Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Gamebreaker.tv XIV podcast re-booting today at 4pm PSTFollow

#1 Jul 30 2013 at 3:54 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
2,426 posts
Hey everyone, you may or may not know about Gamebreaker.tv, but they have a pretty nice series of critical mmo podcasts. XIV was their old show about...XIV. It was a great show that documented the rise and fall of 1.0, but it was canceled soon after the whole Tanaka getting fired business.

Anyway, it's starting up again tonight. First episode will be on in about an hour; check here for more info

____________________________
monk
dragoon
[ffxivsig]477065[/ffxivsig]
#2 Jul 30 2013 at 4:05 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*
239 posts
Yeah, stuck at work but hoping to be slow so I can watch it :)
____________________________
Quote:
WAR has access to enough enmity gear and enough hate-inducing JA to aggro baby jesus.


Quote:
When I'm trying to decide what spell to cast I look at the mobs' weaknesses, check the day, check the weather and then calmly cast Thunder IV.
#3 Jul 30 2013 at 4:22 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*
210 posts
Thanks for the link. I'm a total 14 info ***** right now so I'm looking forward to this.
#4 Jul 30 2013 at 5:08 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
728 posts
It's online right now. Mr Happy is on there lol.
____________________________
FFXI: DamienSlvrblade Race: Elvaan Nation: San d'Oria Server: Sylph 2002-2007, Phoenix 2012
PUP WHM PLD MNK BLU BST SAM WAR BLM 99 BRD THF NIN DNC SMN RDM 50+

FFXIV: Damien Scott Race: Duskwight Elezen GC: Limsa Lominsa Server: Ultros
DoW GLA50 ACN50 PUG50 MAR 50 Rest30+
DoH/DoL All 40+
#5 Jul 30 2013 at 6:30 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,649 posts
It was a pretty good show, I enjoyed it.

And they answered the majority of questions that anyone who hasn't been following the game would ask.
____________________________

#6 Jul 30 2013 at 6:31 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,172 posts
Techsupport wrote:
Yeah, stuck at work but hoping to be slow so I can watch it :)


GBTV uploads all their videos to youtube so even if you miss it you can check it out later on.

Did that guy really just say that they plan to pull the plug on the game rather than go F2P if it comes to that? Thoughts?


Edited, Jul 30th 2013 8:31pm 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.
#7 Jul 30 2013 at 6:53 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
4,775 posts
Quote:
Did that guy really just say that they plan to pull the plug on the game rather than go F2P if it comes to that? Thoughts?


I guess everyone has their limits. A F2P model might be considered a failure by the SE team I suppose. I'm not really against F2P myself just as long as you don't pay to win.
#8 Jul 30 2013 at 6:53 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,649 posts
FilthMcNasty wrote:
Did that guy really just say that they plan to pull the plug on the game rather than go F2P if it comes to that? Thoughts?


It's been misspoken for awhile now.

He didn't say FFXIV would shut down before going F2P, but rather XIV couldn't survive with a F2P model, because FFXIV was not built on a F2P model. They'd have to completely rework the game in order to accompany it. XIV is made to allow access to everything, and to continously give out new content over long periods. Yoshi-P believes this cannot be done without a steady flowing income granted by a subscription model.

Not to mention, the fans themselves has stated they want a Subscription model. I think there was even a poll about it long ago. So he's sticking with it till the very end.
____________________________

#9 Jul 30 2013 at 7:06 PM Rating: Default
****
4,172 posts
HeroMystic wrote:
FilthMcNasty wrote:
Did that guy really just say that they plan to pull the plug on the game rather than go F2P if it comes to that? Thoughts?


It's been misspoken for awhile now.

He didn't say FFXIV would shut down before going F2P, but rather XIV couldn't survive with a F2P model, because FFXIV was not built on a F2P model. They'd have to completely rework the game in order to accompany it. XIV is made to allow access to everything, and to continously give out new content over long periods. Yoshi-P believes this cannot be done without a steady flowing income granted by a subscription model.

Not to mention, the fans themselves has stated they want a Subscription model. I think there was even a poll about it long ago. So he's sticking with it till the very end.


I read Yoshi's post about it, but I wasn't certain if there was some new info that had surfaced on the topic. I'm glad that they're not completely against F2P even as a last resort though as it would be incredibly easy to implement even with their current infrastructure.

Just abandoning the game(more importantly the playerbase and fans) would have quite a backlash. The way he said it was so nonchalant that it kinda stood out for me I guess.
____________________________
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.
#10 Jul 30 2013 at 7:24 PM Rating: Good
***
1,079 posts
Well, here's to hoping the game won't go F2P as it usually indicates failure for these games. Especially this game if they really are banking on the fact that the only way it'll work is if it's subscription based.
____________________________
FFXIV
Articus Vladmir
PLD WHM BRD DRG BLM
#11 Jul 30 2013 at 7:41 PM Rating: Default
****
4,172 posts
Stilivan wrote:
Well, here's to hoping the game won't go F2P as it usually indicates failure for these games. Especially this game if they really are banking on the fact that the only way it'll work is if it's subscription based.


Not sure why a game's payment model indicates success or failure. And here I always thought it was based on a healthy population of players(from their perspective) or turning a profit(from the developers perspective). Smiley: dubious
____________________________
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.
#12 Jul 30 2013 at 7:47 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*
210 posts
I enjoyed the show. I felt like the team brought a balanced dose of enthusiasm and skepticism to the table; they had a lot of great things to say, but they also weren't afraid to call a spade a spade. I'm definitely going to continue tuning in and hope that they present more interesting discussions in the future.

Also, I loved seeing what the lead guy had done with his 1.0 box. Well played, sir.
#13 Jul 30 2013 at 8:04 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,079 posts
FilthMcNasty wrote:
Stilivan wrote:
Well, here's to hoping the game won't go F2P as it usually indicates failure for these games. Especially this game if they really are banking on the fact that the only way it'll work is if it's subscription based.


Not sure why a game's payment model indicates success or failure. And here I always thought it was based on a healthy population of players(from their perspective) or turning a profit(from the developers perspective). Smiley: dubious


And wouldn't said payment model indicate there is an issue with the current population? If population remains standard, then there won't be a need to change it to F2P, hence my comment. They will be able to continue with their plan. They wouldn't have failed.
____________________________
FFXIV
Articus Vladmir
PLD WHM BRD DRG BLM
#14 Jul 30 2013 at 8:13 PM Rating: Good
**
723 posts
Is there a place to watch today's broadcast? If there is, I'm overlooking it.
#15 Jul 30 2013 at 8:49 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,172 posts
Stilivan wrote:
FilthMcNasty wrote:
Stilivan wrote:
Well, here's to hoping the game won't go F2P as it usually indicates failure for these games. Especially this game if they really are banking on the fact that the only way it'll work is if it's subscription based.


Not sure why a game's payment model indicates success or failure. And here I always thought it was based on a healthy population of players(from their perspective) or turning a profit(from the developers perspective). Smiley: dubious


And wouldn't said payment model indicate there is an issue with the current population? If population remains standard, then there won't be a need to change it to F2P, hence my comment. They will be able to continue with their plan. They wouldn't have failed.


I don't think it would. There are more than a few games that started out and remain F2P which are wildly popular and profitable.

I understand that SE wants to maintain a subscription model and I know why(though I'm not sure I agree), but I don't see the link to F2P being fail for the reason I just mentioned. If WoW went F2P; I really can't see anyone calling failure on that. They would probably not reach the almost 15 million they had at their peak, but I have no doubt at all that there would be a rather large spike in population.

I guess it just depends on how you define failure. I would guess a game's popularity is a measure of how many people enjoy playing it. Payment model can be(and almost always is) completely independent of that.

Jaraziah wrote:
Is there a place to watch today's broadcast? If there is, I'm overlooking it.

I linked their youtube channel above, but I'll link here too. You can also just visit gamebreaker.tv and look for the video to be posted under the 'Shows' link on their front page. They usually upload them by mid-day the day after the show.



Edited, Jul 30th 2013 10:51pm 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.
#16 Jul 30 2013 at 8:51 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,426 posts
Stilivan wrote:
FilthMcNasty wrote:
Stilivan wrote:
Well, here's to hoping the game won't go F2P as it usually indicates failure for these games. Especially this game if they really are banking on the fact that the only way it'll work is if it's subscription based.


Not sure why a game's payment model indicates success or failure. And here I always thought it was based on a healthy population of players(from their perspective) or turning a profit(from the developers perspective). Smiley: dubious


And wouldn't said payment model indicate there is an issue with the current population? If population remains standard, then there won't be a need to change it to F2P, hence my comment. They will be able to continue with their plan. They wouldn't have failed.


and yet, more often than not, p2p games that go f2p end up becoming more successful after the switch. LOTRO. Conan. SWTOR. Secret World. DCUO. etc. etc.

in other words, failure of a revenue model does not necessarily equate to the game "failing".

You are suggesting that if a game goes from p2p to f2p, then it has "failed", which is inaccurate, most likely because your definition of the words "success" and "failure" are a little shaky in this context.

successful = making enough revenue to keep the servers running and new content coming so the players who enjoy the game can keep playing the game that they enjoy.

successful =/= a high population(not necessarily anyway)


edit: and as the above poster pointed out, some of the (now) f2p games that i mentioned have also enjoyed greater popularity since they made the switch, in addition to higher revenue.



Edited, Jul 30th 2013 10:57pm by Llester
____________________________
monk
dragoon
[ffxivsig]477065[/ffxivsig]
#17 Jul 30 2013 at 9:02 PM Rating: Good
***
3,719 posts
Quote:
it just depends on how you define failure


This this this... so many times this.

Some people will define failure as "it moved to f2p" with no other metrics or reasoning. Others in terms in number of active subscribers or active accounts. Some will say it has to do with the profit generated by the game.

None of those matter.

A game has failed when and only when, the company behind it decides that it has.

Filth is absolutely right (which... made me throw up a little in my mouth just now to type). If WoW went f2p tomorrow, could you really claim that it FAILED? No, that would be a ridiculous claim. So then why is that a measure of failure for other games?

Rift went f2p. Rift has lots of active players and, as far as anyone can tell, is making plenty of money. They're actually about to release another expansion. Doesn't sound like something riding the failure train.

FFXIV 1.0 shut down after the company apologized for the damage it caused to the brand. THAT was a failure.

Quote:
I understand that SE wants to maintain a subscription model and I know why(though I'm not sure I agree)


It boils down to a simple question: how many subscribers do they need to make the game worthwhile to them? As long as that isn't some ridiculous number, SE is perfectly happy trucking along with a base of dedicated players. And that's the reason they don't need to use a f2p model out of the gate. They aren't looking for money waterfalls the way EA was with SWTOR.
____________________________
svlyons wrote:
If random outcomes aren't acceptable to you, then don't play with random people.
#18 Jul 30 2013 at 9:08 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*
64 posts
P2P going F2P is exactly that. A failure. A desperate cash grab from developers and investors, because the business model that the game was designed for didn't work. It didn't work because the game sucked quite frankly. The game simply was not good enough to keep people paying monthly subscriptions. It's a way for a failing game to actually generate some revenue before it dies. I'd hardly call it more successful. F2P is not the "modern" MMO business model that many people like to call it. It's only "modern" because literally all of the recent MMOs have failed, and almost all of them started out P2P.


Edited, Jul 30th 2013 11:21pm by ScrapTower
#19 Jul 30 2013 at 9:21 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,649 posts
Personally, and this is me being brutally honest, I prefer a subscription fee to deter MMO hoppers.

If you're going into a Sub-based MMO, you're planning on investing and staying for a long time. I want to make long-lasting friends in this game and a strong community, and I feel a Sub-based MMO gives that. F2P is way too fickle in that regard.

F2P also means a cash shop, and so far I've only seen GW2 do it in a way that satisfies me. I don't want FFXIV to have a cash shop.
____________________________

#20 Jul 30 2013 at 9:27 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*
64 posts
HeroMystic wrote:
Personally, and this is me being brutally honest, I prefer a subscription fee to deter MMO hoppers.

If you're going into a Sub-based MMO, you're planning on investing and staying for a long time. I want to make long-lasting friends in this game and a strong community, and I feel a Sub-based MMO gives that. F2P is way too fickle in that regard.

F2P also means a cash shop, and so far I've only seen GW2 do it in a way that satisfies me. I don't want FFXIV to have a cash shop.


Smiley: nod

I think Yoshi P said it best:

Edit for wall of text. Here is a link instead.

Final Fantasy Online director defends monthly subscriptions in the golden age of free-to-play

Edited, Jul 30th 2013 11:53pm by ScrapTower
#21 Jul 30 2013 at 9:30 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,426 posts
ScrapTower wrote:
P2P going F2P is exactly that. A failure. A desperate cash grab from developers and investors, because the business model that the game was designed for didn't work. It didn't work because the game sucked quite frankly. The game simply was not good enough to keep people paying monthly subscriptions. It's a way for a failing game to actually generate some revenue before it dies. I'd hardly call it more successful. F2P is not the "modern" MMO business model that many people like to call it. It's only "modern" because literally all of the recent MMOs have failed, and almost all of them started out P2P.


Edited, Jul 30th 2013 11:21pm by ScrapTower


nope, you're way oversimplifying things, and because of that, you're basically incorrect. You're starting from an incorrect hypothesis (ie, going F2P = fail) and trying to fit the facts to that hypothesis, instead of the hypothesis to the facts.

Argue all you want, but facts are facts. LOTRO has been around for years, precisely because it switched to the f2p model. Since the servers are still running, and Turbine is still collecting revenue, and people are still enjoying it, that is called a "successful game".

SWTOR did not go F2P because it was "simply not good enough". It went F2P because their sub-based business model couldn't cover the outstandingly huge budget of the game in addition to expansions/new content.

It doesn't matter what you call it, or how you get your facts incorrect, many games are thriving on the F2P model now. I don't particularly like most F2P models, but I'm not so blind as to ignore the trend when it's stacking cash right in front of me. Like it or not, F2P with micro-transactions is a proven method to bring in more revenue than most sub-based P2P models.


edit: thanks but no thanks for your wall-o-yoshi-quoted-text. I actually agree with Yoshi's reasons for staying sub-based, but that has very little to do with the conversation we're having here. Keep in mind that SE doesn't need to answer to investors. They don't need to go F2P because they 1. have a dedicated fan base that they can count on to play their game, and 2. have incoming revenue from multiple other sources so they don't need the "cash-grab". Again, none of this changes the fact that, for many games, F2P is the best model from a business perspective.

Edited, Jul 30th 2013 11:31pm by Llester

Edited, Jul 30th 2013 11:42pm by Llester
____________________________
monk
dragoon
[ffxivsig]477065[/ffxivsig]
#22 Jul 30 2013 at 9:42 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*
64 posts
You're right in that it really just depends on your definition of "successful game". If the initial box sales, subscription fees, and later cash shop revenue is enough to pay off your investors, then the servers will keep running. That's a relatively cheap bill to pay. I personally would not call that a success. A game is successful IMO after it's been around for many years and actually generates enough revenue to create significant amounts of quality new content.

Edited, Jul 31st 2013 12:14am by ScrapTower
#23 Jul 31 2013 at 12:18 AM Rating: Default
****
4,172 posts
HeroMystic wrote:
Personally, and this is me being brutally honest, I prefer a subscription fee to deter MMO hoppers.

If you're going into a Sub-based MMO, you're planning on investing and staying for a long time. I want to make long-lasting friends in this game and a strong community, and I feel a Sub-based MMO gives that. F2P is way too fickle in that regard.

F2P also means a cash shop, and so far I've only seen GW2 do it in a way that satisfies me. I don't want FFXIV to have a cash shop.


I plan on investing time in games that are fun to play and keep my attention. Again, people are bringing up reasons against F2P or for sub-based models that don't actually have anything to do with the models themselves. I completely understand the worry about cash shops, but many games have proven that you don't need to be pay-to-win to be profitable.

ScrapTower wrote:
A game is successful IMO after it's been around for many years and actually generates enough revenue to create significant amounts of quality new content.


This definition describes a grip of F2P games as well.

I get that there are people who don't like it. I even get why, though I would argue that most of the reasons aren't related. What I don't get is why it's so hard for people to even accept that there are successful F2P games.
____________________________
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.
#24 Jul 31 2013 at 5:04 AM Rating: Good
***
1,079 posts
Stilivan wrote:
FilthMcNasty wrote:
Stilivan wrote:
Well, here's to hoping the game won't go F2P as it usually indicates failure for these games. Especially this game if they really are banking on the fact that the only way it'll work is if it's subscription based.


Not sure why a game's payment model indicates success or failure. And here I always thought it was based on a healthy population of players(from their perspective) or turning a profit(from the developers perspective). Smiley: dubious


And wouldn't said payment model indicate there is an issue with the current population? If population remains standard, then there won't be a need to change it to F2P, hence my comment. They will be able to continue with their plan. They wouldn't have failed.



Well, if you plan a game to be based on subscription model, and you can't hold a member base, it does indicate some sort of failure, whether it's money flow or otherwise. What happens after that isn't what I was really referring to. P2P to F2P holds that stigma of failure.

Llester wrote:
Stilivan wrote:
FilthMcNasty wrote:
Stilivan wrote:
Well, here's to hoping the game won't go F2P as it usually indicates failure for these games. Especially this game if they really are banking on the fact that the only way it'll work is if it's subscription based.


Not sure why a game's payment model indicates success or failure. And here I always thought it was based on a healthy population of players(from their perspective) or turning a profit(from the developers perspective). Smiley: dubious


And wouldn't said payment model indicate there is an issue with the current population? If population remains standard, then there won't be a need to change it to F2P, hence my comment. They will be able to continue with their plan. They wouldn't have failed.


and yet, more often than not, p2p games that go f2p end up becoming more successful after the switch. LOTRO. Conan. SWTOR. Secret World. DCUO. etc. etc.

in other words, failure of a revenue model does not necessarily equate to the game "failing".

You are suggesting that if a game goes from p2p to f2p, then it has "failed", which is inaccurate, most likely because your definition of the words "success" and "failure" are a little shaky in this context.

successful = making enough revenue to keep the servers running and new content coming so the players who enjoy the game can keep playing the game that they enjoy.

successful =/= a high population(not necessarily anyway)


edit: and as the above poster pointed out, some of the (now) f2p games that i mentioned have also enjoyed greater popularity since they made the switch, in addition to higher revenue.



Edited, Jul 30th 2013 10:57pm by Llester


As I said above, what happens after the business model change is up to fate. Didn't DCUO start out F2P...? Saying any game that's F2P is bad and is a failure was not was I implying, rather the need to change models does indicate some sort of failure. In FFXIV's case, Yoshi specifically said he wants a subscription model, that is his goal, that's the future he sees with FFXIV. If he has a need to switch to F2P, does that still say success? Again, what happens after that is irrelevant.

ScrapTower wrote:
You're right in that it really just depends on your definition of "successful game". If the initial box sales, subscription fees, and later cash shop revenue is enough to pay off your investors, then the servers will keep running. That's a relatively cheap bill to pay. I personally would not call that a success. A game is successful IMO after it's been around for many years and actually generates enough revenue to create significant amounts of quality new content.

Edited, Jul 31st 2013 12:14am by ScrapTower


As stated above, success is objective. You can be successful without the most awesome amount of cash inflow etc etc. There isn't just one definition for success.

Edited, Jul 31st 2013 7:06am by Stilivan
____________________________
FFXIV
Articus Vladmir
PLD WHM BRD DRG BLM
#25 Jul 31 2013 at 6:23 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,649 posts
FilthMcNasty wrote:
HeroMystic wrote:
Personally, and this is me being brutally honest, I prefer a subscription fee to deter MMO hoppers.

If you're going into a Sub-based MMO, you're planning on investing and staying for a long time. I want to make long-lasting friends in this game and a strong community, and I feel a Sub-based MMO gives that. F2P is way too fickle in that regard.

F2P also means a cash shop, and so far I've only seen GW2 do it in a way that satisfies me. I don't want FFXIV to have a cash shop.


I plan on investing time in games that are fun to play and keep my attention. Again, people are bringing up reasons against F2P or for sub-based models that don't actually have anything to do with the models themselves. I completely understand the worry about cash shops, but many games have proven that you don't need to be pay-to-win to be profitable.


I know this, but I don't care if F2P can be successful. It's not what I want at all regardless. I don't want cash shops as a whole, because unlike many people, I'm not easily suckered into them. Even in GW2, which is honestly the best case scenario, I've never bought an item in the game.

If you're going F2P, you need microtransactions to keep you afloat. This usually means Cash Shops. There's a number of ways developers can attract people towards this, either by content locking or "pay to win" philosophies, or emphasis on cosmetics. Problem for me is, unless I'm truly invested in a game, I won't even be looking in that direction. Which sucks for me, because that stuff in GW2 looks really cool to have and I'd like to have it, but the gameplay and world of GW2 is hardly appealing to me. Maybe if I bought from the Cash Shop, my experience in the game would be more fun?

This is what gets me about F2P models and why I prefer P2P models. I just don't care about Cash Shops, so why do people want to stuff it down my throat when I'm completely willing to give my money to developers just to support them? They don't need to set up a market in their own game, just keep churning out that content and we're cool.
____________________________

#26 Jul 31 2013 at 6:46 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
**
456 posts
So tired of reading threads about F2P and P2P models... its so repetative and boring!!! this can not be all they talked about the whole show... if so i bet there ratings are ****!
____________________________
Moderator-75thf 75nin 75pld Hume
LS- WanderingTrupaTricks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Diabolos~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mori Oni- 50MNK 20LNC 11GLD Miquote
LS- The Inner Circle
FC- Primal Bane
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ultros~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)