand LOTRO does better as a F2P than it did as a subscription model. Been a long time since I was in Middle Earth, but the subscription model back then was pretty close to WoW.

@Amaxe

It's also proven a pretty massive jump start for DC Universe Online. Users are flooding back in, there are tons of missions to run, the zones are lively again with new players and new characters tearing through content. The fact of the matter is, you have to find a certain balance in what you give subscribers, and your free players, as well as some way for Free Players to get Cash Shop points, or make it so Cash Shop items can be sold on the Market.

You CAN NOT imbalance the game to favor payers. Champions did this, and everyone bailed to play DCUO the second it went free. You CAN NOT be slow with content, you need to entice players to pay, and the prices MUST be fair. LOTRO did all of these things, and people are still loving it. It's all about making it affordable, fun, and constantly giving players something to do. By the end of the game, they should feel very powerful, "cool". That's the entire tug: You're the great new epic Hero/Villain.

The fact of the matter is, RIFT is a good game. It was one of the smoothest, best looking betas I have EVER played. EVER. However, I do not believe in paying a box price, then paying for the right to play that game. This is where F2P comes in. Your subscribers should get EVERYTHING for their sub. New power sets, new missions/DLC, everything. You also offer these to your free players, so you can either just buy it, or continually support with your sub. Subs should also get free cash shop money, about half to 30% of what they're paying in comparison to the cash shop money bundles.

If all the moons align, if the game is fun and designed well, and if you make it balanced, both in gameplay and between the cash shop, it's enjoyable for everyone, and no one feels particularly screwed. Your servers will fill up, people will open their wallets, and your community will overflow. Just don't screw it up by changing these features later to favor payers, otherwise your name will be spit on for years to come.

@Nearly Departed And knowing Runes of Magic, and they're policy on paying to "rent" items, your characters probably don't have anything to show for it now.

@Nearly Departed I like to think of it this way, sure only a small number of people give you money you still need a critical mass of players, a active community for the game to be successful. Success is oddly it's own marketing, the more people you're able to draw into the game the higher the likelihood of getting paying player in as well, and as long as you have a half decent community around the game people can become invested and keep paying.

@Pingles

Just like Taxes!

#OccupyRIFT
#OccupyF2P