NCSoft Shifts Away from Gacha Mechanics in Throne and Liberty | MMORPG.com

System

NCSoft Shifts Away from Gacha Mechanics in Throne and Liberty | MMORPG.com

NCsoft, the developer and Korean publisher for upcoming game Throne and Liberty, is reportedly planning a shift away from the gacha monetization system.

Read the full story here

ohrecon

I know most will still shit on this game cause why not but good move to get rid of it.

Dattelis

Honestly didn't know it had gacha.....So is AGS gonna fight against gacha in Blue Protocol as well....?

achesoma

Between getting rid of gacha and auto combat there might be hope for this game yet. Still keeping an eye on it.

Slapshot1188

There may have need a recent NDA test.  

Nanfoodle

achesoma said:

Between getting rid of gacha and auto combat there might be hope for this game yet. Still keeping an eye on it.

Same boat. There is many things about this game are things I'm look for in an MMO. Love the open world dungeon that has PvP elements. So love the environmental side of how skills work. Maybe we may have something here. Here is hoping.

Nanfoodle

PS this is good news if it's true.

AlexanderVendi

Milky milky! milky milky! where's my milky!?
No more milky?
Ok let's make a good game!
Hypocrites...

Mensur

Mark my words. This game is so much DOA! Huge flop incomming!

Bayen

Actual great change, there is hope now maybe!

sabrefoxx

Great! Now the next thing they can get rid of if they haven't already is a gender locked character. Also afro hairstyles and character customizations. No more black-face straight haired characters like you see in black desert.

Phoenix_Hawk

As far as I knew, it didn't have a gacha system specifically, but may have had loot boxes. Meaning, referring random paid loot as gacha in this press release seems more as a means to trigger the kind of people we see posting before me, that just instantly hate anything if it has a gacha, and/or is on mobile.

The fact of the matter is that gacha in free to play games, of any platform, is really no better, or worse than any of the other means developers of such games use to bleed money from its users.

ShinyFlygon

Phoenix_Hawk said:

As far as I knew, it didn't have a gacha system specifically, but may have had loot boxes. Meaning, referring random paid loot as gacha in this press release seems more as a means to trigger the kind of people we see posting before me, that just instantly hate anything if it has a gacha, and/or is on mobile.



The fact of the matter is that gacha in free to play games, of any platform, is really no better, or worse than any of the other means developers of such games use to bleed money from its users.

It is a lot worse than any system in which you pay for an item and know what you are getting ahead of time. Ideally, devs and publishers would not try to "bleed money" from anyone but would just offer desirable products for a fair price.

FFXIV and WoW have the most consumer-friendly monetization of any MMO on the planet, but people regularly shit on them for daring to charge a subscription fee. There's no way for any business to ask its customers to pay up without enraging someone somewhere.

Neoyoshi

There was a time Blade & Soul was subscription-based in South Korea. In fact alot of Korean mmorpg's were all using subscription business models at one time or another.

Why we can't just go back to using that very plain yet stable business model is really beyond me.

Sovrath

Neoyoshi said:

Why we can't just go back to using that very plain yet stable business model is really beyond me.

Because it probably isn't stable.

They make more money through free to play monetization. It uncaps how much a person can spend. Sadly, there is a small percentage of people who really spend uber amounts but it's there.

And by this point the sub would have to be more than the $15 per month which would put up a larger paywall than what the average person would want to pay.

achesoma

sabrefoxx said:

Great! Now the next thing they can get rid of if they haven't already is a gender locked character. Also afro hairstyles and character customizations. No more black-face straight haired characters like you see in black desert.

Neoyoshi

Sovrath said:

Neoyoshi said:

Why we can't just go back to using that very plain yet stable business model is really beyond me.

Because it probably isn't stable.

They make more money through free to play monetization. It uncaps how much a person can spend. Sadly, there is a small percentage of people who really spend uber amounts but it's there.

And by this point the sub would have to be more than the $15 per month which would put up a larger paywall than what the average person would want to pay.

I do agree with this pretty much, i think I'm just looking at all of this through the lens of someone whose paid for a ongoing FFXIV subscription since 2013. xD

More of topic though, i have no clue that's going to happen with this game; I truly feel like Throne & Liberty is going to end up being one of those 'go with god' game releases.

Xoph

What the hell is a gacha mechanic?

Dattelis

Xoph said:

What the hell is a gacha mechanic?

Essentially gambling. You put 'high value' stuff in with 'trash' and give people a 'roll' to get the value item. Many have a 'pity' system where after a certain number of 'rolls' then either you get a currency to buy a value item from a separate shop or a random 'high value' item is given. Some try not to spin it as gambling because you're guaranteed a drop regardless.....

ShinyFlygon

Sovrath said:

Neoyoshi said:

Why we can't just go back to using that very plain yet stable business model is really beyond me.

Because it probably isn't stable.

They make more money through free to play monetization. It uncaps how much a person can spend. Sadly, there is a small percentage of people who really spend uber amounts but it's there.

What you have described is the opposite of stable. Free-to-play games are notorious for bringing in a lot of cash in the short term and then dropping off quickly.

On the other hand, a subscription game that fosters strong community ties and delivers continued content on a regular basis will have far more predictable income and be able to weather a dip in subs here and there because the community will be more likely to return after a break.

It is no coincidence that the only two subscription-only games in existence are always among the top three MMOs in terms of market share and have demonstrated the strongest staying power.

Sovrath

ShinyFlygon said:

Sovrath said:

Because it probably isn't stable.

They make more money through free to play monetization. It uncaps how much a person can spend. Sadly, there is a small percentage of people who really spend uber amounts but it's there.

What you have described is the opposite of stable. Free-to-play games are notorious for bringing in a lot of cash in the short term and then dropping off quickly.

On the other hand, a subscription game that fosters strong community ties and delivers continued content on a regular basis will have far more predictable income and be able to weather a dip in subs here and there because the community will be more likely to return after a break.

It is no coincidence that the only two subscription-only games in existence are always among the top three MMOs in terms of market share and have demonstrated the strongest staying power.

Yes that’s true as far as free to play.

But “nowadays “ sub games can’t sustain the amount they need to keep the game running and profitable.

That’s the whole reason why Dungeons and Dragons online made the ftp gamble as it wasn’t looking good. And that was a game that did foster community and did have regular updates. 

Because it worked so well they tried it with Lord of the Rings Online. 

I’ll add that if what you said was true about subs then we would still have a lot of sub games as most games started out with subs. Clearly that didn’t work out.

Sensai

Sovrath said:

ShinyFlygon said:

Sovrath said:

Because it probably isn't stable.

They make more money through free to play monetization. It uncaps how much a person can spend. Sadly, there is a small percentage of people who really spend uber amounts but it's there.

What you have described is the opposite of stable. Free-to-play games are notorious for bringing in a lot of cash in the short term and then dropping off quickly.

On the other hand, a subscription game that fosters strong community ties and delivers continued content on a regular basis will have far more predictable income and be able to weather a dip in subs here and there because the community will be more likely to return after a break.

It is no coincidence that the only two subscription-only games in existence are always among the top three MMOs in terms of market share and have demonstrated the strongest staying power.

Yes that’s true as far as free to play.

But “nowadays “ sub games can’t sustain the amount they need to keep the game running and profitable.

That’s the whole reason why Dungeons and Dragons online made the ftp gamble as it wasn’t looking good. And that was a game that did foster community and did have regular updates. 

Because it worked so well they tried it with Lord of the Rings Online. 

I’ll add that if what you said was true about subs then we would still have a lot of sub games as most games started out with subs. Clearly that didn’t work out.

 You are still using stable as a replacement for income potential when they are very different things. It didn't work out for most games because those particular games weren't and aren't worth a subscription and are only  monetarily successful due to a subpopulation of whales (aka stupid people).   A good game with a good community can make plenty of money with a subscription model if daily log ins aren't fostered/forced by fomo daily quests and treats, but instead by engaging gameplay and steady progression.  Unfortunately,  no one can seem to make a game like that anymore. A bad or eh game on the other hand can only survive on a ftp model.

Nanfoodle

Sensai said:

Sovrath said:

ShinyFlygon said:

Sovrath said:

Because it probably isn't stable.

They make more money through free to play monetization. It uncaps how much a person can spend. Sadly, there is a small percentage of people who really spend uber amounts but it's there.

What you have described is the opposite of stable. Free-to-play games are notorious for bringing in a lot of cash in the short term and then dropping off quickly.

On the other hand, a subscription game that fosters strong community ties and delivers continued content on a regular basis will have far more predictable income and be able to weather a dip in subs here and there because the community will be more likely to return after a break.

It is no coincidence that the only two subscription-only games in existence are always among the top three MMOs in terms of market share and have demonstrated the strongest staying power.

Yes that’s true as far as free to play.

But “nowadays “ sub games can’t sustain the amount they need to keep the game running and profitable.

That’s the whole reason why Dungeons and Dragons online made the ftp gamble as it wasn’t looking good. And that was a game that did foster community and did have regular updates. 

Because it worked so well they tried it with Lord of the Rings Online. 

I’ll add that if what you said was true about subs then we would still have a lot of sub games as most games started out with subs. Clearly that didn’t work out.

 You are still using stable as a replacement for income potential when they are very different things. It didn't work out for most games because those particular games weren't and aren't worth a subscription and are only  monetarily successful due to a subpopulation of whales (aka stupid people).   A good game with a good community can make plenty of money with a subscription model if daily log ins aren't fostered/forced by fomo daily quests and treats, but instead by engaging gameplay and steady progression.  Unfortunately,  no one can seem to make a game like that anymore. A bad or eh game on the other hand can only survive on a ftp model.

IMO games need to figure how to make us want to pay them and "want" to is the key. Sub still works for some games and cash shops work for others. IMO if you have a good game and ask a fair price. It does not matter if its a cash shop game or Sub. Most of the fails you mention are either bad games or the payment method used was not worth it to the market that game was trying to penetrate. Anyone who says a sub fee is too big of a gate. I just spent $20 at Starbucks getting a cookie and a coffee. 

Tiller

Dattelis said:

Xoph said:

What the hell is a gacha mechanic?

Essentially gambling. You put 'high value' stuff in with 'trash' and give people a 'roll' to get the value item. Many have a 'pity' system where after a certain number of 'rolls' then either you get a currency to buy a value item from a separate shop or a random 'high value' item is given. Some try not to spin it as gambling because you're guaranteed a drop regardless.....

They still try to market it as "you are still geting value even if you don't get the best seasonal item", but it's usually crap items that drop from other sources already ....like GW2 Black Lion chests. I have a shit ton of primers and boosters I rarely used since they didn't really do much for very long.

Aralience66

System said:

NCSoft Shifts Away from Gacha Mechanics in Throne and Liberty | MMORPG.com

NCsoft, the developer and Korean publisher for upcoming game Throne and Liberty, is reportedly planning a shift away from the gacha monetization system.

Read the full story here elastic man

I'm quite looking forward to this.

Kyleran

Nanfoodle said:

Sensai said:

Sovrath said:

ShinyFlygon said:

Sovrath said:

Because it probably isn't stable.

They make more money through free to play monetization. It uncaps how much a person can spend. Sadly, there is a small percentage of people who really spend uber amounts but it's there.

What you have described is the opposite of stable. Free-to-play games are notorious for bringing in a lot of cash in the short term and then dropping off quickly.

On the other hand, a subscription game that fosters strong community ties and delivers continued content on a regular basis will have far more predictable income and be able to weather a dip in subs here and there because the community will be more likely to return after a break.

It is no coincidence that the only two subscription-only games in existence are always among the top three MMOs in terms of market share and have demonstrated the strongest staying power.

Yes that’s true as far as free to play.

But “nowadays “ sub games can’t sustain the amount they need to keep the game running and profitable.

That’s the whole reason why Dungeons and Dragons online made the ftp gamble as it wasn’t looking good. And that was a game that did foster community and did have regular updates. 

Because it worked so well they tried it with Lord of the Rings Online. 

I’ll add that if what you said was true about subs then we would still have a lot of sub games as most games started out with subs. Clearly that didn’t work out.

 You are still using stable as a replacement for income potential when they are very different things. It didn't work out for most games because those particular games weren't and aren't worth a subscription and are only  monetarily successful due to a subpopulation of whales (aka stupid people).   A good game with a good community can make plenty of money with a subscription model if daily log ins aren't fostered/forced by fomo daily quests and treats, but instead by engaging gameplay and steady progression.  Unfortunately,  no one can seem to make a game like that anymore. A bad or eh game on the other hand can only survive on a ftp model.

IMO games need to figure how to make us want to pay them and "want" to is the key. Sub still works for some games and cash shops work for others. IMO if you have a good game and ask a fair price. It does not matter if its a cash shop game or Sub. Most of the fails you mention are either bad games or the payment method used was not worth it to the market that game was trying to penetrate. Anyone who says a sub fee is too big of a gate. I just spent $20 at Starbucks getting a cookie and a coffee. 

CCP figured out how to keep players subbed over the long term almost 20 years ago by tying skill points training to being subbed.

If a game tied something of real worth to the price of a sub along with a halfway decent game people will pay and play it.