Manoa

Whadda you want??

>.>

<.<

Oh, hai there all!

My mistake, this is what I was thinking of:

Source

Whatever the case, it doesn't change my position that I completely understand why Paragon Studios is making Incarnate content VIP only and can support them in doing so.

City of Heroes: Going Rogue - Incarnates Overview

As I recall from Beta, the Judgement, Interface, Lore and Destiny slots of the incarnate system were intended to be released with Going Rogue; however, they weren't ready before Going Rogue's release. As to not release something that wasn't ready, the developers released Going Rogue with just the Alpha Slot and postponed release of the remaining slots until Issue 20.

Not that I'm arguing for Premium players to get access to the Incarnate System...I totally understand why Paragon Studios is making it VIP only and can support them tying this type of new content to subscriptions. But I also can totally understand the argument that those Premium players who purchased Going Rogue should have access to Incarnates.

Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be allowing those Premium players who purchased Going Rogue to have access to the Alpha Slot (which was released as part of Going Rogue)? Give them a taste to entice them to buy more?

Yes, some of the hybrid payment model details were released on June 21st. But to be fair, not all of the details were released. Paragon Studios alluded to the Premium Tier Perks, but the full extent on how they would impact returning players (including the subscription time commitments required to unlock key components of the game) were not fully known to the general public until open beta.

What Paragon Studios marketed on June 21st was a three tier account system. What returning players are greeted with upon return is, in essence, a 9 tier account system, with 7 of those tiers hidden in the Premium level due to the Premium Tier Perks.

What I've been seeing from those defending the current model is this:

Poster 2 essentially shuts down the second they see the term F2P without even bothering to see what game Poster 1 is talking about (and doesn't even bother checking to see if the game mentioned qualifies as "hybrid" per their strict definition of F2P).

The only time I saw someone actually recognize that these F2P MMOs are actually hybrid models too, it was fanwanked away by saying "well, this game is MORE F2P than hybrid though"...making it sound like COH is the only true hybrid model out there and what those other guys are doing doesn't even matter because they aren't really the competition. Which is a notion I respectfully disagree with.

No, the point I was trying to make is this:

All the folks adamant about Freedom's model being a hybrid keep harping on those people who compare it to other F2P MMOs that are presently on the market, demanding that it's completely inappropriate because COH is not going to be a F2P game ("No, it's a HYBRID dammit!"). But all the games people are drawing from as their basis of their comparison are technically hybrid models too if you are using Paragon Studios' strict definition of the term "F2P."

Of all the games out there that were former 100% subscription based games who later added a F2P element to their games (who are technically on hybrid per PS's definition of F2P), COH is the only one who demands that they aren't REALLY a F2P game...they're a hybrid. All the other guys who have gone through the drill of adding a F2P element to their games before Paragon Studios (and are technically hybrids too) self-identify as F2P games and have used this in their marketing. They've already set player expectation for what a F2P game is, and players are going to identify Freedom as a F2P game (whether folks like it or not).

So please do tell me why it's inappropriate to compare Freedom's model to the the other models that have a mix of F2P/sub which are presently are on market (whether you define it as F2P or hybrid, I don't care...I'm done with semantics at this point) and why the psychology used in these games doesn't apply to COH.

I reiterate that the game CommunistPenguin was referring to (DDO) would be classified as a "hybrid" model using the above F2P definition, as it still offers subscription service in addition to their newer F2P element (oh, and it also has a middle "Premium" Tier too for those who have made microtrans purchases or who are former subscribers...sound familiar?).

In fact, many of the "F2P" MMOs that folks are using as their basis of comparison are former 100% subscription games who added a F2P element to their games. They aren't 100% F2P, as they still offer subscription level service...so they're "hybrid" models too using the strict definition of F2P mentioned above.

If you're using the the same definition of F2P that Paragon Studios is using...

...the F2P game that CommunistPenguin was referring to would technically be considered a "hybrid" model. Just sayin'.

There's no argument from me that it indeed is a step up from the current system. Before, they couldn't access anything...with Freedom, they can with restrictions.

But the problem is the fact that returning Premium players are returning with the expectations that this is a free to play game that has three account tiers (whether it is or isn't F2P is neither here nor there, and whether anyone feels their expectations are justified or not is neither here nor there, I'm not going that road of argument, only talking about consumer perception). They expect certain restrictions because they're not paying, but the stuff listed as "Limited" on the account matrix is a wee bit vague. So they don't have a clear idea of what to expect.

They sign-up to play their characters and find it really isn't a three tier account system...but more like a 9 or so (I'm on a work trip and don't have time to look it up) tier account system due to the Premium Tier Account Perks. And unless you have over 5 years of vet badges under your belt (no small feat, as that's a pretty huge time commitment), you discover you're essentially without enhancement because your IOs are greyed out.

And while $2 per month for IO access isn't a hefty charge, could potentially turn returning Premium players away since it shatters the image of free to play too early in the play experience (again, not arguing semantics of whether or not it is actually F2P here, just what these players are likely expecting). If the intent is to excite those returning players enough to re-up their subs, it's not a particularly diplomatic way of going about it.

Overall, the Premium Tier Perks adds a level of complexity to the system that doesn't make it a simple three account tier hybrid as it is being marketed...but more like 9 or so account tier hybrid since around 7 of those account tiers are hidden into the Premium account as Premium Tier Perks (again, the actual number may be a little off, I just don't have time to look it up to be sure). And it all can be pretty darn confusing to those who haven't kept up to date with everything.

I don't have a problem with the particular aspect of the Premium Rewards system that you're talking about. As I said before...

In other words...I don't have a problem with this...it's darn similar to the current Veteran Rewards Program and I'm okay with it. It's THIS that I personally feel returning players might have a problem with.

I never made the argument that VIP players should get everything for free and never made the argument that returning players should get the entire game for nothing.

I'm perfectly okay with the Play for Free level. I'm okay with the VIP level. I'm okay with the idea that Premium players will get more than Play for Free and less than VIP. And I'm okay with how the Paragon Rewards themselves are set up (i.e. the rewards you spend the tokens on).

My primary beef with the model is the Tier Perks aspect of the Paragon Rewards system. The sole intent of the blog was to point out that there may be reasons why this particular aspect of the model may not entice returning players into returning.

Even if Paragon Studios hypothetically decided to strip the Tier Perks away from the Paragon Rewards system and gave all perks to anyone and everyone who is a Premium player (no matter how long they've subbed or how much they've spent), Premium players would still have less than a VIP subscriber. And you know what? I'm perfectly okay with that.

My argument above relates specifically to the labeling of the proposed model. Some say a hybrid model isn't really a F2P model...others (including myself) argue that a hybrid model is indeed a F2P model, just one of a slightly different flavor than the others that are out there.

Plus, whoever made the argument that Paragon Studios should forget their loyal playerbase in labeling the hybrid model a F2P model? I certainly don't believe as such and never argued against the VIP tier as it is proposed. And I don't think anyone else who has argued against the current system have argued as such either. My arguments against the proposed system only relate on how it relates to returning players (more specifically, my opinion is that the current Premium Tier Perks doesn't treat returning Premium players right...the vet badge thresholds for key elements that returning layers will be looking at are beyond the scope of reasonableness).

Giving returning premium players more access to (what they view) as a fully functioning game doesn't water down the VIP experience in any way, shape or form. There's plenty of other incentives that comes with a VIP subscription that makes the subscription worth paying for (like incarnates, access to new content, Going Rogue, bonus Paragon Points, server transfers etc). Whatever flavor you decide to call the flavor of model, the term doesn't impact loyal customers.

Then you guys might want to give the good folks over at MMORPG.com, PCgamer.com, G4TV.com, Gamepro.com and all of those other industry/gamer websites who are mislabeling the model as "free-to-play" to set the record straight that's it's actually a HYBRID model. And while you're at it, you may want to give a call to that other company who does hybrid models (not to mention every other company that offers a tiered model) and tell them their marketing their products wrong by calling it "free-to-play."

Just sayin'...market perception is everything...

Other than the crunchy bits that we have confirmed, there's not exactly a whole lot of facts in this thread. It's mostly all feedback based on opinion (humble and not so humble), observations, speculation and (in some cases) hyperbole. And this is the case on both the pro and con side of the argument.

My thoughts are my own humble opinions based on what I am seeing and speculating...and I'm including in this thread for feedback purposes and the developers and community relations folks can do with them as they will. You can agree or disagree...that's perfectly fine. You're going to change my opinion on the matter and I'm very likely not going to change yours.

It's healthy to have these sorts of debates so the developers can view the feedback that arises from them and make note. But to poke holes in a opinion/observational post by asking for solid factual evidence in a feedback thread that comprises almost entirely of observations and speculation from all sides? Not exactly constructive debate.

I would continue the healthy portion of the debate by offering some counterpoints, but I have to get back to work. I may be back to add more feedback and counterpoints later after work (well, depending on how the course of this thread proceeds).

Not really...as I mention in earlier posts, a successful F2P model breaks down as many barriers to entry as possible to get people into the game and hooked. Once they're hooked, they'll be craving more and be far more willing to pay for content than at character creation/selection.

The problem is that forcing returning premium players to pay for IO access shatters the F2P illusion right off the bat. It creates a barrier to entry that returning players may not be willing to stomach. These are players who have already played the game and have emotional attachments to their characters. And all players don't like their characters (and their loot) messed with. Yes, it's only $2 (oh, that's $2 per month...the way it's set-up is essentially a mini subscription). But returning players are not going to be rational once they've found the existing loot they've acquired is greyed out and unusable.

The point I was trying to make is that returning players are going to be far more likely and willing to pay for microtrans and subs if incentivized properly. The right way to do this is to keep free-players looking forward instead of backward. Returning free players are not going to be all that willing to pay for game functions that they've already played and experienced...that's looking backward. But if you give these returning players access to a fully functioning game as a means to break down their entry barriers, they would be far more willing to pay for new shinys they haven't experienced (say, paying for a sub to try the incarnate content or paying the microtrans to play the Praetorian content).

No, the point is to generate revenue from new players and returning players. It doesn't matter whether that revenue comes from subscriptions or microtransactions. The game already had free trials and free reactivation weekends to get folks to feel the "undying, STRONG urge to re-sub or sub for the first time." If these were doing the trick, they wouldn't be adding a F2P/microtransaction element.

I personally am not arguing for returning free players to have the same exact experience as a VIP player. There should be something pay-for that returning free players should be chasing after.

And returning players don't have the expectation to have everything the VIPers do. They don't expect access to the new content, they don't expect access to the incarnate stuff, etc. That's all new stuff and they know they're not going to get it without paying for it.

What returning free players expect (what they view as) a fully functioning game and access to their characters (loot 'n all). It's all old content...why shouldn't they have access to it if they've invested something into the game?

Keep the returning free players chasing after the new shinies instead of forcing them to fill in the gaps in their old play experience, I'll bet you'll be able to capture more revenue from this segment of the playerbase.

Then who is the system aimed at?

It certainly isn't aimed at VIP players. If COH subs were generating enough revenue to keep the investors happy and the game running, they wouldn't be adding microtransaction into the picture. An established subscription MMO doesn't add a free-to-play element (whatever the flavor, full F2P or hybrid F2) out of the generosity of their hearts...they do so because they think they can generate more revenue by adding the F2P/microtransaction element than what they're currently achieving with their original 100% subscription.

And I suspect it's not all that aimed at brand spankin' new F2P players. The bottom-tier accounts are pretty much trial accounts without any sort of time limit. But if trial accounts were were doing the trick in generating needed revenues, they wouldn't be adding any sort of F2P element.

To me, the primary demographic that this new model is targeted at is former subscribers. This is a move to generate more revenue (whether microtrans or subscription reups) from this particular demographic. This is the player demographic who is far more likely to add money into the game (compared to their new F2P counterparts)...but you have to recognize the reasons they’re coming back and the stuff they would be interested in purchasing. If incentivized properly, they’ll likely willing to purchase new content and/or look at a subscription to try out the new shinys. But they know what it feels like to have a full game experience and not going to be incentivized to pay money for old content or to get the game working as they remember it.

A successful F2P model breaks down the barriers of entry and imbeds the pay-for stuff later into the play experience (you know, after the player is hooked and wants more). The current model doesn’t do a very good job of this for returning players because it breaks the “free” illusion upon character creation/selection by having their IOs greyed out.

Again, I respectfully disagree. What the industry has branded the game is completely relevant and material, as it sets up player expectation (for both new and returning players).

Free-to-play is just a play on psychology where the game developer creates the illusion that there is no cost when there in fact is. These games free player gets a taste of the game, but can never fully experience the game unless they pay for it in some fashion (whether through microtrans or a sub). And that's perfectly okay...that's how the system is supposed to work. A game with a free-to-play component should have something that's pay-for-play that incentivizes the free player into generating revenue.

The "hybrid" model uses the same exact psychology as 100% and two-tier F2P models to generate revenue from "free" players. All it is is a different flavor of F2P model. This is the reason why the industry rightfully brands COH-Freedom as a "free-to-play" game. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck (no matter how Paragon Studios is marketing it).

Plus, did you ever stop to consider the reasons why Paragon Studios may be carefully marketing and telling their subscribers Freedom is not really a free-to-play model? They're in the industry and know the industry's perceptions and lingo...so I highly doubt they've fooled themselves into thinking that a hybrid model isn't really F2P. My suspicion is that it's more so to quell the concerns of existing subscribers and to keep them from running away from the "scary F2P stuff."

Folks keep arguing that because COH-Freedom is a hybrid model, that it's not really a free-to-play game. I respectfully disagree with this notion. Any time a game adds a free game download and free-to-play account element to their game, it becomes branded by the industry as a free-to-play game. A hybrid model is only a variant of the free-to-play model that just has more account stratifications than 100% F2P and the 50% F2P/50% Sub models that are out there.

Just look at the two well-known hybrid models that are currently on the market...they were both marketed by their company as (and branded by the industry as) free-to-play games. And City of Heroes is no different, as COH-Freedom has already been branded by the industry as free-to-play...just do a Google search for "City of Heroes Free to Play" and see how many industry publications/blogs pop up that discuss the game's move to a free-to-play model.

Totally missed that...like I said, sleepies taking over!

Methinks I'm going to keep the link in my earlier post though just so Zwil will have an easy point of reference to where I conveys my thoughts a wee bit better than what I posted in this thread. Keep my thoughts consolidated so to speak for the feedback purposes.

You don't have an argument from me that VIP players and new F2P players will very likely enjoy their experience in COH Freedom. However, I certainly feel there's an argument that can be made that returning players may not necessarily enjoy their free experience.

I know a number of former long-term subscribers who were seriously considering returning as Premium Players when they first learned about COH Freedom, but have since decided against it. The number one dealkiller I've heard is that they fall below the 5 year, 3 month veteran badge threshold needed to return to their characters as they remember them (i.e. access to their existing IOs). The $2 invention license thing isn't going over very well with them and they don't want to go through the onerous process of respecing or creating a new build. They recognize that the game is completely playable without IOs, but being blocked from using the existing loot that they worked so hard to acquire is leaving a pretty sour taste in their mouths. So they're taking the path of least resistance...they're just not returning at all.

It's my opinion that bringing returning players back into the fold as Premium Players is key to making the transition to COH Freedom a successful one, as the game is far more likely to capture revenue (whether through microtrans or reupping subs) from these players than from free-to-play players. I personally feel the primary problem with the account and rewards system as it is set-up right now is that it lumps two completely different psychographic groups into the same behavioral group. It just doesn't do a very good job of taking into account the different interests, motivations and expectations (whether justified or not) of returning players as compared to free-to-play players. Granted, most subscription MMOs who offer a free-to-play elements don't do a very good job either, but it's my humble opinion that COH could do much, much better than the current proposal.

I totally recognize that it's tacky to link one's own blog in a message board discussion, but I'm going to do it anyway. I'm pretty darn sleepy and I think the blog post I wrote about psychographics and COH Freedom is by far the most important of the blog posts I wrote and it conveys my thoughts far better than what I've written above:

http://manoasmusings.blogspot.com/20...of-heroes.html

For those having trouble finding COH on the expo floor...they do NOT have their own dedicated booth this year. They have a handful of demo stations and staff at the Antec Booth (Booth #152).

It's a shame we need criteria # 1 for a PAX M&G, as I'd be willing to bet that AFK Tavern would be a far better choice in regards to criteria #2 (lots of real estate and they specialize in nerd). Sadly, Everett is just a wee bit too long of a drive from downtown to make it a worthy venue candidate for a PAX M&G.