Don't go Free to Play(F2P), COH
By
33253,
Posted on: 2010-10-27 07:26 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
Quote:
That's the old mindset... the one that's being questioned. You haven't SEEN an MMO build from the ground-up like CoH because, outside China, the model hasn't been proven long enough for a traditional MMO to go through a full development cycle. Will we? There's a lot of risk in breaking convention, but there's a lot of potential return. [edited to remove specific example}|
Originally Posted by RoleplayerX
Subscription is always preferable if the product and the market will support it. You need to consider the original investment those games - I have yet to see one with the with the same level of quality and amount of content as CoX (on the completely F2P games that is). There is absolutely no comparison between CoX and, say, Farmville.
The other MMOs that I've seen go to "F2P" are really just giving an extended trial. Those games are still a subscription service, but they have made their free trial unlimited. Those free accounts, like CoX's current trial accounts, are extremely limited. The only difference is that they do not expire and they can purchase game features piecemeal if they choose. As for downloadable content, of course they're seeing more money because it's easier for people to buy online and download than it is to go to a store and hope they have a copy of the game they want. It would surprise me if NCSoft wasn't already seeing much more income from downloads than from box sales. That, however, is not the same thing as going F2P. What it really comes down to is potential profit and risk. No company is going to take the risk of going to a F2P model until and unless the potential profits out-weight the potential risks. CoX appears to be a stable and popular MMO (one of the best on the market IMO) and so it seems unlikely that NCSoft would risk their subscription income at this time. Perhaps the market will be different a year from now, but right now it just doesn't seem likely. |
You're right- you can't compare even the social network game you mentioned (careful, they count too) to CoH.... except by the last earnings reports, the one you mentioned returned FAR more profit in comparison to its investment.
That's why people are starting to REALLY take notice now. We've seen spectacular "underachievers" in the subscription model. We've seen large investments NOT be able to keep the first-month numbers. We've seen games released into a crowded market that could attract the curious from their current games for a month or two, but that's it. That isn't regularly-recurring subscription revenue.
Subscriptions serve as ONE barrier that reduces your potential market. Only a certain type of person appears willing to commit to one, and your market is limited to that small group. Others might try the game to blow through as much content as they can in a month, but they have no interest in staying around. Worse, in this very saturated market, many of those people that ARE willing to subscribe to an MMO are already subscribing to another... they're often at the subscription saturation point-- they can't JUSTIFY another $15 elsewhere without ditching one of their current $15 obligations. Getting them to come over, try, and STAY is even tougher when staying means that they've gotta say goodbye to another place they enjoy.
So now people are starting to wonder- if the security in subscription revenue is a myth... can we get that security via offering microtransactions? The facebook-based social games aren't even the ones you want to look at to answer this question-- anything here is still 2-3 years behind what's been going on in Asia. Looking there... you can see why... while the answer isn't a clearcut "yes," its at least a very strong possibility....
Quote:
As far as the free aspect goes I agree with this. Free accounts are nothing more than trials without an expiration date.
|
Originally Posted by RoleplayerX
The other MMOs that I've seen go to "F2P" are really just giving an extended trial. Those games are still a subscription service, but they have made their free trial unlimited. Those free accounts, like CoX's current trial accounts, are extremely limited. The only difference is that they do not expire and they can purchase game features piecemeal if they choose.
|
Quote:
Can't get behind you on THAT one, Sam.|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
Which, again, is a game-ender for me. The one thing I do NOT want to see in this game is players being tiered into different groups with one having a distinct, tangible advantage over another because they pay more. This is the sort of thing that makes real life harsh and unforgiving and what utterly destroys the feeling of escapism that leisurely activities and fiction in general tends to bring, and on which it tends to sell.
Granted, there are games out there which sell themselves as being harsh, ruthless and full of developer-encouraged griefing. Granted, there are those, but I don't want THIS game - this being City of Heroes - to be among them. |
Option A: No Tiered Playing, Low-ish Population
Option B: Tiered Playing, Higher Population made up of people who can make themselves higher tier if they're willing to, or can enjoy the game without it.
I'll take a larger population, any day. Especially when some members are buying EVERYTHING as it comes out instead of paying a subscription fee. Also note that F2P games have a much higher turnout of content and goods, generally speaking. They needs more and more and more to sell to survive.
-Rachel-
I have experienced a F2P model. I've spent only $40 on it and that has given me enough to play for a good 3-4 months.
Yes, I'm missing out on a lot of quality of life things, but I paid to play what feels right to me.
After that time is up, I may get more things, I may be bored. Not sure. However, I do know that that game would not have gotten any money from me through subscription system.
Quote:
nice post Chase, lots of food for thought there.
|
Originally Posted by Chase_Arcanum
That's the old mindset... the one that's being questioned. You haven't SEEN an MMO build from the ground-up like CoH because, outside China, the model hasn't been proven long enough for a traditional MMO to go through a full development cycle. Will we? There's a lot of risk in breaking convention, but there's a lot of potential return. [edited to remove specific example}
|
The Nethergoat Archive: all my memories, all my characters, all my thoughts on CoH...eventually.
My City Was Gone
Did I read correctly that BABs went to the other game? He finished this project, trained a new guy, then moved on to the competition. Either they weren't paying him well, or, they weren't paying him well. If he was good, end of project or not, they would have kept him, unless the price wasn't right. Doesn't make sense.
Quote:
My point is I think it will be effective to complain eslewhere, maybe as well as in here if you think it will do good.
|
Originally Posted by Lemur Lad
It's not in thread complaining, it's a reply to something the moderator himself posted here. If it were random griping, you'd have a point. However this is an attempt at a discussion with the person who made the statements in the place he made them.
|
I don't suffer from altitis, I enjoy every minute of it.
Thank you Devs & Community people for a great game.
So sad to be ending ):
So I read a couple of the posts in this thread. No real comment on that but I did notice something.
Why do the 'doom' threads always come from people who have a join date somewhere in the current year?
Enjoy your day please.
Personally, I'm all for freemium pricing on games. If CoH eventually goes freemium, I'm not going to cry foul. I'm going to say "Yay, I can play without a subscription now."
I am one of the old-timers who barely plays the game any more. I keep my subscription alive more because of inertia and the occasional chance to play with friends I've made.
Freemium means that I get a wider array of games. Especially if the game has a buy-in that lets me pay a single price to play. If I want bells and whistles and more character slots and more content, it's available to me. If all I ever do is putter around the first few pieces of content, then I don't pay for the privilege of access to content that I never actually use.
CoH is much that way for me. After six years I have one (1) level 50 character. I'll play with him some now that I-19 is on the horizon, but if I never played him again, I wouldn't count it a huge loss.
I'd say that anyone who is reacting negatively to the idea of a freemium CoH is someone who is putting the cart ahead of the horse, in any case. You can't judge what you haven't seen. Until we know what kind of revenue/membership model Paragon Studios might propose, we have nothing at all to talk about other than a lot of vaporous imaginings of players who are boxing with shadows.
There are many ways to do freemium. One successful young game has a unique model that works for them. They let you buy a monthly sub if you want access to everything. They let you play the opening content areas for free without a sub. They also let you buy individual content areas at a more or less fixed cost per area. (The price varies on the level and the amount of area; I can't be more specific without running afoul of forum regs.)
This model would work fine with City of Heroes, especially since there is a lot of duplication in content at the low end of the scale. Everyone would get Atlas Park and Perez Park. Those who wanted more but chose not to subscribe, could buy each of the other zones at a fixed price of a couple of dollars per zone. Effectively, they would have a lifetime subscription to only the parts of the city that they actually used.
The point is not that it should be done that way, or that there should be a freemium CoH at all. The point is that the player reaction to that sort of a freemium model would be quite different than the reaction to a model like one of the other persistent worlds that could be considered competitors of CoH.
There's no point is crying "foul" about something when you have no idea if there's something to shout about, and just what it is that you're shouting down.
There's a saying: "The avalanche is rolling. It's too late for the pebbles to vote."
All of us are pebbles. I get that some people here are trying to vote on preventing the avalanche entirely, but that's not really an option with an avalanche, is it? If the management of NCSoft/Paragon Studios is even working on a freemium model, it's because they've already decided that it's going to happen. It's already too late to voice your displeasure. They're well aware that some people will be displeased. They're weighing that against results with other games where revenue has doubled or even quintupled. The displeasure of a fraction of the player-base is not going to stop them if they think that succeeding will make that displeasure irrelevant.
My advice:
Assume that CoH IS going freemium, at some point in the future. Figure out what shape it would have if you had a say in it, keeping in mind that "no freemium at all" is not one of the boxes on the ballot.
Let the devs know your vote on the path the avalanche should roll down, because voting against the avalanche is just an exercise in futility.
Quote:
We don't know what happened with BaBs and probably never will. The most likely scenario is that he moved to a new project within Paragon Studios, and was let go when that project was canned. If true, then the primary reason to move to that new project in the first place was to stretch his horizons, something that wasn't going to happen if he returned to CoH.|
Originally Posted by thgebull0425
Did I read correctly that BABs went to the other game? He finished this project, trained a new guy, then moved on to the competition. Either they weren't paying him well, or, they weren't paying him well. If he was good, end of project or not, they would have kept him, unless the price wasn't right. Doesn't make sense.
|
I shouldn't be surprised if the the leave-taking was sort of mutual in that case, but as I say, we don't know and we're unlikely to ever know.
Quote:
I know it probably speaks ill of me to say this, but this sounds an awful lot like selling your soul for money. And from my personal perspective as a player more than my assumed perspective as a completely clueless "developer," I prefer a game that does not feature "second-rate citizens," even just optionally. It's a practice I disagree with, and as a customer am willing to accept a lower production value if it ensures just that.|
Originally Posted by Steampunkette
Can't get behind you on THAT one, Sam.
Option A: No Tiered Playing, Low-ish Population Option B: Tiered Playing, Higher Population made up of people who can make themselves higher tier if they're willing to, or can enjoy the game without it. |
To me, the friendly attitude City of Heroes has and its tendency to make us entitled to practically everything is a large part of the value I place on the game. I'm not sure more people are worth destroying that by corrupting one of the largest draws that this game has for me.
I don't want to play a F2P game, which is why I instead chose to play a subscription-based game when there are more F2P games out there than I know what to do with. I am in particular not interested in having my game change in what has to be one of the most fundamental ways I can imagine right under my feet.
In short, going F2P might bring in more people, but that doesn't guarantee it will bring in more revenue, and it's likely to cheese off at least a few people. In a game with a playebase that's this thickly made-up of old farts, that's not a safe bet to make to see what if.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
It's a mystery - probably |
Originally Posted by BashfulBanshee
Why do the 'doom' threads always come from people who have a join date somewhere in the current year?
|
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
Quote:
poor cryptic
|
Originally Posted by je_saist
... *sends them a resume to see what happens*
|
Quote:
Still, the only thing constant in life is change. How many AAA MMOs with subscription based models have we seen crash and burn in the last 4 years alone? There's every chance that we'll never see another AAA MMO launch as a purely subscription based game ever again.|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
I know it probably speaks ill of me to say this, but this sounds an awful lot like selling your soul for money. And from my personal perspective as a player more than my assumed perspective as a completely clueless "developer," I prefer a game that does not feature "second-rate citizens," even just optionally. It's a practice I disagree with, and as a customer am willing to accept a lower production value if it ensures just that.
To me, the friendly attitude City of Heroes has and its tendency to make us entitled to practically everything is a large part of the value I place on the game. I'm not sure more people are worth destroying that by corrupting one of the largest draws that this game has for me. I don't want to play a F2P game, which is why I instead chose to play a subscription-based game when there are more F2P games out there than I know what to do with. I am in particular not interested in having my game change in what has to be one of the most fundamental ways I can imagine right under my feet. In short, going F2P might bring in more people, but that doesn't guarantee it will bring in more revenue, and it's likely to cheese off at least a few people. In a game with a playebase that's this thickly made-up of old farts, that's not a safe bet to make to see what if. |
And if CoH/V moves to a 2 tiered business model, they'll have my support. It'll probably extend the lifetime of this game I enjoy another 5 - 10 years. Just think about that
There is no such thing as an "innocent bystander"
Quote:
Well, obviously, if I had to choose between F2P and game shut down, I may be inclined to accept it. I like the game too much, after all. But I'll leave that choice to be made for when it comes about. I see no reason to try and suggest this change now, based solely on "Why not?"
|
Originally Posted by BigFish
And if CoH/V moves to a 2 tiered business model, they'll have my support. It'll probably extend the lifetime of this game I enjoy another 5 - 10 years. Just think about that
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
And if they're not yet, then this would be the perfect time to speak against it, huh? Seeing as how we don't know what they're doing, remaining silent now because my "vote" might be wasted seems kind of silly.
|
Originally Posted by SlickRiptide
If the management of NCSoft/Paragon Studios is even working on a freemium model, it's because they've already decided that it's going to happen.
|
Quote:
I know of at least one instance where an in-game item drop was largely removed when it became available for F2P users via a cash store. Which meant that it no longer dropped for pay users either.
|
Originally Posted by Chase_Arcanum
I've only dabbled around, but in a generally-broad-industrywide-sense it seemed that the goal was to make the subscriber get essentially what they were used to. In a very general, non-other-game-specific sense, has this kind of problem been prevalent?--- setting new thresholds that are notably lower than prior thresholds subscribers would encounter?
|
Quote:
Even if things aren't removed, bad things still happen. "Oh, we won't remove anything you had access to before... But we won't give you anything new, either, unless you pay extra. See, your service is just the same!" Only it isn't.
|
Originally Posted by Jophiel
I know of at least one instance where an in-game item drop was largely removed when it became available for F2P users via a cash store. Which meant that it no longer dropped for pay users either.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
If you read my post as "shut up about freemium" then you missed the point, IMO.|
Originally Posted by Jophiel
And if they're not yet, then this would be the perfect time to speak against it, huh? Seeing as how we don't know what they're doing, remaining silent now because my "vote" might be wasted seems kind of silly.
|
If it's going to happen then it won't matter that some people on the forums didn't want it to.
If it's not yet happening, then arguing against it is a waste of energy. The decision to do it or not do it won't be made based on "no votes" from the forum. The forum does NOT represent the game playing population at large, and it certainly does not represent the gamers out in the larger world who are not currently playing CoH but might if it was freemium.
Quote:
Not even as the tip of the proverbial iceberg?
|
Originally Posted by SlickRiptide
The forum does NOT represent the game playing population at large
|
Quote:
nope. not even the tip.|
Originally Posted by Flarstux
Not even as the tip of the proverbial iceberg?
|
I've run the numbers before comparing the active player population as determined by average number of posts versus the total population of the listed board members versus the known subscriber numbers versus the expected subscriber numbers. From a purely numerical point of view the active population of the forums could be anywhere from 2% to 15% of the actual paying player base. There are several reasons why the percentage range is so wide.
To put this in comparison for a moment, if somebody was to judge the player base on the forums alone there are several logical conclusions that can be gained:
- All players have at least 2 accounts.
- PvP is an active component of the game with a large number of participants on many servers
- Everybody has at least one level 50 avatar on Hero and Villain side
- Everybody has unlocked Villain and Hero Epic Archtypes
- Everybody uses purples in their builds
- Everybody builds towards defensive soft-cape
- Everybody is sitting on at least 2billion influence on one avatar
- Anybody can use the market to gain millions of influence in a very short amount of time.
We know from the developers decision to move Epic Archtypes to a level 20 unlock that a majority of the player-base hadn't ever reached level 50, and thus not everybody had an Epic Archtype avatar. We also know that players reaching the influence cap is a rare occurrence. The devs are actually on record as describing off-market trades for more than the personal-influence cap as being an abuse of the system, one they are not sure how to address or deal with. The list from that point goes on, and on, and on.
From a strictly practical point of view the forums represent a small group of players, and that small group is, in and of itself, fragmented. In some cases the fragmented nature can be useful, allowing the developers a quick range of feedback on any given specific issue. In most cases the fragmented nature is not so useful. The not-so-gentle point here is that the "jerk" player who does not understand basic game design is more likely to be more vocal, and more forceful in that vocalization, over any given issue from somebody who actually knows what they are typing about. Just look for the calm and collected posts that take time to reason out any given scenario, event, or idea. Then compare the number of those posts to the flat one liners with disparaging remarks.
On some level most game developers understand the communication problems associated with opening up any particular forum or avenue of communication with the player-base. There are a variety of different methods by which game developers can approach the community in order to get effective feedback, such as having a limited-access beta for any given software release, or responding to emails or private messages. For particular issues where mass feedback is required typical approaches include marketing survey's, pop-up notifications in game requesting feedback, and other such methods.
Specifically for CoH, a F2P model probably isn't in the near or long-term future. NCSoft was pretty clear about having a multi-year plan for the CoH franchise, so I'll go-ahead and restate my opinion.
If Going Rogue does not sell as well as NCSoft expects over the Christmas Season, and if subscription rates are not where NCSoft would like them to be by the end of the first fiscal quarter of 2011, NCSoft will likely work with Paragon Studios to pursue building a CoH2 game.
Should NCSoft pursue and develop a sequel title, it is likely that NCSoft would do a unified subscription, with just a single CoH subscription unlocking access to both games. I don't think, at this stage, that a F2P business model is in the cards for City of Heroes as it is now.
Conversion to a F2P model has only largely worked in one circumstance: Market Saturation.
To end this, let me pose a simple question:
How many Fantasy / Medieval themed MMO's are there?
How many sci-fi first person / third person shooters with online components are there?
How many Super-Hero MMO's are there?
Thing is, F2P can work when you have a good basic game that is better than the competitors basic game, but both are in the same market. Charging a subscription fee for something that is offered for free elsewhere can work if you have a good brand-name or an outstanding product.
When nobody else has a competitive product, you can pretty much set your own price. The fact is, as of right now, CoH doesn't have any competitive products. From recent game demonstrations it's likely that CoH will continue to remain unrivaled for a few more years. With the lack of any real competition to force a product or pricing move, there is little reason for NCSoft to pursue a different financial model.
Quote:
I have run the numbers and you are completely wrong. Im not going to post them or cite sources either|
Originally Posted by je_saist
nope. not even the tip.
I've run the numbers before comparing the active player population as determined by average number of posts versus the total population of the listed board members versus the known subscriber numbers versus the expected subscriber numbers. From a purely numerical point of view the active population of the forums could be anywhere from 2% to 15% of the actual paying player base. There are several reasons why the percentage range is so wide. |
Quote:
|
It really isnt that hard.
Quote:
| The not-so-gentle point here is that the "jerk" player who does not understand basic game design is more likely to be more vocal, and more forceful in that vocalization, over any given issue from somebody who actually knows what they are typing about. Just look for the calm and collected posts that take time to reason out any given scenario, event, or idea. Then compare the number of those posts to the flat one liners with disparaging remarks. |
Quote:
The options were clear. People were debating the choices the day it came out.|
Originally Posted by Disappearing Girl
Or the people who didn't think they would use intentional deceptive language in thier advertising it wasn't a clear cut case of being able to read it was a case of being able to read lawyer talk as it was something like 'there are no incentives to prepurchase ' and then they added the prepurchase bonuses.
(posted by iPhone please excuse formatting) |
choice 1 (pre-purchase): No free month, early access to dual pistols and demon summoning, no extras
choice 2: Free month, wait for it and get it all.
Even day one people were wondering how we would get the extras if we pre-purchased.
So any statements that the choice was confusing can only be made by people who couldn't read simple English.
total kick to the gut
This is like having Ra's Al Ghul show up at your birthday party.
Quote:
I don't agree that the forums demonstrate these points. Mostly because none apply to me and I post on the forums a lot |
Originally Posted by je_saist
Everybody builds towards defensive soft-cape
Everybody is sitting on at least 2billion influence on one avatar Anybody can use the market to gain millions of influence in a very short amount of time |
I do prefer soft capes to those chafing hard capes though
On a related note, please don't rise to "Terror1"s ridiculous reply. I think he broke the missed-the-point-o-meter with that one.
The Widow's Dark Hand - leader of Faux Pas
Champion Server
Tee Hee!
I reckon it's a business model NCSoft are looking closely at. Of course with the plethora of expansions and optional packs they are churning out over the last few months they do have their cake and can eat it for the moment.
Given the lack of splash GR seemed to make overall in the gaming community I wouldn't be surprised to see it announced at some point.