Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Wada ResignsFollow

#252 Mar 30 2013 at 12:20 PM Rating: Good
At the end of the day, most games that were designed as P2P models that have transitioned to F2P were games that didn't fare too well. LotRO did better under the F2P model, but I think many consider that an outlier. We simply have too much history that big budget P2P games haven't made the F2P transition well at all, either because the game was crap to begin with, or became crap afterwards. It is entirely possible that ARR will not live up to FF fans' expectations. It's also possible that Yoshi and team could knock out a home run with the reboot. However, with FFXIV: ARR being a P2P now it doesn't bode well for its F2P chances and while the P2P proponents need to accept that it is a possibility for ARR down the road, the F2P advocates need to quit thinking it will be the sure-fire silver bullet for the game also.
#253 Mar 30 2013 at 2:33 PM Rating: Decent


This is how my current mmo went from pay to play to free to play, if XIV went F2P with a similar system it would do nothing but good to build the game. As I said before I was against free to play myself but having experienced it first hand it really does boost the game a lot, more money for the developers and more players to do endgame content with.
#254 Mar 30 2013 at 2:47 PM Rating: Excellent
That looks a lot like GW2, in that once you buy the game, all of the meaningful content is free. The cash shop is for things like vanity items, keys to unlock treasure chests that you find in the game, server transfers, etc.

However, the downside to F2P is that it often causes a large influx of players, followed by a steep decline. The people who often would play for free aren't usually the players who will stick around for many years. That's why I think SE is absolutely doing the right thing by advertising FFXIV as P2P, to bring in the demographic of gamer with the income/interest to remain invested in the game for years.

I could actually see this game having microtransactions someday, but NOT being F2P. Like, a monthly subscription fee combined with optional vanity items from a cash shop would be really cool. It would be even more effective if there weren't many vanity items, which would make them more special.

EDIT: It really bothers me in GW2 that I need to buy keys with real money in order to unlock chests I collect in the game. I hope nothing like this ever appears in FFXIV.

Edited, Mar 30th 2013 1:48pm by Thayos
____________________________
Thayos Redblade
Jormungandr
Hyperion
#255 Mar 30 2013 at 2:53 PM Rating: Decent
What games have experienced a decline after going F2P? Are you just pulling that out of your butt?

The dedicated Final Fantasy fanbase will stay, regardless if the game is P2P or F2P... and F2P will entice a lot of new people on top of that fanbase to try it, who may not have given the game a chance otherwise.

I don't think a decline is possible, the game was doing very poorly with its subscription model.

Edited, Mar 30th 2013 5:03pm by Killua125
#256 Mar 30 2013 at 4:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
***
1,310 posts
F2P isn't necessarily a bad thing. But once it turns into a Pay-to-Win model, it's all over. Then it just becomes a game where actual skill and accomplishment is something to be by-passed by adding extra dollars to your account.

Ultimately, it's simply a last-ditch cash grab by the publisher to soak whatever money they can from whatever whales they can catch before shutting the game off for good. Maybe some people like that, but it's a 100% turn-off for me. If FFXIV goes in this direction, it's dead to me. I want to play a game, not be pressured to buy the next victory.
#257 Mar 30 2013 at 4:20 PM Rating: Excellent
**
728 posts
I guess we have to just concede to Killua125 whom will ignore all of the 200+ posts that aren't his and still ask the same questions over and over again. F2P is better than sliced bread. the end. I'm pretty sure this topic was ended 227 posts ago but i guess not. >.> Maybe SE will make it F2P just for him.

Edited, Mar 30th 2013 6:22pm by DamienSScott
#258 Mar 30 2013 at 5:53 PM Rating: Excellent
**
412 posts
Xoie wrote:
F2P isn't necessarily a bad thing. But once it turns into a Pay-to-Win model, it's all over. Then it just becomes a game where actual skill and accomplishment is something to be by-passed by adding extra dollars to your account.

Ultimately, it's simply a last-ditch cash grab by the publisher to soak whatever money they can from whatever whales they can catch before shutting the game off for good. Maybe some people like that, but it's a 100% turn-off for me. If FFXIV goes in this direction, it's dead to me. I want to play a game, not be pressured to buy the next victory.


Yes, apparently all the the free to play supporters never address this. I have yet to see any of them comment on the pay to win aspect. One platitude after another. "The ignorance of free to play is quite astounding." Sure, but there are fundamental issues that will never change. I will now ignorantly type a wall o' text. I enjoy keeping things as basic as possible, as we can all relate to human behavior. People love to win, and people will even pay to make it happen. People also like shiny new things, and the feeling of being special or superior. These things will never change. I'm under this silly notion that people create business where there is a market. So if I were to spend time and finance creating a product, I'm not doing it because I'm just that sweet. In the end I want my money back, and then some. Building a business model around the petty negatives of human behavior? Why not. (Yes I know many businesses do this, but lets stick to F2P, OK?)

People are free to do whatever they want with the money they earn. However, I feel like it's irresponsible to create a product under the guise of "free", then lure people into spending real money on useless items. Free to play, but not free to enjoy unless you spend money. Yes, they don't HAVE to, nor is anyone forcing them. However, you created the situation in order to encourage said behavior. Preying on people's propensity to spend recklessly is something I frown on. This is where my own opinions and values come in. If you're going to create a game, have some integrity. Create a good product that has merit and then let people decide if they wish to spend money on it. It's called taking a risk yes, and that should give you more incentive to put everything you can into it. I know we're comfortable in expelling half *** for profit today, but I think the P2P and even B2P model are the best at keeping developers "honest." Half *** product should give you half *** profits. That commitment between the consumer and the company is important. As long as you keep delivering, I'll continue to give you a fee. It's as simple as that. There is zero need to change that. You worked hard to deliver this to me, I don't mind paying you for your work if it retains a quality to my liking.

I may or may not be alone in this, but I'm glad that SE is in the position they're in right now. I love the Final Fantasy series, but they need to learn that people don't want to spend money on crap anymore. I have faith in ARR not because of my love for the series, but because if it doesn't do well, its over. That kind of pressure has a chance of making them deliver, or crash and burn. I'm hoping for the former, not because of my love for SE, but because I want to be entertained for a prolonged period. The sate 1.0 was release in was all the proof we needed that SE stopped caring. Notice how they started charging a fee again after several patches? That's because the quality of the game went up. You notice how the legacy program encouraged you to pay for 90 days for discounts, exclusive stuff, and that special feeling? It was for the loyal fans, but I suspect that it was aimed at those people who weren't satisfied with the quality yet, but wanted to feel special later. So many flocked back to the game, not to play, but to just drop 90 day's worth for future rewards. 10 of my college friends did that. Those were the one's lucky enough to be told. There are far too many threads on non FF sites that people are still complaining about legacy. Some may even chose to not play ARR just because of that lol.

I'll reiterate, that people will dish out money for a quality product, they also hope that quality products are free, dish out money to win and get ahead, dish out money to avoid work, and also spend money to feel special. They will not typically spend money on a product that lacks quality, unless it helps them win or feel special in some way *Dat Legacy*. I'll leave it to you to figure out which business model caters to particular types of behaviors. Free to play encourages more negatives than positives. Wasting money is bad. Encouraging businesses to prey on our ever growing poor spending habits is also bad.

I'm asking any of you Free to Play supporters, would you spend money on your free to play game? If so, how much? If not, why not? You're arguing from the position, "I don't want to spend money on a sub," I don't really see you contributing financially to a free to play model. We're always looking for something free that's this huge "win." It's just not going to happen, you're going to pay for it. You can claim that there are many games that are successful. So far I have only heard of LoL(and maybe 2-3 others. That's far from "many"), and from what you people explained it to be, people pay for things that other people can put in the work in game to get (we're very predictable yea?). I wonder though, if LoL is popular because it's free, or because it's actually a quality product. If someone can answer that, I'd be grateful.
#259 Mar 30 2013 at 6:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Oh look, there's a TV Tropes for that.
#260 Mar 30 2013 at 6:42 PM Rating: Default
... that article is actually extremely forgiving. Many of the games listed as "this one's not so bad," have huge pay-to-win elements that aren't acknowledged by the writer.

You don't need to tell me that a lot of free-to-play games turn out pay-to-win because of greed (or desperation). I was just making the point that they don't have to be that way.

In other words, if XIV is announced as free-to-play, it wouldn't necessarily be the end of the world, or cause for panic... just proceed with caution and hope Square Enix doesn't mess it up.
#261 Mar 30 2013 at 6:53 PM Rating: Good
It'd be the end of the world for me, because in all likelihood I'd quit, depending on how it was implemented. Smiley: lol
#262 Mar 30 2013 at 7:06 PM Rating: Default
That's what I mean, about "depending on how it's implemented". The introduction of free-to-play wouldn't necessarily be the killer, it would be bad implementation of free-to-play.

I would also quit if it's done badly or gives a performance advantage to higher paying users. ***** that crap.
#263 Mar 30 2013 at 7:51 PM Rating: Decent
Seriously killua drop it, you can tell them 999999 times "Hey if SE turns XIV into a F2P there is STILL hope given SE makes the right desicions etc etc" What they read is " OMG FFXIV SUCKS FREE TO PLAY! ME NO HAVE MONEY MAKE IT FREE PLOX PLOX PLOX!" you can make a hundred sound arguments, and they will still say no, for no other reason that because of "Reasons!" Trust me, before yoshi said anything about being more mainstream, i told them thats the only way FFXIV would survive, and they would go Ape ****! But since Yoshi P said it, now they have no problem with it Smiley: lol

Also guys what he is saying actually makes sense, just because if FFXIV where to go F2P does not mean it would be the end, with the right model in place, and no B2W the game could survive and turn a profit if all else fails. He is just saying that there is no need to be all "OMFG is the END" after all we seem to forget this game went B2P once and not even free people touch it :) It could survive being F2P
#264 Mar 30 2013 at 8:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
What games have experienced a decline after going F2P? Are you just pulling that out of your butt?


It's plainly obvious with GW2 that the game has experienced a drop off since launch. If you don't actually play the game -- and I'm assuming you don't -- then it's really impossible to know, because the term "active subscribers" has no real value. However, most areas of the game are pretty empty, and everyone who I personally know who started playing at launch hasn't logging in for at least two months. I only still play because I'm determined to finish at least the minimal personal story.

I think you will find similar trends have occurred if you read about other games that go from P2P to F2P, and talk to people who have played those games. The common trend, like GW2, is a surge of new players, followed by a rapid decline over a few months as the "free" gamers move onto the next thing.
____________________________
Thayos Redblade
Jormungandr
Hyperion
#265 Mar 30 2013 at 8:25 PM Rating: Good
In my "pondering F2P" thread I described a F2P system that I'd probably stick with (one in which cash shops are primarily used to buy game time, rather than stuff.) That's really the only F2P thing I'd be able to stomach.
#266 Mar 30 2013 at 8:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Catwho really hit this on the head with an earlier post, but I'll reiterate again here, too.

A P2P game requires a much greater effort to identify and build your game for your audience. You're not building a game for anyone with a computer and an Internet connection; you're building a game for people who enjoy Final Fantasy, and for people who would especially enjoy this very specific game you're making. And the only way a P2P model works is if the game is of a high enough quality for people to continue paying to play. Also, you don't need a million players for a P2P game to be hugely successful. You just need a dedicated core playerbase. Just look at FFXI, SE's most profitable game ever.

A F2P game doesn't have to work so hard to cater to a certain audience; what makes it most appealing to play is simply that it's free. Monetizing these games isn't about creating the most amazing content possible... rather, it's about figuring out what will sell best from the cash shop. And while starting out with non-essential cosmetic items is nice, eventually the temptation is to start tying the cash shop to the progression of the game. Businesses are not charitable organizations; they're in the business of making profits. It's simple logic that a F2P game will get more initial players, simply because it's free, and there are many teenage gamers (and casual adult gamers) who are more likely to try something that's free, rather than something they'd have to pay a subscription for.

Keep in mind, we live in an increasingly "get it for free" culture. I have too many friends who refuse to buy music or go out to see movies, because they'd rather get it for free off the Internet. This is the reason why F2P works. The most compelling reason to try the game isn't because it might be good enough to spend years playing, but because it's free to try.

So, at this point, I am VERY glad that Yoshi-P is sticking to his guns about FFXIV being a P2P game. That makes me much more confident about not only the quality of ARR, but also the kind of game they envision it being.

As far as what the future holds? Today I was puttering around in Guild Wars 2, and I finally realized that the people I've seen with flaming swords didn't get those items from dungeons, but from the cash shop. Through the shop, you can buy weapon skins to make any weapon you have look more epic. It really made me upset. All this time, I've been wondering which mission or dungeon people got these weapons from, and wondering why I hadn't come across one yet. Silly me, for thinking that such cool things could be earned through my achievements in the game!

Edited, Mar 30th 2013 7:33pm by Thayos
____________________________
Thayos Redblade
Jormungandr
Hyperion
#267 Mar 30 2013 at 10:19 PM Rating: Good
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
This is a miscomception that i have heard around here a few times, balancing is easy is just numbers etc etc, yet two of the most successful companys have had always problems as far as balancing classes, one is blizzard with it's PVP, and the other one is Legue of Legends, entierly different companys in different genres, with the same problem, i would think if it was as easy as tweaking a number here and there, they would have ridden themselfs of such problems a long time ago, yet every new update from both companys brings fixes and buffs or nerfs to their content in order to balance classes. They are professional programers with what i would think is an infinite more experience than some random posters in some board, and they have not been able to fix this "Easy" balancing problem.... Hmm! Maybe it is not as easy as adding one number here and subtracting another there ?


Your reasoning is that if it were easy, they would have already done it. There are a number of reasons why developers wouldn't fix balance issues (not especially GOOD reasons, though). First of all, it's only -easy- if you know what you're doing. Like many skills--people who know what they're doing make it look easy, people who don't make it look impossible. Most MMO designers don't know what they're doing, unfortunately. There might be one or two guys somewhere going, "Hey, we really need to fix the balance with these adjustments," but they don't have executive authority to make those adjustments. They're part of a team that's sitting around going, "Maybe," "I don't think that's the REAL problem," or "Let's just wait and see."

Even if you have someone who knows what they're doing, they have to do the research and pull the numbers. A game like LoL may have tier lists where players have decided which characters are great and which are awful, but those are often only with respect to highly skilled players. You really can't balance that many characters across every different skill level across every possible matchup (WoW doesn't have this problem/excuse). With that, a lot of developers are content to shrug their shoulders and say, "Skill still matters the most," "They're balanced for AVERAGE players," or "Let's just wait and see."

It really is as easy as adding a number here and subtracting a number there. That's how you balance things. In fact, that's the ONLY way you balance things. It's getting the numbers -right- that is the most difficult part, and the way you do that is to keep tinkering. Unfortunately, that's a lot of work! It requires constant assessment, tuning, and reassessment. And it's not as fun as designing new features, nor does conventional wisdom portray it as a good selling point. The new housing system is something you can sell to players... newly adjusted statistics isn't quite trailer-worthy.

So, lots of reasons why designers don't fix balance problems. Again, not good reasons. And difficulty isn't one of them. You gauge the community and respond to their perceptions (even if their perceptions are wrong).
#268 Mar 30 2013 at 10:34 PM Rating: Good
****
4,175 posts
DamienSScott wrote:
FilthMcNasty wrote:
I wouldn't exactly call F2P a cash grab. That term implies that you're trying to generate a quick profit and sacrificing the longevity of the product to do so. Many F2P models do generate profit quickly yes, but that also sets them up in a better position to funnel some of that profit back into the game and I would argue that this would bolster the sustained profit through having more funds to develop and implement more content. Seems more like a matter of player preference to me.


The problem is.. other than League of Legends no F2P game pumps out content anywhere near as fast as WoW. Pretty much every small F2P game is a cash grab with little content and a pay to win attitude. With as little as these companies comparatively spent on game development they probably make great profit. However you never see any content updates, or if you do it's after 3-5 years. I played a blatant WoW-clone called Fiesta off and on for 3+ years and they never released anything new other than cash shop garbage. Guild Wars 2 has been out for 6+ months and still hasn't released any new content either. This is a game where you could get to max level in a week or less with no end game content. F2P looks nice on paper but it just doesn't work that way.


When did WoW go F2P? The comparison doesn't make sense because WoW charges more than 10 million people a subscription fee. With that kind of income it's easy to see how they are able to manufacture so much content. That does lead me to the point that Blizzard switched their development model to be able to introduce content faster. Rather than having huge raids with tons of bosses, they instead broke them into smaller sized instances and shortened the window of the releases for each progressive raid. Essentially you end up getting the same amount of content, but it's not all front loaded and doesn't lead to the quick burnout that it used to.

6 months is not a long time to be without a content update. I don't play GW2, but I know that they have introduced (what seems like to me anyway) a lot in the way of tweaks, adjustments and improvements. IIRC they just released something days ago. I have no idea what it is or what it entails, but I wouldn't expect a newly released game to even mention an expansion for at least that long.

The model works when it's implemented properly. The game you mentioned with max level in a week and no end game content doesn't sound like it would have been successful anyway; lets not attribute flaws that are obviously unrelated to the business model.
____________________________
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.
#269 Mar 31 2013 at 7:12 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
Avatar
*****
12,820 posts
FilthMcNasty wrote:
DamienSScott wrote:
FilthMcNasty wrote:
I wouldn't exactly call F2P a cash grab. That term implies that you're trying to generate a quick profit and sacrificing the longevity of the product to do so. Many F2P models do generate profit quickly yes, but that also sets them up in a better position to funnel some of that profit back into the game and I would argue that this would bolster the sustained profit through having more funds to develop and implement more content. Seems more like a matter of player preference to me.


The problem is.. other than League of Legends no F2P game pumps out content anywhere near as fast as WoW. Pretty much every small F2P game is a cash grab with little content and a pay to win attitude. With as little as these companies comparatively spent on game development they probably make great profit. However you never see any content updates, or if you do it's after 3-5 years. I played a blatant WoW-clone called Fiesta off and on for 3+ years and they never released anything new other than cash shop garbage. Guild Wars 2 has been out for 6+ months and still hasn't released any new content either. This is a game where you could get to max level in a week or less with no end game content. F2P looks nice on paper but it just doesn't work that way.


When did WoW go F2P? The comparison doesn't make sense because WoW charges more than 10 million people a subscription fee. With that kind of income it's easy to see how they are able to manufacture so much content.


Now the question is..how much of that content is actually GOOD content?
#270 Mar 31 2013 at 7:53 AM Rating: Decent
**
554 posts

Theonehio wrote:
FilthMcNasty wrote:
DamienSScott wrote:
FilthMcNasty wrote:
I wouldn't exactly call F2P a cash grab. That term implies that you're trying to generate a quick profit and sacrificing the longevity of the product to do so. Many F2P models do generate profit quickly yes, but that also sets them up in a better position to funnel some of that profit back into the game and I would argue that this would bolster the sustained profit through having more funds to develop and implement more content. Seems more like a matter of player preference to me.


The problem is.. other than League of Legends no F2P game pumps out content anywhere near as fast as WoW. Pretty much every small F2P game is a cash grab with little content and a pay to win attitude. With as little as these companies comparatively spent on game development they probably make great profit. However you never see any content updates, or if you do it's after 3-5 years. I played a blatant WoW-clone called Fiesta off and on for 3+ years and they never released anything new other than cash shop garbage. Guild Wars 2 has been out for 6+ months and still hasn't released any new content either. This is a game where you could get to max level in a week or less with no end game content. F2P looks nice on paper but it just doesn't work that way.


When did WoW go F2P? The comparison doesn't make sense because WoW charges more than 10 million people a subscription fee. With that kind of income it's easy to see how they are able to manufacture so much content.


Now the question is..how much of that content is actually GOOD content?


Uh... apparently good enough to keep 10 million people around...

How many people dose FFXI keep around Theonehio?
#271 Mar 31 2013 at 7:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Considering those 10 million people are still paying a $15 monthly fee, I'd say it has to be fairly good content.
#272 Mar 31 2013 at 8:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Think WoW keeps so many people around simply because so many people play it. It has a critical mass that no other game is likely to have again. Never underestimate the power of the friend effect.
____________________________
Thayos Redblade
Jormungandr
Hyperion
#273 Mar 31 2013 at 8:36 AM Rating: Good
I think you guys are in for a shock when this game launches, p2p games lose a vast amount of its players after the first month these days, what you call a "huge dropoff" isn't a f2p thing it's an MMO thing. Players have almost no patience to wait on content these days.

I think as fans of the game you aren't doing a favour to it by thinking F2P is the end of the world when it could be the thing that ends up saving it, major thing is that many that would possibly like the game, pay money into it and play it won't even give it a chance if they don't embrace f2p. This game is not really in a strong position here.

These days huge chunks of players leave after the first month and many more won't buy a game at launch at all to try and starve F2P on the devs. It's not simply about having investors to pay back, it's does the game have enough players to even sustain itself after the first month or two. Most games just lose so many players they have to think of a way to bring in more to make the game even work.

Oh and GW2 isn't free to play and WoW has free to play till level 20 now doesn't it?

Edited, Mar 31st 2013 10:39am by preludes
#274 Mar 31 2013 at 8:38 AM Rating: Excellent
preludes wrote:
I think you guys are in for a shock when this game launches, p2p games lose a vast amount of its players after the first month these days, what you call a "huge dropoff" isn't a f2p thing it's an MMO thing. Players have almost no patience to wait on content these days.

I think as fans of the game you aren't doing a favour to it by thinking F2P is the end of the world when it could be the thing that ends up saving it, major thing is that many that would possibly like the game, pay money into it and play it won't even give it a chance if they don't embrace f2p. This game is not really in a strong position here.

These days huge chunks of players leave after the first month and many more won't buy a game at launch at all to try and starve F2P on the devs. It's not simply about having investors to pay back, it's does the game have enough players to even sustain itself after the first month or two. Most games just lose so many players they have to think of a way to bring in more to make the game even work.

Edited, Mar 31st 2013 10:37am by preludes


And I think you're underestimating the fanbase.
#275 Mar 31 2013 at 8:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Wint wrote:
And I think you're underestimating the fanbase.


I think you overestimate it, the FF brand isn't what it was and MMO players aren't as forgiving as they used to be.

If what you say was true V1 would of never failed as incredibly hard as it did, Square thought as you did and look where that got them.
#276 Mar 31 2013 at 8:44 AM Rating: Excellent
I guess we'll see who is right won't we?
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 210 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (210)