Originally posted by VorthanionI sure hope this buisiness model collapses. I'm tired of the crappy quality games that have resulted from this movement.
are you also tired of all the crappy quality P2P MMO's that continue to release?
I'll take subscription based SWTOR over any of the current F2P pieces of garbage anyday.
How did f2p change the content of the game ?
It was designed for subscription, which means it had a higher quality development than those I have played that were F2P from the start.
I think you may be overlooking the fact that maybe (just maybe) the reason SWTOR had such higher development quality could've been because it was backed by one of the wealthiest IPs on the planet, and published by one of the wealthiest game publishers on the planet. And, even then it went F2P.
Biggest problem I see, with the recent crops of P2P games, especially the huge budget ones, is they keep trying to be "The WoW Killer!!!", and try by copying most of WoW's systems, with a few tweaks here and there.
It... won't... work.
The only company that can kill WoW is Blizzard. Everyone else, who tries, is just tilting at windmills.
Originally posted by VorthanionI sure hope this buisiness model collapses. I'm tired of the crappy quality games that have resulted from this movement.
are you also tired of all the crappy quality P2P MMO's that continue to release?
I'll take subscription based SWTOR over any of the current F2P pieces of garbage anyday.
How did f2p change the content of the game ?
It was designed for subscription, which means it had a higher quality development than those I have played that were F2P from the start.
I think you may be overlooking the fact that maybe (just maybe) the reason SWTOR had such higher development quality could've been because it was backed by one of the wealthiest IPs on the planet, and published by one of the wealthiest game publishers on the planet. And, even then it went F2P.
It was backed financially by EA not the IP license holder; Lucas Arts and EA put in the money in the hopes that people would subscribe for long periods of time. It is the main motivation for P2P models, longevity. F2P is all about impulse buying and gambling addicts and everything is designed around it and frankly, the games show their poor quality as a result.
The point of any of these games is to make money. The price model matters little. The most important aspect is how each model is handled and monetized.
In theory, the P2P model fits the community driven goals of MMO's the best. In theory everyone pays the same and are on equal footing once in the game world, whether it be opportunities or items. In practice, RMT runs rampant in these games allowing many players to buy their way to the top. Players often stick or leave these games based on time/money invested rather than quality.
A poorly implemented FTP model is just as bad. Allowing players to literally pay to win is terrible and goes against what i believe MMO's stand for and shoud be about. Requiring the cash shop as a means to most efficiently clear or even run content is bad. Content is actually built around the need for these shops. These games nickel and dime you around every corner and in the end circumvent what the players believe to be a better deal.
A proper B2P model should be the future, provided it's handled correctly. GW2 was on the right track but slipped up a bit with their shop. Fluff should be the name of the game. Give players a limitless amount of it and they'll be happy. The key is to focus on quality content first, absent of any items available in the shop and leave the shop for purely non combat related items. This is where GW2 slipped up in my eyes. No one cares about town clothes or exp boosts. They want armor skins, weapon skins, housing options, and so on.
The trick is to make everything that's available in the shop also available in game but get rid of the terriblly low RNG factor typically surrounding them. Give players long quest chains to obtain them and they'll do it, but also give them a bonus for acquiring them from said quest and not from the shop. Players with little time can purchase the fluff and players that want to earn them in game can do so with added "bragging rights" so to speak.
Bottom line is, how each model is implemented and handled is more important that the model itself.
Excellent points. Also, I'm going to borrow and modify your first paragraph:
The point of any of these games is to have fun. The price model matters little (as long as 1. I can afford it and 2. I feel like I'm getting proper value for my money. The most important aspect is how much I enjoy the game.
I'd also like to add that I do benefit from this free to play trend because I sadly haven't found a new MMO home like Anarchy Online was for so many years. And being a far from wealthy game hopper in an age of MMO plenty, free to play keeps me from having to sell organs and blood and stuff to try out the latest games. These companies aren't stupid, either, they know that early access and meaningless shinies will induce those who do have too much money on their hands to part with some of it. Perfect World's Neverwinter beta offerings prove that. Meanwhile the peasants like me can just wait a bit longer and do without the extra fancy mount. (It remains to be seen whether PWI can actually monetize something in a way that doesn't annoy me into quitting instead of paying, but I have hope!)
However I will happily pay a sub, too. Just not multiple subs. I can't afford it. Which I think is partly why so many companies have either voluntarily or not-so-voluntarily gone free to play lately. There are so many MMOs right now that even high quality games like The Secret World have a tough time gathering up more than crumbs. Most people simply can't pay a sub for every game they flit in and out of.
WoW is holding out as the exception. Blizzard doesn't need crumbs because they still have a good chunk of pie on the plate. But for how much longer? Their 'free trials' are getting longer and longer, as they should. WoW is aging well, but in gamer years it's still a doddering, ugly crone. No offense to actual doddering, ugly crones, I'm getting up there in years myself.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
MarkJacobsCEO City State EntertainmentMemberRarePosts: 649
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
Originally posted by MarkJacobs
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
Originally posted by MarkJacobs
Originally posted by Dren_Utogi
Truthfully, I played all Korean mmos until Lotro which I alpha and beta tested , with a company that truly listened t the testers, Turbine. Life time subscription to LotrO cause of the dedication Turbone has for it's fans.
I never even gave DAoC a look , never payed atention to it's developments, tried the 14 day trial and you know what turned me completely off, mirror water, was dumb looking lol, II just could get past at how dumb the water looked, I;m articfical that way, Korean designers are just better at visual stimulation the American artists, just look at Tera online.
The one thing I can tell you is this, never , ever detract from the competitors, the people you've worked ofr and ect, meaning don't talk shit. Just do your thing, let it speak for itself.
Truthfully noone wants to hear what a millionare thinks when he has the luxary to talk shit, it is tacky and un professional. If I had a million dollars, the last thing I be doing is arguing with a bunch of nerds about something that will "supposedly": not even be part of the game that said person is working on.
Okay, just answer one question please. Where did I say anything bad (talk shit) about a competitor?
I do had to admitt there was nothing bad said towards other competitors.
And I thank you too for being honest about it.
Truly though, I know you think I f-ed up with WAR and I'll never hide/shy away from saying the same thing I've said once my NDA was lifted. I was the GM and no matter what, I have to be willing to shoulder the blame for my role in what happened regardless of whether somebody hated/mehed/liked/loved the game.
And I doubt you'll believe this either but, that's another reason I'm putting in my own money and spending so much time talking to people. I wanted everybody to know why it's going to be different this time. I'm independent, spending my own money and beholden only to our backers and the vision of the game that I have asked them to support.
I truly hope you see the difference. Again, I'm not asking you to support us or even necessarily to believe me but I hope that you'll give me enough benefit of the doubt to at least see that things might be a bit more complicated than you believed and that things are going to be different this time. They have to be because if CU funds and is a disaster, well, that's it for my career.
As I've said before, the past is very sketchy when you're coming from WAR and I don't like to be burnt twice. Warhammer is actually one of the last straws that broke the camels back for myself. I utterly dislike the way the gaming industry is turning MMO's into today. As I've stated in other forums; while I refuse to back your project I only hope you and your new team are actually able to pull off a real MMO experience.
Fair enough, truly.
DAoC was one of the first games that got me heavily into PvP-centric games. You might even draw me into purchasing the game if it's pulled off properly. However, a game that revolves only around PvP must have some real insentive to keep customers coming back for more.
Agreed 100%. That's one of the reasons we announced the Depths.
I also still stand firm in my belief that MMO's should no longer require subscriptions to stay online or make money. Nor do I believe a company should limit the community by forcing a subscription fee upon its playeybase. I've stated many facts as to how modern gaming do not require subscription fees to maintain multiplayer on console and pc titles.
The reason I disagree is not due, as you pointed out correctly earlier, to server/bandwidth costs alone. While they are not $0, they are not as big of a factor as they used to be. The reason is that I think a subscription is justified *if* the developer continues to pour out content. Some of the games you mentioned have expansion packs, DLC which serves as additional revenue for the developer to pay for the content. OTOH, if the developer doesn't add new content, there should be little or no fee. Dark Age of Camelot put out a lot of subscription-based (since it's hard to say free when you are paying a sub free) content as well as expansion packs. One way or the other, new content must be paid for whether it is through a cash shop, DLC, expansion packs or subscription fee.
However, where I disagree is where the costs of running a lot of servers, customer service, bandwidth, etc. can really add up with some F2P games. While the cost of servers is not what it was (buying is cheaper, services like Amazon are not) if you take the aggregate cost of running a free game, it can add up and some FTP games do fail.
And don't you think it is a little unfair to compare a multiplayer games or massively multiplayer games from a cost perspective, especially games which don't run on publishers/developers' servers/bandwith/etc/ and thus have much lower operating costs?
I also know that the F2P model is not a new concept to the MMO genre. As someone has stated earlier. F2P has dated back to the 1990's with Nexon for example. Do I believe that there will be horrible MMO's? Absolutely, I almost expect horrible MMO's to be released; for example Scarlet Blade. A game with very dated graphics and gameplay which was released by Aeria Games this month.
I couldn't agree more about F2P. It's been around a lot longer than that actually which was another of my points in the article and in this thread. Go back to the late 90s with advertising supported games like when AOL went free. I lived through that era as a developer for ENGAGE Games Online/Kesmai and AOL.
Do I think F2P will have an apocalyptic outcome in 3-5 years? absolutely not. It's a model that has been around for almost as long as the P2P model.
Is it possible that some of our disagreement is simply over the fact that when I used the word apocalypse, it was to describe what was going to happen to the developers/publishers? I know that F2P isn't going away anytime soon. I used that term to describe all the studios that were going to be shut down because that there will be too many of them turning out too much expensive content, all chasing the same customers.
Anyway, time to hit the sack. I enjoyed the exchange. Cya!
When first reading the title, I thought "This may be an interesting read that brings up valid points", but after reading the article, I'm more of the persuasion that this is either:
A) A publicity stunt to market his game, which he constantly mentions and tries to capture or indeed exploit the mindset of P2P players and the common saying of those who speak in response to people who don't like their paymodel, or "Go Away".
Trying to downplay a payment model that he will not be using with hopeful rhetoric based on what some would deem common sense that not everything stays in the sun forever.
C) To promote awareness to his kickstarter, of which it just so happens to subtly mention, by causing waves.
I found nothing of merit other than trying to trick people into a mindset, and run to the back with newly inducted followers or people of the near same though process, but were still on the fence. Who wouldn't predict the downfall of a model as time moves on? It's just like how developers move towards new console systems and slowly stop supporting the previous generation after a number of years.
This may be just as much rhetoric as that post, but it's also common sense to say that P2P is also on it's way out. As new generations of consoles are introduced, social media and interconnectivity will be established in terms of both business models and technology, and the line between MMO and Online Virtual World may very likely be blurred.
Pretty soon it will be common place to have 300-500 people per area and or per server with each game on the market (Defiance is only the beginning, using current technology even), and this will inspire new techniques and ideas that will render the current model MMOs have obsolete. These games will inherently be Buy to Play (as console games are today) as it will be the norm to have internet connectivity on a massive scale with the high budget items, and people will start to question "Why am I paying a monthly fee when this is now the norm?". Then again, a game would have to have a niche community to survive this transition as people would support a game they love and have played for a long time just for nostalgia (which is what his "warning" also seems to help with in terms of his game and bringing in new interest).
Again, hopeful talk that the new generation of consoles and games don't just absolutely render the P2P model almost useless by the time they actually finish and release. It WILL happen, it's just a matter of when; will it be this coming generation, or a decade from now in the generation after next?
There are already rumors on reddit (and a rather infamous tweet) that the Xbox 720 is a system that requires you to always be connected to the internet, or you will be unable to play any of the games you buy. If it doesn't happen this generation, it is likely to happen in the next.
There is an interesting discussion involving payment models in this 90 minute video:
Intrinsically there will always be places a genre is "heading". No direction is indefinite and will have a certain amount of "cash cow" power. Even this video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvK8fua6O64 ) which I have posted a few times will likely have it's day in the sun when it comes, and then the new thing will be developed by innovative individuals.
Games that developed for something or some group, will compete in the market that exists. This is true with most things.
... in that context needs to be evaluated; in the above, however, it takes a more "before it's time" approach, whereby I think said time is approaching, and fast.
Edit: There is a high probability that we will see a payment model evolution in the next few years. One could be paying for the product, then offering servers for both F2P (term used for convenience as I know buying it makes it not so) and P2P players with the P2P players also able to move their subscriber only server characters to F2P servers so that there is no disconnect between friends who prefer different payment models (and thus lose interest in playing since they can't play with each other).
Some additional thoughts will have to be made, such as having to deal with cash shop whenever you choose to play on F2P servers, but those on P2P servers could earn stuff in game and maybe have certain things already unlocked.
Due to frequent travel in my youth, English isn't something I consider my primary language (and thus I obtained quirky ways of writing). German and French were always easier for me despite my family being U.S. citizens for over a century. Spanish I learned as a requirement in school, Japanese and Korean I acquired for my youthful desire of anime and gaming (and also work now). I only debate in English to help me work with it (and limit things). In addition, I'm not smart enough to remain fluent in everything and typically need exposure to get in the groove of things again if I haven't heard it in a while. If you understand Mandarin, I know a little, but it has actually been a challenge and could use some help.
Also, I thoroughly enjoy debates and have accounts on over a dozen sites for this. If you wish to engage in such, please put effort in a post and provide sources -- I will then do the same with what I already wrote (if I didn't) as well as with my responses to your own. Expanding my information on a subject makes my stance either change or strengthen the next time I speak of it or write a thesis. Allow me to thank you sincerely for your time.
MarkJacobsCEO City State EntertainmentMemberRarePosts: 649
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
Originally posted by MarkJacobs
Originally posted by Taldier
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
P2P is a dated model that no longer has any reason behind it. However, I'll happily pay for a good P2P game. However, I emphisize on good because in the past 7 years I have yet to see anything remotely worth my 15 dollar monthly membership. While MJ might make a spiritual successor for DAoC. I will not believe it until I see it. Like I've stated earlier. You're only as good as your last product which for MJ is Warhammer Online.
I know from experience how poorly his company developed and maintained Warhammer Online. So, I believe MJ's standards are not up to par with what people expect from a good subscription MMO. People want great quality especially when they're put into a situation where they're required to pay a monthly fee for their product.
He has a lot of proving to do for me to buy his product; let alone invest in the KS he started.
EA Games, the company that kills everything it touches. Thats really all that needs to be said here. I understand youre upset about Warhammer, but just blaming the entire thing on one guy? Why him?
If you really just dont want to back the project, then dont back it. Buy it when it comes out and play with the rest of us. We wont even say "we told you so!" (well maybe just once).
This is about more than you just not wanting to pledge, you have the choice to just not post if you actually didnt care.
Maybe MJ isnt the most productive target?
But I am the most productive target who is here which is why so many developers stay away from open forums these days. Some are great about it but many prefer not to be "targets of opportunity" for players who want to express their opinions, vent at times (lord knows, I have wanted to do that to as a consumer) or simply want to talk to the developers. I am not saying devs are special little flowers who shouldn't be able to take a verbal punch but sometimes, even for the most thick-skinned it gets a bit depressing when the real vitriol starts to flow especially since so many of us are gamers too.
While this is not directed directly at you. I believe the disconnect between the developer and the consumer community is the major issue. Companies essentially have their customers lined up saying exactly what they want out of a game but it seems as though no one's listening. Which is discouraging for many "old school" gamers. People are starting to quit the MMO genre overall because they're not producing a proper MMO. We're just getting very shallow games that major companies are using to make a quick buck.
We are 100% in agreement, truly, 100%. I've said the same thing both at Mythic and EA. Sometimes we (devs/publishers) because we are too stupid to listen (our fault), sometimes because we listen to the wrong people (our fault), or sometimes, because players sometimes say what they want but then when it happens, they really didn't want it (not our fault).
FYI, that's why I'm trying for a niche game, I don't know what consumers want anymore than anyone else in the industry. I'm simply trying to gauge whether there is enough demand for a game like Camelot Unchained and I'm not trying to tell the industry that "I'm right damn it!" or that CU is the future of the entire industry. CU may be the future home for our players but it will be up to them to either embrace or reject the concept. To me, that is the penultimate example of putting the choice in the consumers' hands. If they embrace it, fantastic, we set off to make the game. If not, then it served its purpose of proving what a number of VCs I spoke to said, that it was too niche of a concept. It will be an interesting 19 days.
Wow. If I had not already backed this game I would back it now; or raise my pledge if I had not already pledged the most I can afford.
I am amazed that MJ continued to reply in such a civil manner to a few spiteful few who clearly are trying to earn some forum tough-guy points. They are anonymous, MJ is not. They are being extraordinarily rude in tone and content, MJ is not. They are making false accusations, MJ is not. I would love to see another developer engage in forums and threads like this cesspool, especially one as high up as MJ.
Anyway, thanks for being cool, MJ. I wouldn't waste my Friday night on these guys, but I'm glad you are willing to.
Oh, and to the tough-guys: MJ thinks the F2P model is going to burst, like the housing bubble in the States. He never said it was bad, or wrong, to use it, nor did he say F2P games were inferior. That is what you guys chose to read and flame away about. because clearly you have some other issues with MJ and his new game. Feel free to carry on with your antics, but realize you are making up a strawman argument just to vent for whatever reason you are venting. Pretty sad.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Wow. If I had not already backed this game I would back it now; or raise my pledge if I had not already pledged the most I can afford.
I am amazed that MJ continued to reply in such a civil manner to a few spiteful few who clearly are trying to earn some forum tough-guy points. They are anonymous, MJ is not. They are being extraordinarily rude in tone and content, MJ is not. They are making false accusations, MJ is not. I would love to see another developer engage in forums and threads like this cesspool, especially one as high up as MJ.
Anyway, thanks for being cool, MJ. I wouldn't waste my Friday night on these guys, but I'm glad you are willing to.
Oh, and to the tough-guys: MJ thinks the F2P model is going to burst, like the housing bubble in the States. He never said it was bad, or wrong, to use it, nor did he say F2P games were inferior. That is what you guys chose to read and flame away about. because clearly you have some other issues with MJ and his new game. Feel free to carry on with your antics, but realize you are making up a strawman argument just to vent for whatever reason you are venting. Pretty sad.
There's nothing tough or anonymous about myself if I'm who you're talking about, My actual name is on my account. I have nothing to hide nor do I try to act tough. If I give the appearance of acting tough it's simply because I'm blunt on how debate topics. While MJ and I have discussed the apocalypse, history, cost, or future of the mmo industry all night I think we can come to an understanding of eachothers standpoints.
There is blunt and there is being a jerk. Here is you being a colossal jerk:
"Don't give a half-twit like MJ an idea to increase a subscription model to more than double. He's already asking for free handouts as it is."
Any valid points you seem capable of making are washed away by such unnecessary and repulsive slander. You seem intelligent enough to know better and to do better, so, my advice to you is to just that. You can make a point without rudeness or insults; in fact, your point is all the stronger for it. Debate is not about fighting the man, but fighting the words - keep that in mind.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Now I hate some of the "tricks" F2P games do to make you pay, but i recognise it at a viable strategy to attract players to the game. I allow me to play devils advocate if you will but free to play will always be an effective model. The problem is with a PvP is you need your servers populated to make the game feel alive, Camelot unchained aims at having 50k subs, hate to break it to you guys, but thats 2 servers guy, maybe 3. I personally being a PvPer Like people to fight against and the stats of F2P games speak for themselves, they're vastly more populated than P2P games. Perhaps camelot unchained wont need to switch to F2P to be profitable like the big budget MMOS's, but if the current players arnt satisfied, how long will they continue p(l)aying for?
Think of this from a prospective shareholders point of view. We have an absolute glut of F2P games hitting the market already and it's accelerating, so would you invest your money in a F2P game coming onto the market. With so few whales who basically pay to keep a game going, how do you keep them a) continually paying, and b) staying around. The other problem F2P games have is game hoppers, who don't tend to be invested in any particular game and just want to drop in for a short time here and there.
Even in China which currently has low wages their middle class is growing so the cost of living there is going up which then in turn pushes wages up. So in the future, creating games in China will cost more than is currently seen there, making it less apealing for investors.
These are some of the reasons I can see the market changing and funding for F2P games drying up because it will be deemed far to risky an investment in the future.
F2p games fail because no-one wants to play them. not because they are free. If ANY of the games nexon put out were subscription based. i wouldn't lay a finger on them. And low population games are only gonna have thier subbers keep paying for so long until they leave, because no one wants to play the damn game! Personally I dont think they should've told us the money model for the game. we havent even seen the action for the game, and this guy has it set that no matter what, he wants to make MORE money. money wouldnt be an issue if you'd just make a game that's worth playing.
As many others said, this is not a matter of payment model, but a matter of quality or quality-cost relation. In the end of the "apocalypse" the stronger will prevail, and I can't see where it relates with payment model per se.
Imo I would say that survival of p2p seems to be more and more at risk, because at this moment we have pretty decent b2p, fremium and f2p options. If you want to sustain a p2p game population you must give them more quality and quantity than what they can get in other games; no one is going to pay a sub if tere are similar or better choices with cheaper payment models... and speaking about demanding population I think it is a lot worse in p2p...
It is not pay to win. It is WHATEVER IT TAKES to hook in another whale that will drop few thousand a MONTH on a game. It is a crack dealer business model. Find the addicts. hook them in, feed on them. Make new game repeat. People do not get how f2p actually works. It is not sustainable long term. I get recrutiers trying to get me to work for one of these scam companies every week, they pop up all over the place non stop. Crash is coming
Nexon:Kingdom of the Winds, F2P since 1996
WRONG!
Nexus: Kingdom of the Winds was my very first mmorpg I ever played. It had a free trial up to lvl 15 or so but it was NOT f2p. It cost 10-15 dollars a month to play, don't remember the exact amount. And you were limited to 4 characters on your account.
The cash shop it has now didn't get implemented for a long time. I played it obsessively throughout high school.
Playing: Smite, Marvel Heroes Played: Nexus:Kingdom of the Winds, Everquest, DAoC, Everquest 2, WoW, Matrix Online, Vangaurd, SWG, DDO, EVE, Fallen Earth, LoTRo, CoX, Champions Online, WAR, Darkfall, Mortal Online, Guild Wars, Rift, Tera, Aion, AoC, Gods and Heroes, DCUO, FF14, TSW, SWTOR, GW2, Wildstar, ESO, ArcheAge Waiting On: Nothing. Mmorpg's are dead.
omer base is trying to help them improve their product. Anyone will show anger toward a company like that.
While I start out fists flying I do indeed back an extremely intelligent debate. As I said I'm very blunt even to the point of making insults whether or not you find it "nice" is your opinion. I'm I jerk and I'll take that as a compliment I have the backbone to speak my mind.
Whether or not you take my standpoint or someone else's is your choice. There are many people people who will agree to my posts regardless of slander/insults.
Facepalm, you realize every vertibrate has a backbone right? Not exactly an achievement bro.
In addition to my long post at the bottom of page 22, I'd like to add this:
Brilliant marketing move Mr. Jacobs. I'm seeing most of my public sources of information report on your words as if it was some type of ammunition or gospal for the last remnants of the P2P consumerbase.
I've no doubt your game will be niche, and that it will survive from this; I also don't question your experience or the quality you will deliver. But as a whole the P2P model will only be suited to niche games in the future, just as the "massive" crowd that moves from one F2P game to the next gradually becomes smaller as they settle down if they find a game they enjoy.
I've slammed your public announcement on a number of faults through various posts within this thread and on other news sites that I participate in. This is simply because it just seemed like a "no duh" situation with potential side goals rather than someone who has indepth knowledge that no one else in the industry mysteriously sees.
F2P now is trying to either cash in with roughly three major moves:
High quality game built from the ground up to be free, with special features, to bring people in and captivate them. Usually using some sort of tool that will promote a community such as user generated content
Converting a previously failed P2P game into F2P to collect as much money as possible to either recoop or make a bunch of money and then live off of the good will of their actions within their newly established niche community as others leave
Produce low quality garbage with a lot of hype to cash out as much as possible. This is mainly in line with some web based games that put restrictions in game so that you have to buy microtransactions, or maybe a remnant of another age (old F2P grindy games) that they're putting out there just to make money.
This collapse of the F2P market will be much like the collapse of the P2P one; only the strong will survive, and the leaders in the pack will have most all authority on the matter. But I get the feeling that people are thinking this announcement of yours is some kind of (as mentioned before) holy grail of information when it really isn't. Most all who enter the market will have figured out that sometime a model is king and sometime it isn't (and thus I mentioned in my first post that this was targeted to potential consumers and others who may never have thought of this). It will start to degrade just how P2P continues to falter (to the point of depending on niche being a selling point, as your own game demostrates). As technology develops, and if the whole "unlimited pixels" technology becomes viable, the industry will change in various ways. This includes ease of developing games (not having to spend so many assets on making multiple versions of something that look different from different angles / distance / lighting), improvements on internet connections (Google Fiber in the U.S. and the PS4 specs and plans; even the rumor that the Xbox 720 will require the internet to play any games) and many games developers wanting to incorporate more and more multiplayer elements into their product. Pretty soon line between MMO and Multiplayer Online World will be blurred and people will question just why we need to pay monthly with the networking and technological prowess we have.
If we don't see a brand new payment model soon, I'd be surprised (along the lines of a Buy to Play, subscriber servers and non-subscribers servers with subscribers able to guest on non-subscribers so there is no disconnect from friends who prefer different types). As it's already likely that the whole "buy to play" game will be the next to take the seat of online gaming. Defiance is an example with current technology of console and computer game worlds blurring the line. I wouldn't call it a total MMO, but then again I wouldn't pay monthly for a Call of Duty Online when I have access to a game like Defiance as a whole.
The times they are a changing, and this statement on the obvious just seemed like role call, a sort of last stand for people wanting a game that is honest about it's niche nature and stands the test of time with the "common sense" personal preference of the Pay to Play model in the onset of a F2P and B2P world.
Due to frequent travel in my youth, English isn't something I consider my primary language (and thus I obtained quirky ways of writing). German and French were always easier for me despite my family being U.S. citizens for over a century. Spanish I learned as a requirement in school, Japanese and Korean I acquired for my youthful desire of anime and gaming (and also work now). I only debate in English to help me work with it (and limit things). In addition, I'm not smart enough to remain fluent in everything and typically need exposure to get in the groove of things again if I haven't heard it in a while. If you understand Mandarin, I know a little, but it has actually been a challenge and could use some help.
Also, I thoroughly enjoy debates and have accounts on over a dozen sites for this. If you wish to engage in such, please put effort in a post and provide sources -- I will then do the same with what I already wrote (if I didn't) as well as with my responses to your own. Expanding my information on a subject makes my stance either change or strengthen the next time I speak of it or write a thesis. Allow me to thank you sincerely for your time.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Comments
I think you may be overlooking the fact that maybe (just maybe) the reason SWTOR had such higher development quality could've been because it was backed by one of the wealthiest IPs on the planet, and published by one of the wealthiest game publishers on the planet. And, even then it went F2P.
Biggest problem I see, with the recent crops of P2P games, especially the huge budget ones, is they keep trying to be "The WoW Killer!!!", and try by copying most of WoW's systems, with a few tweaks here and there.
It... won't... work.
The only company that can kill WoW is Blizzard. Everyone else, who tries, is just tilting at windmills.
It was backed financially by EA not the IP license holder; Lucas Arts and EA put in the money in the hopes that people would subscribe for long periods of time. It is the main motivation for P2P models, longevity. F2P is all about impulse buying and gambling addicts and everything is designed around it and frankly, the games show their poor quality as a result.
Excellent points. Also, I'm going to borrow and modify your first paragraph:
The point of any of these games is to have fun. The price model matters little (as long as 1. I can afford it and 2. I feel like I'm getting proper value for my money. The most important aspect is how much I enjoy the game.
I'd also like to add that I do benefit from this free to play trend because I sadly haven't found a new MMO home like Anarchy Online was for so many years. And being a far from wealthy game hopper in an age of MMO plenty, free to play keeps me from having to sell organs and blood and stuff to try out the latest games. These companies aren't stupid, either, they know that early access and meaningless shinies will induce those who do have too much money on their hands to part with some of it. Perfect World's Neverwinter beta offerings prove that. Meanwhile the peasants like me can just wait a bit longer and do without the extra fancy mount. (It remains to be seen whether PWI can actually monetize something in a way that doesn't annoy me into quitting instead of paying, but I have hope!)
However I will happily pay a sub, too. Just not multiple subs. I can't afford it. Which I think is partly why so many companies have either voluntarily or not-so-voluntarily gone free to play lately. There are so many MMOs right now that even high quality games like The Secret World have a tough time gathering up more than crumbs. Most people simply can't pay a sub for every game they flit in and out of.
WoW is holding out as the exception. Blizzard doesn't need crumbs because they still have a good chunk of pie on the plate. But for how much longer? Their 'free trials' are getting longer and longer, as they should. WoW is aging well, but in gamer years it's still a doddering, ugly crone. No offense to actual doddering, ugly crones, I'm getting up there in years myself.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Fair enough, truly.
Agreed 100%. That's one of the reasons we announced the Depths.
The reason I disagree is not due, as you pointed out correctly earlier, to server/bandwidth costs alone. While they are not $0, they are not as big of a factor as they used to be. The reason is that I think a subscription is justified *if* the developer continues to pour out content. Some of the games you mentioned have expansion packs, DLC which serves as additional revenue for the developer to pay for the content. OTOH, if the developer doesn't add new content, there should be little or no fee. Dark Age of Camelot put out a lot of subscription-based (since it's hard to say free when you are paying a sub free) content as well as expansion packs. One way or the other, new content must be paid for whether it is through a cash shop, DLC, expansion packs or subscription fee.
However, where I disagree is where the costs of running a lot of servers, customer service, bandwidth, etc. can really add up with some F2P games. While the cost of servers is not what it was (buying is cheaper, services like Amazon are not) if you take the aggregate cost of running a free game, it can add up and some FTP games do fail.
And don't you think it is a little unfair to compare a multiplayer games or massively multiplayer games from a cost perspective, especially games which don't run on publishers/developers' servers/bandwith/etc/ and thus have much lower operating costs?
I couldn't agree more about F2P. It's been around a lot longer than that actually which was another of my points in the article and in this thread. Go back to the late 90s with advertising supported games like when AOL went free. I lived through that era as a developer for ENGAGE Games Online/Kesmai and AOL.
Is it possible that some of our disagreement is simply over the fact that when I used the word apocalypse, it was to describe what was going to happen to the developers/publishers? I know that F2P isn't going away anytime soon. I used that term to describe all the studios that were going to be shut down because that there will be too many of them turning out too much expensive content, all chasing the same customers.
Anyway, time to hit the sack. I enjoyed the exchange. Cya!
Mark Jacobs
CEO, City State Entertainment
When first reading the title, I thought "This may be an interesting read that brings up valid points", but after reading the article, I'm more of the persuasion that this is either:
A) A publicity stunt to market his game, which he constantly mentions and tries to capture or indeed exploit the mindset of P2P players and the common saying of those who speak in response to people who don't like their paymodel, or "Go Away".
C) To promote awareness to his kickstarter, of which it just so happens to subtly mention, by causing waves.
I found nothing of merit other than trying to trick people into a mindset, and run to the back with newly inducted followers or people of the near same though process, but were still on the fence. Who wouldn't predict the downfall of a model as time moves on? It's just like how developers move towards new console systems and slowly stop supporting the previous generation after a number of years.
This may be just as much rhetoric as that post, but it's also common sense to say that P2P is also on it's way out. As new generations of consoles are introduced, social media and interconnectivity will be established in terms of both business models and technology, and the line between MMO and Online Virtual World may very likely be blurred.
Pretty soon it will be common place to have 300-500 people per area and or per server with each game on the market (Defiance is only the beginning, using current technology even), and this will inspire new techniques and ideas that will render the current model MMOs have obsolete. These games will inherently be Buy to Play (as console games are today) as it will be the norm to have internet connectivity on a massive scale with the high budget items, and people will start to question "Why am I paying a monthly fee when this is now the norm?". Then again, a game would have to have a niche community to survive this transition as people would support a game they love and have played for a long time just for nostalgia (which is what his "warning" also seems to help with in terms of his game and bringing in new interest).
Again, hopeful talk that the new generation of consoles and games don't just absolutely render the P2P model almost useless by the time they actually finish and release. It WILL happen, it's just a matter of when; will it be this coming generation, or a decade from now in the generation after next?
There are already rumors on reddit (and a rather infamous tweet) that the Xbox 720 is a system that requires you to always be connected to the internet, or you will be unable to play any of the games you buy. If it doesn't happen this generation, it is likely to happen in the next.
There is an interesting discussion involving payment models in this 90 minute video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct9Ogn7AazM
Intrinsically there will always be places a genre is "heading". No direction is indefinite and will have a certain amount of "cash cow" power. Even this video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvK8fua6O64 ) which I have posted a few times will likely have it's day in the sun when it comes, and then the new thing will be developed by innovative individuals.
Games that developed for something or some group, will compete in the market that exists. This is true with most things.
I even go into this in one of my blogs: http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/Yaevindusk/032013/24782_A-brief-analysis-of-MMOs-and-contextual-payment-plans-Why-World-of-Warcraft-may-want-The-Elders-Scrolls-to-go-P2P-update-2
... in that context needs to be evaluated; in the above, however, it takes a more "before it's time" approach, whereby I think said time is approaching, and fast.
Edit: There is a high probability that we will see a payment model evolution in the next few years. One could be paying for the product, then offering servers for both F2P (term used for convenience as I know buying it makes it not so) and P2P players with the P2P players also able to move their subscriber only server characters to F2P servers so that there is no disconnect between friends who prefer different payment models (and thus lose interest in playing since they can't play with each other).
Some additional thoughts will have to be made, such as having to deal with cash shop whenever you choose to play on F2P servers, but those on P2P servers could earn stuff in game and maybe have certain things already unlocked.
We are 100% in agreement, truly, 100%. I've said the same thing both at Mythic and EA. Sometimes we (devs/publishers) because we are too stupid to listen (our fault), sometimes because we listen to the wrong people (our fault), or sometimes, because players sometimes say what they want but then when it happens, they really didn't want it (not our fault).
FYI, that's why I'm trying for a niche game, I don't know what consumers want anymore than anyone else in the industry. I'm simply trying to gauge whether there is enough demand for a game like Camelot Unchained and I'm not trying to tell the industry that "I'm right damn it!" or that CU is the future of the entire industry. CU may be the future home for our players but it will be up to them to either embrace or reject the concept. To me, that is the penultimate example of putting the choice in the consumers' hands. If they embrace it, fantastic, we set off to make the game. If not, then it served its purpose of proving what a number of VCs I spoke to said, that it was too niche of a concept. It will be an interesting 19 days.
Again, thanks for the discussion!
Mark Jacobs
CEO, City State Entertainment
Wow. If I had not already backed this game I would back it now; or raise my pledge if I had not already pledged the most I can afford.
I am amazed that MJ continued to reply in such a civil manner to a few spiteful few who clearly are trying to earn some forum tough-guy points. They are anonymous, MJ is not. They are being extraordinarily rude in tone and content, MJ is not. They are making false accusations, MJ is not. I would love to see another developer engage in forums and threads like this cesspool, especially one as high up as MJ.
Anyway, thanks for being cool, MJ. I wouldn't waste my Friday night on these guys, but I'm glad you are willing to.
Oh, and to the tough-guys: MJ thinks the F2P model is going to burst, like the housing bubble in the States. He never said it was bad, or wrong, to use it, nor did he say F2P games were inferior. That is what you guys chose to read and flame away about. because clearly you have some other issues with MJ and his new game. Feel free to carry on with your antics, but realize you are making up a strawman argument just to vent for whatever reason you are venting. Pretty sad.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
There is blunt and there is being a jerk. Here is you being a colossal jerk:
"Don't give a half-twit like MJ an idea to increase a subscription model to more than double. He's already asking for free handouts as it is."
Any valid points you seem capable of making are washed away by such unnecessary and repulsive slander. You seem intelligent enough to know better and to do better, so, my advice to you is to just that. You can make a point without rudeness or insults; in fact, your point is all the stronger for it. Debate is not about fighting the man, but fighting the words - keep that in mind.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Now I hate some of the "tricks" F2P games do to make you pay, but i recognise it at a viable strategy to attract players to the game.
I allow me to play devils advocate if you will but free to play will always be an effective model. The problem is with a PvP is you need your servers populated to make the game feel alive, Camelot unchained aims at having 50k subs, hate to break it to you guys, but thats 2 servers guy, maybe 3. I personally being a PvPer Like people to fight against and the stats of F2P games speak for themselves, they're vastly more populated than P2P games. Perhaps camelot unchained wont need to switch to F2P to be profitable like the big budget MMOS's, but if the current players arnt satisfied, how long will they continue p(l)aying for?
SKYeXile
TRF - GM - GW2, PS2, WAR, AION, Rift, WoW, WOT....etc...
Future Crew - High Council. Planetside 1 & 2.
Think of this from a prospective shareholders point of view. We have an absolute glut of F2P games hitting the market already and it's accelerating, so would you invest your money in a F2P game coming onto the market. With so few whales who basically pay to keep a game going, how do you keep them a) continually paying, and b) staying around. The other problem F2P games have is game hoppers, who don't tend to be invested in any particular game and just want to drop in for a short time here and there.
Even in China which currently has low wages their middle class is growing so the cost of living there is going up which then in turn pushes wages up. So in the future, creating games in China will cost more than is currently seen there, making it less apealing for investors.
These are some of the reasons I can see the market changing and funding for F2P games drying up because it will be deemed far to risky an investment in the future.
As many others said, this is not a matter of payment model, but a matter of quality or quality-cost relation. In the end of the "apocalypse" the stronger will prevail, and I can't see where it relates with payment model per se.
Imo I would say that survival of p2p seems to be more and more at risk, because at this moment we have pretty decent b2p, fremium and f2p options. If you want to sustain a p2p game population you must give them more quality and quantity than what they can get in other games; no one is going to pay a sub if tere are similar or better choices with cheaper payment models... and speaking about demanding population I think it is a lot worse in p2p...
WRONG!
Nexus: Kingdom of the Winds was my very first mmorpg I ever played. It had a free trial up to lvl 15 or so but it was NOT f2p. It cost 10-15 dollars a month to play, don't remember the exact amount. And you were limited to 4 characters on your account.
The cash shop it has now didn't get implemented for a long time. I played it obsessively throughout high school.
Playing: Smite, Marvel Heroes
Played: Nexus:Kingdom of the Winds, Everquest, DAoC, Everquest 2, WoW, Matrix Online, Vangaurd, SWG, DDO, EVE, Fallen Earth, LoTRo, CoX, Champions Online, WAR, Darkfall, Mortal Online, Guild Wars, Rift, Tera, Aion, AoC, Gods and Heroes, DCUO, FF14, TSW, SWTOR, GW2, Wildstar, ESO, ArcheAge
Waiting On: Nothing. Mmorpg's are dead.
I say that all these are bullshit.
He is just trying to support his model of pay permonth while everybody goes free to play.
Facepalm, you realize every vertibrate has a backbone right? Not exactly an achievement bro.
Hi
In addition to my long post at the bottom of page 22, I'd like to add this:
Brilliant marketing move Mr. Jacobs. I'm seeing most of my public sources of information report on your words as if it was some type of ammunition or gospal for the last remnants of the P2P consumerbase.
I've no doubt your game will be niche, and that it will survive from this; I also don't question your experience or the quality you will deliver. But as a whole the P2P model will only be suited to niche games in the future, just as the "massive" crowd that moves from one F2P game to the next gradually becomes smaller as they settle down if they find a game they enjoy.
I've slammed your public announcement on a number of faults through various posts within this thread and on other news sites that I participate in. This is simply because it just seemed like a "no duh" situation with potential side goals rather than someone who has indepth knowledge that no one else in the industry mysteriously sees.
F2P now is trying to either cash in with roughly three major moves:
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.