Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Mmorpg's First Impression Updated 07/03/2013Follow

#1 Jun 26 2013 at 4:35 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
970 posts
A staff member at mmorpg has just posted his first impression.
Have a look at it.
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/446/feature/7532/First-Impressions.html

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/446/feature/7555/More-Beta-Impressions.html/page/1

Edited, Jul 3rd 2013 4:30pm by sandpark
#2 Jun 26 2013 at 4:40 PM Rating: Decent
*
90 posts
Well there is no way to make questing overly exciting, there are thousands of quest, they all can't be epic and most have to be "please find john in the stables" type.
#3 Jun 26 2013 at 4:43 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
970 posts
I said previously that I prefer 100 unique exhaustive quests over 10,000 more generic ones. But that is not the way mmos work if they want to retain players over long durations. Well I hope he doesn't down score ARR in his review later because every mmo does this basically.
#4 Jun 26 2013 at 4:51 PM Rating: Good
****
6,898 posts
Hmm, if the only real negative he had was them choosing a subscription model, I'd say the game is doing quite well. He didn't really seem very knowledgable about the game though, what with "thurmaturge" having cure and all. Smiley: lol Oh well, it certainly wasn't a negative review.
____________________________
Bartel Hayward--- Ultros Server
The Kraken Club <ZAM>
50 WAR • 50 MNK • 50 MIN • 50 GSM • 50 ARM • 50 LTW • 50 CUL • 50 WVR
thekrakenclub.shivtr.com
#5 Jun 26 2013 at 4:52 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
970 posts
Impression Bartel.
He is doing an exhaustive review just as the game is fixing to release.
#6 Jun 26 2013 at 4:56 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
972 posts
I share his concerns about the subscription model, and before we start a debate and I get called out - it doesn't really have anything to do with my personal views.

I just don't know how well a P2P game is going to do in the current market.

Yoshi-P has also (in a strange display) backed himself into a corner by slamming F2P games before ARR's future on a subscription model is even remotely certain.
#7 Jun 26 2013 at 5:02 PM Rating: Excellent
What Yoshi-P did was deliver a firm answer to the question of, "Will ARR go F2P in a few months, and can I just wait for that to happen?"

The answer, emphatically, is "no."

I believe that will help the sales and stability of the game immensely.
____________________________
Thayos Redblade
Jormungandr
Hyperion
#8 Jun 26 2013 at 5:05 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
630 posts
As part of a company who has once said "That technology isn't where the industry is going" and then turned around a few years later to come out with a product that we once denounced, the lasting effect is negligible if the product is noteworthy. The product designer who came out and said that had his reputation hurt slightly, but as a company there wasn't a lot of negative blow-back.

The guys with a hard on for our company raised all **** trying to get customers to dislike our product but at the end of the day we provided something the customer wanted. It is now a very successful product in our line-up, haters be damned.


Thayos wrote:
What Yoshi-P did was deliver a firm answer to the question of, "Will ARR go F2P in a few months, and can I just wait for that to happen?"

The answer, emphatically, is "no."

I believe that will help the sales and stability of the game immensely.


I couldn't agree more. If even the slightly possibility or mention of it going F2P I feel a lot of players would "wait it out". Never thought of this before.

Edited, Jun 26th 2013 7:06pm by burtonsnow

Edited, Jun 26th 2013 7:07pm by burtonsnow
#9 Jun 26 2013 at 5:14 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
972 posts
Thayos wrote:
What Yoshi-P did was deliver a firm answer to the question of, "Will ARR go F2P in a few months, and can I just wait for that to happen?"

The answer, emphatically, is "no."

I believe that will help the sales and stability of the game immensely.


Maybe, but in his response I feel that he bashed F2P models and made it seem like the P2P model is needed to ensure quality. So it would be pretty strange for the game to go F2P ever at this point.

If P2P doesn't work out, they backed themselves into a corner and have nowhere to go. Like the author of the article in OP, I just think that Square Enix is out of touch in this case, and might not be making the best decisions.

In Japan, people are willing to subscribe in order to play Monster Hunter console games online. That doesn't mean it's going to work in the west (and it is free in the west).
#10 Jun 26 2013 at 5:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
837 posts
I am sick and tired of the F2P argument...i tell ya what when the time comes 3-4 months after the release and one side is right i give them the right and do the the "I was right and you were wrong" dance. >_<
____________________________
YaY signature!! (i was never good with signatures >_<)

Grim Reaperz (Ultros server)
#11 Jun 26 2013 at 5:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
***
1,675 posts
Teravibe wrote:
I am sick and tired of the F2P argument...i tell ya what when the time comes 3-4 months after the release and one side is right i give them the right and do the the "I was right and you were wrong" dance. >_<



No kidding.
#12 Jun 26 2013 at 5:50 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
970 posts
I'll say it again. I do not agree with everything Yoshi has done. But he has been genuine and assertive and spoke his mind. I don't think speculation on the payment model spelling the downfall of ARR is warranted or has any basis. No one can say anything on that until at least a year after it launches.

"If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you.
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you but make allowance for their doubting too.
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting or being lied about, don't deal in lies.
Or being hated, don't give way to hating, and yet don't look too good or talk too wise.
If you can dream and not make your dreams your master.
If you can think and not make your thoughts your aim.
If you can meet with triumph and disaster and treat those two imposters just the same.
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken, twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools.
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken. Then stood up and build them with worn out tools.
If you can make one heap of all your winnings and risk it on one turn of pitch and toss.
And lose then start again at your beginnings and never breathe a word about your loss.
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew to serve your term long after they're gone.
And so hold on when there is nothing in you, except the will that says to them hold on.
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue or walk with kings nor lose the common touch.
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you, if all men count with you but none too much.
If you can fill the unforgiving minute with sixty seconds worth of distanced run.
Yours is the earth and everything in it.

And which is more, you will be a man my son."


Who's quote is this? I love it.








#13 Jun 26 2013 at 6:09 PM Rating: Good
Sage
Avatar
**
676 posts
Teravibe wrote:
I am sick and tired of the F2P argument...i tell ya what when the time comes 3-4 months after the release and one side is right i give them the right and do the the "I was right and you were wrong" dance. >_<


Don't say this. Then we'll get a thousand threads with long paragraphs and at the end is TL:DR I was right and you were wrong... Let's not give anybody ideas.
____________________________
#14 Jun 26 2013 at 6:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
*
227 posts
sandpark wrote:
"<snip>
And which is more, you will be a man my son."

Whose quote is this? I love it.


That's the poem "If" by Rudyard Kipling.

It's great that the game is getting positive feedback a few months ahead of its release. I look forward to seeing more fleshed-out responses as more is added in/fixed in phase 3 and especially 4. Yoshi has my overall vote of confidence.

Edited, Jun 26th 2013 8:15pm by Klarus

Edited, Jun 26th 2013 8:15pm by Klarus
____________________________
Ye healthful Potions ye Chirurgeon sends from ye gallipots Power out,
Ye bedd vpheaues, ye homs is shaken, & ye stooles are hvrl'd aboute.
#15 Jun 26 2013 at 8:08 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
970 posts
Thanks!
#16 Jun 26 2013 at 8:41 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
**
611 posts
sandpark wrote:
I'll say it again. I do not agree with everything Yoshi has done. But he has been genuine and assertive and spoke his mind. I don't think speculation on the payment model spelling the downfall of ARR is warranted or has any basis. No one can say anything on that until at least a year after it launches.


Period.

Edited, Jun 26th 2013 10:41pm by chomama
____________________________
FFXI Ronyn RDM 75 (R.I.P.) -Fairy / BarretJax 95 MNK (Non-Active) - Asura
Ronin Olorin / Ronyn Oloryn (Active) - Ultros Server

"Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence." - Max Ehrmann
#17 Jun 26 2013 at 9:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
424 posts
I'm willing to pay for this game, at the initial sale, and as a subscriber. As a strong supporter of what Squaresoft (Square-Enix) has provided me for video games throughout the years, it would be a **** shame if they ever went bankrupt. I have no idea what financial status they are currently in, but I do seem to remember seeing things regarded if FFXIV would flop again, it might be a hole that SE would have a hard time digging themselves out of.

I do not want that to happen, and I feel if this game is successful, it would be a huge boost to them, leading to many more years of quality SE titles.

It's not as if I wasn't going to buy this game already, I just feel like it's also for a good cause. There have been a lot of companies swimming around the drain recently, and I don't want SE to be one of them. Long live Final Fantasy. Smiley: grin

Edited, Jun 26th 2013 11:31pm by supermegazeke
____________________________
MJK wrote:
Is this a test?
It has to be. Otherwise I can't go on.
Draining patience. drain vitality.
this paranoid, paralyzed vampire act's a little old.

[Charlie Towser-The Kraken Club-Ultros[NA]-WAR]
#18 Jun 26 2013 at 9:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
**
262 posts
Killua125 wrote:
Thayos wrote:
What Yoshi-P did was deliver a firm answer to the question of, "Will ARR go F2P in a few months, and can I just wait for that to happen?"

The answer, emphatically, is "no."

I believe that will help the sales and stability of the game immensely.


Maybe, but in his response I feel that he bashed F2P models and made it seem like the P2P model is needed to ensure quality. So it would be pretty strange for the game to go F2P ever at this point.

If P2P doesn't work out, they backed themselves into a corner and have nowhere to go. Like the author of the article in OP, I just think that Square Enix is out of touch in this case, and might not be making the best decisions.

In Japan, people are willing to subscribe in order to play Monster Hunter console games online. That doesn't mean it's going to work in the west (and it is free in the west).


He made complete sense though when arguing against F2P. With F2P it's harder to gauge from month to month how much income you are going to have to pay everybody that needs to be paid, and then have money left over to try and create new content that's going to keep people playing(and hopefully paying). With P2P, you have an easier time trending income from month to month.

We've already had a thread about this. Please, no F2P.
#19 Jun 27 2013 at 1:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
We've already had a thread about this. Please, no F2P.


The only reason P2P will fail is if SE doesn't adequately produce new content for the game.

In other words, success is SE's to lose.
____________________________
Thayos Redblade
Jormungandr
Hyperion
#20 Jun 27 2013 at 1:42 AM Rating: Decent
****
4,134 posts
Teravibe wrote:
I am sick and tired of the F2P argument...i tell ya what when the time comes 3-4 months after the release and one side is right i give them the right and do the the "I was right and you were wrong" dance. >_<

I've heard this before Smiley: sly

Just like people here who guaranteed that beta 1.0 would be head and shoulders above alpha. Just like the people who said I could do my 'told ya so' dance when XIV launched and wasn't followed soon after by the miracle patch. I'm still the bad guy. I'm still the negative nancy despite reason to be cautious or even skeptical about future releases.

I don't always agree with Killua, but I think they're right on this one. It's still just a hypothetical, but if XIV does indeed have their hand forced into F2P to sustain; it would be difficult to pivot away from the remarks he made about F2P.

Hatamaz wrote:
He made complete sense though when arguing against F2P. With F2P it's harder to gauge from month to month how much income you are going to have to pay everybody that needs to be paid, and then have money left over to try and create new content that's going to keep people playing(and hopefully paying). With P2P, you have an easier time trending income from month to month.


I don't really agree here. He said himself that they don't rely on outside sources for funding. The fact that they even decided to dump more money into XIV after the initial flop doesn't support his argument. They spent how long of XIV's lifespan in F2P mode? How were they paying the people who needed to be paid? That argument doesn't make sense to me.

Yoshi also used an example to talk about consistent income, but what guarantees that a subscriber keeps their subscription running? 400k subs to 200k subs in a month is highly unlikely I'll agree, but does anyone remember how fast SWtoR's population plummeted? It's ironic that Yoshi used SWtoR as an example without considering this. While SWtoR was still sub based, they dropped **** near half their playerbase over the course of several months.

To my knowledge, there is only one way to guarantee income in the long run; annual subscription. Nothing guarantees that players will be interested enough to play from month to month(though regular content updates will bolster players motivation). The only way to guarantee that players will pay is to make them pay up front.

Edited, Jun 27th 2013 3:43am by FilthMcNasty
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#21 Jun 27 2013 at 2:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
6 posts
Yoshida seems also to have said that one of the reasons that should let FFXIV survive as a P2P game is the fact that MMOs like SwtOR were financed by bigger companies, and the developing teams had to reach a certain income requested by their investitors relatively soon after the launch, while SE financed itself so they can earn their "enstablished" profit time even if they will not have too many subscribers.
I don't recall exactly were and who was, but i read time ago that a producer said that an MMO needs only 50 thousands subscribers to gain their money back, the rest it's only profit.

And, honestly, a F2P game it's not only different from a P2P regarding the subscribe fee, but also in how it's structured, since it needs to give F2P players a "reason" to spend money. While I don't like to pay I also don't like the design difference that a F2P model brings to an MMO, so I'd prefer to pay for it and receive a smoother experience.

Edited, Jun 27th 2013 4:08am by Rastark
#22 Jun 27 2013 at 2:23 AM Rating: Default
****
4,134 posts
Rastark wrote:
I don't recall exactly were and who was, but i read time ago that a producer said that an MMO needs only 50 thousands subscribers to gain their money back, the rest it's only profit.


SE's goal for breakeven on FFXI was amassing 200k subs over a timeline spread over several years. Their budget was said to be roughly 25 million dollars, which is extremely low for a game these days. In order to make that happen they had to cut a lot of corners like not having costs associated with setting up and maintaining regional servers.

Not a jab at you, but I find it incredibly hard to believe that any modern MMO could claw it's way out of the red on 50k subs unless they weren't looking to profit for a decade.

Rastark wrote:
While I don't like to pay I also don't like the design difference that a F2P model brings to an MMO, so I'd prefer to pay for it and receive a smoother experience.


Exactly what is meant by 'smoother experience'?
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#23 Jun 27 2013 at 2:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
1,330 posts
FilthMcNasty wrote:
Rastark wrote:
I don't recall exactly were and who was, but i read time ago that a producer said that an MMO needs only 50 thousands subscribers to gain their money back, the rest it's only profit.


SE's goal for breakeven on FFXI was amassing 200k subs over a timeline spread over several years. Their budget was said to be roughly 25 million dollars, which is extremely low for a game these days. In order to make that happen they had to cut a lot of corners like not having costs associated with setting up and maintaining regional servers.

Not a jab at you, but I find it incredibly hard to believe that any modern MMO could claw it's way out of the red on 50k subs unless they weren't looking to profit for a decade.

Rastark wrote:
While I don't like to pay I also don't like the design difference that a F2P model brings to an MMO, so I'd prefer to pay for it and receive a smoother experience.


Exactly what is meant by 'smoother experience'?


Example of a "not as smooth" experience.

You just leveled up. You go assign bonus stats. SUDDENLY a small notification pops up, letting you know that for the cost of $6.00, you get to reassign those stats if you need to!
#24 Jun 27 2013 at 2:47 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
6 posts
You could be right, as i don't even remember well where i read that and it was a long time ago, so probably it doesn't apply on FFXIV. But the point of my intervention was the declaration of Yoshida : P

An example of smoother experiences...I'd say no leveling, gold or whatever point boosters so everyone in the game can experience the same, no need to pay functions that with a subscription i will have at my disposition everytime, no "uh, shiny" kind of temptations, better support from the company or last but not least, lesser trolls or people that can't even move the camera properly(call me mean, but that's a fact).
#25 Jun 27 2013 at 3:14 AM Rating: Decent
****
4,134 posts
Ravashack wrote:
FilthMcNasty wrote:
Exactly what is meant by 'smoother experience'?


Example of a "not as smooth" experience.

You just leveled up. You go assign bonus stats. SUDDENLY a small notification pops up, letting you know that for the cost of $6.00, you get to reassign those stats if you need to!

People vastly overstate the effect of F2P. Not sure if you have played any F2P games recently, but for the most part all content remains the same as it would were you a subscriber. The bonuses you get are things like increased inventory space, lower cooldowns on dungeons and the like. Things that are more convenient (if you spam dungeons or have an aversion to using the auction house), but are far from inconvenient if you don't. Probably more than 90% of all things obtained through cash shops these days are vanity items.

I could give you several examples of games whose producers have allowed these items purchased in the cash shop to be obtained with in-game currency that anyone who played normally as a free game could obtain(at the cost of time farming of course).

Bottom line: There is a right and a wrong way to do it. Most people just assume the worst despite all of the recent examples that it has been refined in a manner that has no adverse affect on those who wish to play the game without paying.
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#26 Jun 27 2013 at 3:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Guru
***
1,310 posts
FilthMcNasty wrote:
Yoshi also used an example to talk about consistent income, but what guarantees that a subscriber keeps their subscription running?


"Guarantee" is a legal term that's not really applicable to this situation.

But it is human nature not to immediately cancel a service you no longer want if it automatically renews itself. That's why whenever possible, companies will try to get you into "Opt Out" policies or its close cousin, "The First Month Is Free," as in, you'll be billed continuously for something you might not want or use anymore, unless you take the steps to opt out. The reason is, people put it off. They don't have time to deal with the hassle, there's still time to deal with it later, they forget about it, next thing you know they're paying for another month.

That's why in a subscription model, income doesn't really dwindle as fast as on a per-use basis (like in an F2P model). Even if most people really wanted out, it would be some time before everyone who wanted to quit actually took the time to quit, and during that time, most of those subscription dollars would still be coming in. But, if you're not playing an F2P game, you're not buying that F2P game's crap. There's no revenue in that case.
#27 Jun 27 2013 at 4:29 AM Rating: Default
****
4,134 posts
Xoie wrote:
FilthMcNasty wrote:
Yoshi also used an example to talk about consistent income, but what guarantees that a subscriber keeps their subscription running?


"Guarantee" is a legal term that's not really applicable to this situation.


I'm pretty sure you know what this means, but I'll break it down. What assurance do you have that a month to month subscriber can be counted on to support a game into the future? The way he states it makes it sound like he's sure there is no way you'll lose half of your subscribers in a month. It wouldn't have bothered me as much as it did if he hadn't decided to kick the already down SWtoR, perhaps not realizing that they had almost accomplished the very feat he claims isn't going to happen.

Xoie wrote:
But it is human nature not to immediately cancel a service you no longer want if it automatically renews itself.


I cancelled Netflix the day I signed up for it. I used the service and then made the decision whether or not to keep it. Should XIV launch with a free trial that renews automatically, I will either pay with crysta(of which I currently have none registered to my account) as a payment method or I will cancel immediately. Was I wrong in thinking that this was what everyone did to avoid unexpected charges showing up on their account?

Even if I didn't do it for all services, SE's would definitely get the extra scrutiny due to the POL fiasco from FFXI days. I wonder how many thousands of dollars they made double charging people multiple times for a month's service?

Xoie wrote:
That's why in a subscription model, income doesn't really dwindle as fast as on a per-use basis (like in an F2P model). Even if most people really wanted out, it would be some time before everyone who wanted to quit actually took the time to quit, and during that time, most of those subscription dollars would still be coming in. But, if you're not playing an F2P game, you're not buying that F2P game's crap. There's no revenue in that case.


I can't speak for everyone, but you've seen the way I run recurring charge subscription fees. Cancelling service on a Square Enix ID requires 5 steps that can be executed in not so many minutes.

FWIW I would have loved to see Yoshi address this in his post...

"The reason why we are sticking with a subscription model is that people are dumb, lazy or a combination of the two. They can't be bothered to take a few minutes out of their time(read: money) to cancel their subscription regardless of whether or not they feel the service is worth it."

Edited, Jun 27th 2013 6:30am by FilthMcNasty
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#28 Jun 27 2013 at 4:49 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
**
424 posts
Xoie wrote:
FilthMcNasty wrote:
Yoshi also used an example to talk about consistent income, but what guarantees that a subscriber keeps their subscription running?


"Guarantee" is a legal term that's not really applicable to this situation.

But it is human nature not to immediately cancel a service you no longer want if it automatically renews itself. That's why whenever possible, companies will try to get you into "Opt Out" policies or its close cousin, "The First Month Is Free," as in, you'll be billed continuously for something you might not want or use anymore, unless you take the steps to opt out. The reason is, people put it off. They don't have time to deal with the hassle, there's still time to deal with it later, they forget about it, next thing you know they're paying for another month.

That's why in a subscription model, income doesn't really dwindle as fast as on a per-use basis (like in an F2P model). Even if most people really wanted out, it would be some time before everyone who wanted to quit actually took the time to quit, and during that time, most of those subscription dollars would still be coming in. But, if you're not playing an F2P game, you're not buying that F2P game's crap. There's no revenue in that case.


That's pretty ridiculous. I can't think of a time in my life where I was just like "oh I forgot to cancel my monthly game subscription. oops. oh well, I'll just get around to it next month".

I used to cancel my Wow sub all the time when we would go on vacation and I wouldn't be playing much that month, but then again, I'm not shooting barrels of money outta my ***.

In a F2P model, using similar logic to what you think nets these companies money, they could be banking on dumb asses just randomly hitting the wrong buttons on the screen and being charged $15 for a frilly pink bunny hat just as commonly as someone not dropping their sub. Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
MJK wrote:
Is this a test?
It has to be. Otherwise I can't go on.
Draining patience. drain vitality.
this paranoid, paralyzed vampire act's a little old.

[Charlie Towser-The Kraken Club-Ultros[NA]-WAR]
#29 Jun 27 2013 at 5:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Guru
Avatar
*****
11,055 posts
Whether or not money generated by XIV goes to XIV is a valid concern, and can really invalidate the pros of the sub model. Anyone who played FFXI from basically 2008-present can attest to that, as money it made assuredly went to XIV as well as leaving XI with a skeleton crew.
____________________________
Violence good. **** bad. Yay America.
#30 Jun 27 2013 at 6:42 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
970 posts
There is no guarantee that XIV will be largely profitable. But there isn't any guarantee it will not be profitable.

In one way, one can see it as Yoshi ignoring trends. But on the other hand, maybe SE's ability to develop being funded internally. Gives them an opportunity to do things that those trending companies are not allowed. When this game releases and if the P2P stands plus delivers profit. It will be a message to investors and F2P games. That message will be to have some patience and allow the game developers to do their job. And regardless of "Everybody else is doing it",that doesn't mean that is the only working solution.

I never believed that every ounce of revenue a game made goes directly back into development on that franchise or title. Except if that title is the only game in that companies line-up. If that were true, World Of Warcraft would have two-three times the content of Everquest and Final Fantasy XI combined.

Edited, Jun 27th 2013 8:44am by sandpark
#31 Jun 27 2013 at 7:13 AM Rating: Good
****
6,898 posts
FilthMcNasty wrote:
SE's goal for breakeven on FFXI was amassing 200k subs over a timeline spread over several years. Their budget was said to be roughly 25 million dollars, which is extremely low for a game these days. In order to make that happen they had to cut a lot of corners like not having costs associated with setting up and maintaining regional servers.

Not a jab at you, but I find it incredibly hard to believe that any modern MMO could claw it's way out of the red on 50k subs unless they weren't looking to profit for a decade.


FFXI development costs are estimated anywhere from 17-25 mil, so 25 mil is the absolute highest it might have been. At 200k subs, it would have taken FFXI 9 months to completely recoup their development costs and start making profit. Even at 100k subs it would have been well under 2 years. When the game came out in North America, they had 500,000 subscribers before even launching on PS2. Yes those numbers weren't consistent for the long term, but they stayed around there for at least 6 months after PS3 release. It certainly didn't take them several years to recoup their costs. Even at 50k subs, the game would have recouped the 25 million in exactly 3 years, not the decade you are estimating.

FilthMcNasty wrote:
People vastly overstate the effect of F2P. Not sure if you have played any F2P games recently, but for the most part all content remains the same as it would were you a subscriber. The bonuses you get are things like increased inventory space, lower cooldowns on dungeons and the like. Things that are more convenient (if you spam dungeons or have an aversion to using the auction house), but are far from inconvenient if you don't. Probably more than 90% of all things obtained through cash shops these days are vanity items.


That's a bit of an exaggeration. Lotro is one of the biggest F2P games on the market. In order to level effectively (without spending thousands of hours turbine point grinding) you need to buy quest packs, expansions, raid content, etc. Much of the game is roped off to those trying the F2P model. You can't even PvP if you don't pay a sub. Swtor, another of the biggest F2P games, is the same. You can't do any raid content, you level up slower, you can do 5 PvP warzones a week (which is basically nothing), etc etc. Both games also sell tons of useful gear, XP bonuses, warzone bonuses, etc. in their shops which are definitely not just vanity items. Same goes for DnD. Same goes for a lot of F2P games. Yes, there are also games where most of the cash shop is vanity items, but I don't think it's 90% at all. Just my observations.
#32 Jun 27 2013 at 7:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Anterograde Amnesia
Avatar
*****
12,363 posts
The minute this starts getting ugly I'm locking it. For now you are all doing a pretty good job of staying civil, but we've had this argument many times before.
____________________________
"Choosy MMO's choose Wint." - Louiscool
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist.
Keyser Soze - Ultros
Guide to Setting Up Mumble on a Raspberry Pi
#33 Jun 27 2013 at 7:33 AM Rating: Excellent
*
129 posts
I think the most important thing is to be consistent. If they say P2P is their model, stick with it and don't waffle around. There's nothing wrong with the sub model if you've made a game worth playing. If it's garbage, choose F2P. Why you ask? Because you can extract a bunch of money from idiots quick and dirty while they're still in the honeymoon phase with your product. Down the road when they realize it's not all it's cracked up to be and walk away, you've already made some money on them. The sub model takes time and patience to get money out of people over and above the initial cost of the game.

If anything for me a P2P model emphasizes a company's commitment to their product's longevity and stability because they're willing to choose a more conservative and reliable pricing model with a level income stream. Slow and steady wins the race and all that.
____________________________
- The artist usually known as Angrynixon
#34 Jun 27 2013 at 7:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
1,330 posts
FilthMcNasty wrote:
Ravashack wrote:
FilthMcNasty wrote:
Exactly what is meant by 'smoother experience'?


Example of a "not as smooth" experience.

You just leveled up. You go assign bonus stats. SUDDENLY a small notification pops up, letting you know that for the cost of $6.00, you get to reassign those stats if you need to!

People vastly overstate the effect of F2P. Not sure if you have played any F2P games recently, but for the most part all content remains the same as it would were you a subscriber. The bonuses you get are things like increased inventory space, lower cooldowns on dungeons and the like. Things that are more convenient (if you spam dungeons or have an aversion to using the auction house), but are far from inconvenient if you don't. Probably more than 90% of all things obtained through cash shops these days are vanity items.

I could give you several examples of games whose producers have allowed these items purchased in the cash shop to be obtained with in-game currency that anyone who played normally as a free game could obtain(at the cost of time farming of course).

Bottom line: There is a right and a wrong way to do it. Most people just assume the worst despite all of the recent examples that it has been refined in a manner that has no adverse affect on those who wish to play the game without paying.


You wanted to know what he meant about a "smoother experience," so I provided you a real example converted into FFXIV terms of what can make a F2P games not as smooth. Whether or not the F2P game has full content or not is completely irrelevant to the explanation about a "smoother experience." Path of Exile and Neverwinter, for example, both have "full content" but their level of intrusion is totally different.
#35 Jun 27 2013 at 8:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Sage
***
1,675 posts
I wish beating a dead horse was like a pinata, at least we'd get some candy out of it.
#36 Jun 27 2013 at 9:49 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,218 posts
Wint wrote:
The minute this starts getting ugly I'm locking it. For now you are all doing a pretty good job of staying civil, but we've had this argument many times before.


But Wint, as long as there is even a scrap of flesh on the carcass, the horse may not be entirely dead.
____________________________
"I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

Gen. Jack D. Ripper, General, USAF
#37 Jun 27 2013 at 10:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Guru
Avatar
*****
11,055 posts
sandpark wrote:
I never believed that every ounce of revenue a game made goes directly back into development on that franchise or title. Except if that title is the only game in that companies line-up. If that were true, World Of Warcraft would have two-three times the content of Everquest and Final Fantasy XI combined.

I mentioned XI because it obviously suffered. Maybe it was deliberate in hopes people would migrate to XIV, but that's basically tinfoil hat territory. So, while a steady, projected budget may allow some more stability, there's a part of me that feels a smart F2P model would keep devs honest while also guiding them to create the content people are apparently willing to pay for. Personally, I'm skeptical manpower fluctuation is so erratic on a monthly basis, and something as immense as an MMO will best benefit from keeping the same people on-hand as long as possible to maintain familiarity. So, yes, at times of release or even expansions, you'll have extra bodies for both production and testing, though I suspect the "variable" aspect in lulls will involve fewer artists and sound guys because those are also among the easiest things to out-source aside from play-testing.

As for WoW, I want to feel like Blizzard is simply too arrogant and fallen into a state of complacency, not only in the MMO scene, but ALL their games. SC2 got a lukewarm reception. D3 sold well, but played like *** and is still in desperate need of some gameplay updates to make progression reasonable without jumping to the (real money) auction house. More specific to WoW and developing content, however, i will say there is such a thing as potentially developing too much, and the reason is also the root of the casual/hardcore debate: Time. And while some might claim it justification for even more hardcore content as they'll be the likely consumers, I'd actually disagree since such users are probably within the 10-20% range of any game's population. And sure, they might love to play the loyalty card, but I can't say I've played a game where the devs really care how long you've subbed and those who have munched through their content will certainly be demanding more. Either way, they got your money. Those invested are also likely to put up with more **** because they don't want their time to be perceived a waste, hence a complacency in knowing that even if the devs can do better, they can get away with being mediocre. Doubly so if you're pretty much guaranteed $X per month. Would you work harder if that could possibly be 0? While unlikely in this genre, I'd say so.
____________________________
Violence good. **** bad. Yay America.
#38 Jun 27 2013 at 10:09 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
273 posts
sandpark wrote:
A staff member at mmorpg has just posted his first impression.
Have a look at it.
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/446/feature/7532/First-Impressions.html



MMORPG wrote:
I spent some time with it over the weekend, and am pleased to say that a turnaround is definitely possible.


Definitely possible? That implies it hasn't happened yet, but could.

Erroneous, due to the fact that it doesn't take more than 30 minutes playing the game to realize a complete 180 has occurred.

Edited, Jun 27th 2013 8:50pm by Parathyroid
____________________________


I probably understood about 1/10th of what was discussed in this thread and I'm sober as a rope. (I don't know if that's actually a saying or not). -Kierk
#39 Jun 27 2013 at 10:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Sage
Avatar
**
352 posts
Seriha wrote:
sandpark wrote:
I never believed that every ounce of revenue a game made goes directly back into development on that franchise or title. Except if that title is the only game in that companies line-up. If that were true, World Of Warcraft would have two-three times the content of Everquest and Final Fantasy XI combined.

I mentioned XI because it obviously suffered. Maybe it was deliberate in hopes people would migrate to XIV, but that's basically tinfoil hat territory. So, while a steady, projected budget may allow some more stability, there's a part of me that feels a smart F2P model would keep devs honest while also guiding them to create the content people are apparently willing to pay for. Personally, I'm skeptical manpower fluctuation is so erratic on a monthly basis, and something as immense as an MMO will best benefit from keeping the same people on-hand as long as possible to maintain familiarity. So, yes, at times of release or even expansions, you'll have extra bodies for both production and testing, though I suspect the "variable" aspect in lulls will involve fewer artists and sound guys because those are also among the easiest things to out-source aside from play-testing.

As for WoW, I want to feel like Blizzard is simply too arrogant and fallen into a state of complacency, not only in the MMO scene, but ALL their games. SC2 got a lukewarm reception. D3 sold well, but played like *** and is still in desperate need of some gameplay updates to make progression reasonable without jumping to the (real money) auction house. More specific to WoW and developing content, however, i will say there is such a thing as potentially developing too much, and the reason is also the root of the casual/hardcore debate: Time. And while some might claim it justification for even more hardcore content as they'll be the likely consumers, I'd actually disagree since such users are probably within the 10-20% range of any game's population. And sure, they might love to play the loyalty card, but I can't say I've played a game where the devs really care how long you've subbed and those who have munched through their content will certainly be demanding more. Either way, they got your money. Those invested are also likely to put up with more sh*t because they don't want their time to be perceived a waste, hence a complacency in knowing that even if the devs can do better, they can get away with being mediocre. Doubly so if you're pretty much guaranteed $X per month. Would you work harder if that could possibly be 0? While unlikely in this genre, I'd say so.


The F2P just seems like a scam, unless everything you can buy is cents on the doller price range 10cents to 25 cents an item or raid then mabe it would be better, but if the costs of items would break what a normal sub would cost then its a scam in my eyes. The way i look at it i would work harder to provide a better gamr knowing i have a steady paycheck every month. Hourly pay is always better then commission only pay from what iv worked.
____________________________
Goblin: http://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodestone/character/2192910/
Beastmaster ~<3 Cant wait.
Gold smithing till the day i die!
#40 Jun 27 2013 at 11:07 AM Rating: Good
Guru
Avatar
*****
11,055 posts
Some games do it wrong, of course, but I'd never say it's impossible. Of course, for all the long-time subbers willing to put up with sub-par service, I'd say there are plenty of suckers who drop more cash than they should on things. I think the industry tends to refer to them as whales.
____________________________
Violence good. **** bad. Yay America.
#41 Jun 27 2013 at 11:48 AM Rating: Decent
****
4,928 posts
sandpark wrote:
I said previously that I prefer 100 unique exhaustive quests over 10,000 more generic ones. But that is not the way mmos work if they want to retain players over long durations. Well I hope he doesn't down score ARR in his review later because every mmo does this basically.



this.. Id say 75% of FFXIs quests were "exciting" and they didnt have 10,000 of them.. heck I dont even think they had 1000... and I can barely name 10 that were "go collect xxx amount of this item and turn them to me" quests... i know teh qudav helm one for sure and the ladybug wings one because I used to farm those for gil at low levels
#42 Jun 27 2013 at 11:50 AM Rating: Default
****
4,928 posts
Parathyroid wrote:
sandpark wrote:
A staff member at mmorpg has just posted his first impression.
Have a look at it.
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/446/feature/7532/First-Impressions.html



[quote-MMORPG]I spent some time with it over the weekend, and am pleased to say that a turnaround is definitely possible.


Definitely possible? That implies it hasn't happened yet, but could.

Erroneous, due to the fact that it doesn't take more than 30 minutes playing the game to realize a complete 180 has occurred.[/quote]


well if you wanna be technical "completely different" from teh original does no t equal better game/great product.. it could simply mean "its nothing like that last pile of crap but its still a pile of crap"
#43 Jun 27 2013 at 12:04 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
970 posts
DuoMaxwellxx wrote:
sandpark wrote:
I said previously that I prefer 100 unique exhaustive quests over 10,000 more generic ones. But that is not the way mmos work if they want to retain players over long durations. Well I hope he doesn't down score ARR in his review later because every mmo does this basically.



this.. Id say 75% of FFXIs quests were "exciting" and they didnt have 10,000 of them.. heck I dont even think they had 1000... and I can barely name 10 that were "go collect xxx amount of this item and turn them to me" quests... i know teh qudav helm one for sure and the ladybug wings one because I used to farm those for gil at low levels

I especially hate the types of quests that consist of talk to npc, talk to next npc ten feet away, return to original npc. trade item, then quest complete. I'd rather they throw in some intriguing(giving you fact about something you didn't know)story, or a bit of mystery to be solved and let the factors for completion be more than just walk,trade, & complete.
#44 Jun 27 2013 at 12:16 PM Rating: Good
[quote-MMORPG]I spent some time with it over the weekend, and am pleased to say that a turnaround is definitely possible.[/quote]

Definitely possible? That implies it hasn't happened yet, but could.

Erroneous, due to the fact that it doesn't take more than 30 minutes playing the game to realize a complete 180 has occurred.[/quote]

I read this post in Spock's voice.

Edited, Jun 27th 2013 1:16pm by Onionthiefx
____________________________
I might be an onion thief, but I'm still a thief.™





#45 Jun 27 2013 at 12:52 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,134 posts
BartelX wrote:
Even at 50k subs, the game would have recouped the 25 million in exactly 3 years, not the decade you are estimating.

Yes, it's completely within reason to expect to recover your development costs assuming you don't have to operate and maintain your servers. Employees don't need to get paid either. We all know that there are absolutely no costs associated with developing the content updates or expansions either. Development costs are what it takes to get your game up and running for launch. The 17-25 million doesn't factor in any further costs that come after launch. Why doesn't anyone consider that?




____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#46 Jun 27 2013 at 1:23 PM Rating: Good
**
640 posts
So the entire first impression is "yeah it's nice but it could be F2P"? If they used the first impression of the beta and compared it with some of 1.0s really bad stuff like the sluggish UI it would been a much more interesting article.
#47 Jun 27 2013 at 1:25 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
**
972 posts
Solonuke wrote:
So the entire first impression is "yeah it's nice but it could be F2P"? If they used the first impression of the beta and compared it with some of 1.0s really bad stuff like the sluggish UI it would been a much more interesting article.


Not really. Nobody gives a crap that it's "much better than 1.0". Yeah, so is just about every MMORPG.

I hope the official reviews stray away from that, and just judge it as an individual game, instead of giving it bonus points, as in "at least it's better than before".
#48 Jun 27 2013 at 1:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Anterograde Amnesia
Avatar
*****
12,363 posts
In my opinion, anyone trying to give an impression having not completed the mission content, getting to 20, joining a GC and getting your chocobo, truly hasn't experienced enough yet.
____________________________
"Choosy MMO's choose Wint." - Louiscool
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist.
Keyser Soze - Ultros
Guide to Setting Up Mumble on a Raspberry Pi
#49 Jun 27 2013 at 1:28 PM Rating: Good
****
6,898 posts
FilthMcNasty wrote:
BartelX wrote:
Even at 50k subs, the game would have recouped the 25 million in exactly 3 years, not the decade you are estimating.

Yes, it's completely within reason to expect to recover your development costs assuming you don't have to operate and maintain your servers. Employees don't need to get paid either. We all know that there are absolutely no costs associated with developing the content updates or expansions either. Development costs are what it takes to get your game up and running for launch. The 17-25 million doesn't factor in any further costs that come after launch. Why doesn't anyone consider that?


Actually, I had considered that. I said to recoup the 25 million. Even so, I don't think it would take a decade to get out of the red even at 50k subs for them. At that amount, they are making ~750k a month. I don't think their monthly costs would be anywhere even close to that, but I'm not a developer so I can't say for sure. Also, since it was more of a "what-if" scenario, considering the game has never even come close to plummeting to 50k subs, it's kind of a moot point, no?

Regardless of all that, this is FFXIV and the dev costs are clearly more than 25 mil, and they are clearly looking to maintain more than 50k subs, so this is a much different scenario. I'm pretty confident the game will start out quite strong, probably hit 1 million subs (just basing it off the 900k+ beta requests and considering they haven't even really started the bigtime advertising they've said they would; namely television advertisements and widespread internet ads). I think it will dwindle somewhat after that, as pretty much all new release games do, but I think they can hold a steady 500k subs for quite some time, especially if they keep pumping out content, which all signs point to them doing. And if they can hold onto 500k, I'd consider that a success. Who knows, they could do considerably better than that, or possibly worse. Only time will tell, but it's definitely fun to take a stab at it.

Edited, Jun 27th 2013 3:31pm by BartelX
____________________________
Bartel Hayward--- Ultros Server
The Kraken Club <ZAM>
50 WAR • 50 MNK • 50 MIN • 50 GSM • 50 ARM • 50 LTW • 50 CUL • 50 WVR
thekrakenclub.shivtr.com
#50 Jun 27 2013 at 2:23 PM Rating: Good
***
2,202 posts
Thayos wrote:
Quote:
We've already had a thread about this. Please, no F2P.


The only reason P2P will fail is if SE doesn't adequately produce new content for the game.

In other words, success is SE's to lose.


This the truest thing you have ever Said! Mr. Cecil!
____________________________
MUTED
#51 Jun 27 2013 at 2:24 PM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
Wint wrote:
In my opinion, anyone trying to give an impression having not completed the mission content, getting to 20, joining a GC and getting your chocobo, truly hasn't experienced enough yet.


I Did! It's the same as 1.0 but with a new coat of paint.

Which btw i am not saying is bad nor good for that meter.
____________________________
MUTED
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 61 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (61)