Forums » Suggestions
"It's not that I can't get the cash, its that I don't have the time to get it. I'm a full time student"
Sorry, I wasn't talking about you specifically. I was talking about elementary school students. Trust me, I know all about college time constraints. There is a reason I didn't buy Oblivion until four years after it came out.
Sorry, I wasn't talking about you specifically. I was talking about elementary school students. Trust me, I know all about college time constraints. There is a reason I didn't buy Oblivion until four years after it came out.
Oh ok, I completely misunderstood you there lol. Anyway, lets get back on topic.
EDIT:
On another note, I've changed the references in the OP from "2/2/2/2/2 or 1/1/1/1/1 to just 1/1/1/1/1" because of reasons nahin brought up. A long time coming after that SVG/IBG comment. I've also added some of the counter arguments and my responses (if any) to the OP. Should be ready for dev perusal soon if this keeps up.
EDIT:
On another note, I've changed the references in the OP from "2/2/2/2/2 or 1/1/1/1/1 to just 1/1/1/1/1" because of reasons nahin brought up. A long time coming after that SVG/IBG comment. I've also added some of the counter arguments and my responses (if any) to the OP. Should be ready for dev perusal soon if this keeps up.
...you still don't realize this isn't going to happen, do you?
If I thought it didn't have a chance of happening I obviously wouldn't have spent so much time on this thread. Inc said he was open to an f2p option if we could flesh out the details. So thats what I'm doing, querying the vo community on what they want for an f2p player base. Your info has actually been the most helpful, nahin.
""So thats what I'm doing, querying the vo community on what they want for an f2p player base.""
I think it's pretty clear what the majority of the VO community want in a F2P model. Mainly, they want it to not exist.
Dent.
I think it's pretty clear what the majority of the VO community want in a F2P model. Mainly, they want it to not exist.
Dent.
@DE:
Yea, but thats true of any existing demographic faced with the potential of getting overran by another. Most would rather blow the "invaders" to smithereens rather than accept them with open arms. I don't take it personally, and neither should the devs.
Still, it helps when creating a system with such complex integration issues as this to get other people's opinions.
Yea, but thats true of any existing demographic faced with the potential of getting overran by another. Most would rather blow the "invaders" to smithereens rather than accept them with open arms. I don't take it personally, and neither should the devs.
Still, it helps when creating a system with such complex integration issues as this to get other people's opinions.
Crusader, STFU.
On a related note... STHU.
On the subject of the OP, I honestly don't care if there's a f2p option... 'specially if it has MASSIVE RESTRICTIONS, that said... it should only happen when Guild can afford to potentially take a loss... which isn't any time soon.
On a related note... STHU.
On the subject of the OP, I honestly don't care if there's a f2p option... 'specially if it has MASSIVE RESTRICTIONS, that said... it should only happen when Guild can afford to potentially take a loss... which isn't any time soon.
So far, the only possible source of a loss that we (the commenters and I) have found is the fact that the devs may not have enough bandwidth atm to sustain so many players. I have yet to hear from the devs whether this is in fact true or if they have any plans to deal with it if it is.
As for other factors, take a look at this part of the free to play wikipedia article. The entirety is quite an interesting read and supports most of what I wrote in the OP, but this in particular is about converting from a paying model to a f2p model:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-play#P2P_to_F2P_conversions
In that link, you will find 2 examples of conversions from a paying subscription model to an f2p model. Both of them reported massive profits. This was the only source of info I could find about such conversions after a cursory google search (I don't have time to do anything more involved), but the results speak for themselves.
Also, inc said they are currently open to a f2p discussion, which I assume means they've dealt with the issues previously stopping them before here http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/26947?page=8#328304
As for other factors, take a look at this part of the free to play wikipedia article. The entirety is quite an interesting read and supports most of what I wrote in the OP, but this in particular is about converting from a paying model to a f2p model:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-play#P2P_to_F2P_conversions
In that link, you will find 2 examples of conversions from a paying subscription model to an f2p model. Both of them reported massive profits. This was the only source of info I could find about such conversions after a cursory google search (I don't have time to do anything more involved), but the results speak for themselves.
Also, inc said they are currently open to a f2p discussion, which I assume means they've dealt with the issues previously stopping them before here http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/26947?page=8#328304
I also said I was sitting in the room when Turbine gave their GDC talk on how the did the D&DO F2P conversion. It was a huge undertaking, they totally restructured the game and built an extensive microtransactional system, and then spent a great deal of time with metrics to tune this microtransactional system to the best effect (finding ideal price points, measuring demand for specific types of content, a whole lot of data-mining). I'd guess, at a ballpark, they had about 40 people on it for a year? (I'd have to look up the GDC talk to be sure, I think they said how much time they put in).
So, let's dispense with any illusions that this is a simple undertaking.
Also:
- Average player counts have not decreased in the way you claim, even before the KickStarter press gave us a big boost. Player presence in any one event (NW) or location (B8) is not an indicator of anything other than.. participation in those respective events and locations. There've actually been quite a large number of Android people online (our #2 platform, after Windows) who almost never talk and just seem to quietly go about doing their thing.
- Transitioning to F2P is not likely to cause us to have some sudden influx of people like you describe (zillions of people! dogs and cats living together! mass hysteria!). Even if I did a big press push, it's not likely to cause that, we just don't have the marketing reach or cachet of WoW or even EVE. Turbine did a huge campaign for D&DU when they released it. It's not uncommon for a midrange MMO launch to include a marketing campaign around $15 million, I wouldn't be surprised if they spent at least $1.5 million on their F2P campaign. (and no, bandwidth is not a big concern for us right now).
Going F2P would cause us to raise player counts and the like, and I'm aware of that; but it's very unlikely to be on the order of what you're hoping for.
-----
Anyway, Crusader, you're more than welcome continuing to make points and whatnot; and while I can't read your entire first post right now, I will come back and do so. But we probably are going to try Lite Mode before anything like F2P. For one thing, microtransactions are a huge deal in F2P, and directly result in the success stories you mention (the other thing you don't mention is how D&D Unlimited had a ton of their subscribers quit over the change, just that their monetization of F2P microtransactions made up for it). For us to build a complete microtransactional system and try and tune it to anything approaching what Turbine did would at least be a six-month development process. And I just.. don't have that right now.
So, that's why we're starting with Lite Mode, and then trying to work our way out from there, potentially adding microtransactions to Lite Mode and so on. We'll see how it goes.
So, let's dispense with any illusions that this is a simple undertaking.
Also:
- Average player counts have not decreased in the way you claim, even before the KickStarter press gave us a big boost. Player presence in any one event (NW) or location (B8) is not an indicator of anything other than.. participation in those respective events and locations. There've actually been quite a large number of Android people online (our #2 platform, after Windows) who almost never talk and just seem to quietly go about doing their thing.
- Transitioning to F2P is not likely to cause us to have some sudden influx of people like you describe (zillions of people! dogs and cats living together! mass hysteria!). Even if I did a big press push, it's not likely to cause that, we just don't have the marketing reach or cachet of WoW or even EVE. Turbine did a huge campaign for D&DU when they released it. It's not uncommon for a midrange MMO launch to include a marketing campaign around $15 million, I wouldn't be surprised if they spent at least $1.5 million on their F2P campaign. (and no, bandwidth is not a big concern for us right now).
Going F2P would cause us to raise player counts and the like, and I'm aware of that; but it's very unlikely to be on the order of what you're hoping for.
-----
Anyway, Crusader, you're more than welcome continuing to make points and whatnot; and while I can't read your entire first post right now, I will come back and do so. But we probably are going to try Lite Mode before anything like F2P. For one thing, microtransactions are a huge deal in F2P, and directly result in the success stories you mention (the other thing you don't mention is how D&D Unlimited had a ton of their subscribers quit over the change, just that their monetization of F2P microtransactions made up for it). For us to build a complete microtransactional system and try and tune it to anything approaching what Turbine did would at least be a six-month development process. And I just.. don't have that right now.
So, that's why we're starting with Lite Mode, and then trying to work our way out from there, potentially adding microtransactions to Lite Mode and so on. We'll see how it goes.
Thanks for your reply Inc!
I'll continue to work on this thread; I'm going to revamp it to include microtransaction ideas because if I understood you correctly you won't implement an f2p system without them, and microtransactions should work differently on a f2p 1/1/1/1/1 account versus a $1 3/3/3/3/3 account. I think.
On another note, I've updated the OP to not include bandwidth issues and also deleted the reference to declining player population.
So, that being said, microtransactions? Ideas anyone? I'm drawing a blank as I will definitely have to do some wikipedia reading before I get into any microtransaction stuff lol, not had much experience with that.
I'll continue to work on this thread; I'm going to revamp it to include microtransaction ideas because if I understood you correctly you won't implement an f2p system without them, and microtransactions should work differently on a f2p 1/1/1/1/1 account versus a $1 3/3/3/3/3 account. I think.
On another note, I've updated the OP to not include bandwidth issues and also deleted the reference to declining player population.
So, that being said, microtransactions? Ideas anyone? I'm drawing a blank as I will definitely have to do some wikipedia reading before I get into any microtransaction stuff lol, not had much experience with that.
"So, that being said, microtransactions? Ideas anyone?"
Yes. Throw them overboard.
But seriously. Anything more than vanity items and unlocking features that subscribers already have is unacceptable. As in, if people could just throw down money to buy weapons or boost stats, I'd leave. Games like that are stupid. Their developers have lost their love for the game and replaced it with a love for money. Obtaining in-game stuff with out-of-game resources is cheating, even when done via official channels.
And even when kept within those constraints, vanity items are still disgusting and I'd be very annoyed at the devs for adding them, especially if they aren't kept toned down. If some idiot is flying around with a big cat-in-the-hat hat on top of his moth, that is another sign that the devs are compromising their game for the sake of money. It ruins immersion. This isn't some arcade game like Halo or Team Fortress where you can get away with those sorts of absurdities. They don't fly in an RPG. My opinion is that vanity items should be constrained to promotions like Kickstarter, events, etc., and kept consistent with the setting.
But if some f2p or lite player wants to lay down some extra cash to unlock the ability to use better ships (still requiring him to reach the correct levels and standings and pony up the credits to buy the items), then I can live with that.
Yes. Throw them overboard.
But seriously. Anything more than vanity items and unlocking features that subscribers already have is unacceptable. As in, if people could just throw down money to buy weapons or boost stats, I'd leave. Games like that are stupid. Their developers have lost their love for the game and replaced it with a love for money. Obtaining in-game stuff with out-of-game resources is cheating, even when done via official channels.
And even when kept within those constraints, vanity items are still disgusting and I'd be very annoyed at the devs for adding them, especially if they aren't kept toned down. If some idiot is flying around with a big cat-in-the-hat hat on top of his moth, that is another sign that the devs are compromising their game for the sake of money. It ruins immersion. This isn't some arcade game like Halo or Team Fortress where you can get away with those sorts of absurdities. They don't fly in an RPG. My opinion is that vanity items should be constrained to promotions like Kickstarter, events, etc., and kept consistent with the setting.
But if some f2p or lite player wants to lay down some extra cash to unlock the ability to use better ships (still requiring him to reach the correct levels and standings and pony up the credits to buy the items), then I can live with that.
Microtrans are the devil, all games with them feel hollow and awful.
Why would you delete sections of the OP? It makes everyone that argued with you look ridiculous, and presents a confusing discussion to new reader.
Also, microtransactions ruin immersion.
Also, microtransactions ruin immersion.
I say NO, NO, NO and now that I think about it NO to f2p and/or micro transactions.
Crusader sorry but you remind me of a reformed drunk talking to people in bars, doesn't know when he lost so he keeps pushing anyway because he is too stubborn to quit.
also reading about your college stuff is this a paper you are going to write for a class, debates class or business class. seems like it to me
Crusader sorry but you remind me of a reformed drunk talking to people in bars, doesn't know when he lost so he keeps pushing anyway because he is too stubborn to quit.
also reading about your college stuff is this a paper you are going to write for a class, debates class or business class. seems like it to me
There's no need to throw microtxns overboard. We can keelhaul them instead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta-Z_psXODw
It seems the overwhelming majority of players do not like microtransactions, and I've had some bad experiences with them myself. Inc, is there any way you could implement f2p with a 3 tier system: f2p players, $1 players, and subscribers? That way you could have the benefits of increased population from f2p and also still have a subscriber system that we all enjoy. I really don't see the need for microtransactions you've stated so many times; population would still increase and subs would increase as well if you implemented this kind of tiered system. So what if f2p people complain about it being limited? To get the full deal, they gotta pay the price. Also, you could implement little packages like DE suggested in the android $1 thingy thread, rather than packages, for the more casual player.
I really don't like the idea of people being able to "buy" their way to greatness.
I really don't like the idea of people being able to "buy" their way to greatness.
Cru, I think you missed the OTHER half of Inc's argument. VO cannot support f2p without a major overhaul in game content. It cannot be easily done. All you seem to have heard is "VO blah blah support f2p blah blah blah. It blah blah easily done."
This isn't a matter of the 5 y.o. in the back seat saying "Are we there yet?" every 5 seconds. This is a matter of a major modification to the core game (at a time when they're still not done with the previous plan for the core).
Let's get the core game done first, add content that will make people want to subscribe, THEN the idea of f2p or microtransactions can be discussed....NOT before. Even then, once all that's done, the need for f2p, etc is diminished, even unnecessary.
This isn't a matter of the 5 y.o. in the back seat saying "Are we there yet?" every 5 seconds. This is a matter of a major modification to the core game (at a time when they're still not done with the previous plan for the core).
Let's get the core game done first, add content that will make people want to subscribe, THEN the idea of f2p or microtransactions can be discussed....NOT before. Even then, once all that's done, the need for f2p, etc is diminished, even unnecessary.
Everyone getting really upset about microtransactions needs to remember that they have no bearing whatsoever on subscribers. We're talking about a tier of people who inherently have a lot less stuff than subscribers, and might possibly be able to spend a lot of money to still end up with way less stuff than subscribers. Plus perhaps paying for storage in stations and whatever else, I don't really know.
And at the end of the day, all the bigger endgame stuff (capships, station ownership, higher military rank) would be subscription-only.
The only transactions I'd consider for subs would be totally frivolous vanity upgrades.
Crusader: The reason why I keep bringing up microtransactions is because the existing P2P->F2P conversions that have been successful were ALL based heavily on microtransactions. You know.. the ones you cited.
No, Blizzard doesn't count. Pandaria just came out, and while I'm totally interested in their results, I haven't talked to them lately and haven't seen anything publicly posted on pure pre-Pandaria F2P acquisition/conversion statistics. Their F2P thing is a direct reaction to hemorrhaging millions of subscribers, and I have no idea whether it was successful or not. Blizzard can also take risks, and fail, that might drive us out of business in the same situation.
[EDIT]: Lecter, i had somehow never seen that Alestorm video, but that's officially the best thing ever.
And at the end of the day, all the bigger endgame stuff (capships, station ownership, higher military rank) would be subscription-only.
The only transactions I'd consider for subs would be totally frivolous vanity upgrades.
Crusader: The reason why I keep bringing up microtransactions is because the existing P2P->F2P conversions that have been successful were ALL based heavily on microtransactions. You know.. the ones you cited.
No, Blizzard doesn't count. Pandaria just came out, and while I'm totally interested in their results, I haven't talked to them lately and haven't seen anything publicly posted on pure pre-Pandaria F2P acquisition/conversion statistics. Their F2P thing is a direct reaction to hemorrhaging millions of subscribers, and I have no idea whether it was successful or not. Blizzard can also take risks, and fail, that might drive us out of business in the same situation.
[EDIT]: Lecter, i had somehow never seen that Alestorm video, but that's officially the best thing ever.
Microtransaction is a dirty word in subscription MMO's, you'll have to come up with a new name for them and then all these people will be satisfied because they really don't know any better.
It's like when Chris Roberts makes a game with pay-to-win. He says "no pay to win" and everybody is like.. oh okay, it's no pay to win guys! Hooray!
Just say, "we don't have microtransactions, we have dynamic realtime purchasing technology!", don't do anything overtly stupid (like sell tridents) and it will all be just peachy!
It's like when Chris Roberts makes a game with pay-to-win. He says "no pay to win" and everybody is like.. oh okay, it's no pay to win guys! Hooray!
Just say, "we don't have microtransactions, we have dynamic realtime purchasing technology!", don't do anything overtly stupid (like sell tridents) and it will all be just peachy!