Making CoX F2P: How would you do it?

But... but... I wrote my college sociology report on stuff I found written in cemeteries and public rest rooms!

Yeah, I think F2P gets a bad rap to some degree because the model is so new, and therefore it tends to attract previously subscription-based games that are desperate for something, anything, to improve their situation.

They fail because they were failing regardless.

There does seem to be a loose consensus among MMO players that the conversion to F2P spells doom, because it often does spell doom. But that's little more than a widespread post hoc fallacy; there's no clear evidence that the conversion to F2P is the direct cause of failure in most cases.

Whatever your opinion on the merits of the F2P model, changing mid-stream from subscription to F2P is a big deal; it does represent a large risk. Publishers are understandably reluctant to take that risk when they have any choice at all in the matter. The trick is in the timing and in the execution.

As far as CoH goes, it already has a kinda-sorta, quasi-F2P model. We have trial accounts that can get a taste for the game and (in theory) improve low-level population volume. We have Booster Packs. We have a (minor) population divider in Going Rogue. It isn't a stretch to think that CoH could move farther down the F2P path, either incrementally or in one big go. It isn't a stretch to think that such a move could be successful.

FWIW, I think it's gonna happen eventually no matter what we say. Hopefully it'll be done right. Hopefully the game will survive in one form or another for years and years to come.

Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze Nice build

Where would the first place be, then? Seriously, I'm curious. I know any particular MMOs boards are only visited by a small subset of it's population, and ergo, the Generic MMO boards are an even smaller subset of that, but where else are people talking about MMOs and gaming other than MMO and gaming sites?

Personally if I were a large company I'd do a customer survey of a random portion of my active player base.

No it wouldn't be perfect either but it would at least eliminate most of the selection bias you get on message boards.

No, I mean as the average person. Where would the average person go if they were looking for info, or other people's opinions on a new game, or a significant change to an existing one?

Posters are self-selected advocates and smart alecs. Myself included. If you want to know what the average person thinks about politics, you don't read political bulletin boards. You select people randomly who aren't themselves self-selected for highly skewing personal motivations.

That's what makes MMO boards the *worst* place to take the pulse of the MMO player community at large. You're more likely to get a representative sample of people standing in line at Taco Bell.

Assuming non-subscribers have access to the forums. I would assume that under an F2P model where people can make an unlimited number of accounts and even a large number of master accounts, this would be highly restricted.

• 15-30 contacts (The issue with restricting contacts is then you just leave free accounts to "street sweep" to level - and when you get that timed mission where you have to defeat 30 Carnies in 15 minutes?)
• 30-40 contacts (see above.)
• 40-50 contacts (see above.)
• Incarnate (As stated earlier (albeit after this was originally posted,) I could see this being a subscriber-only feature.)
• Radio/Newspaper also for sale in level tiers (You have to leave the free players something to grind!)
• Tip missions as well (Along the lines of side-switching, AE, Blackmarket, etc. I can agree with this being subscriber only content and/or limited purchase-ables.)
• Access to TF individually for sale (Some of these TF's are "core content" about the main storyline of CoH/CoV and I'm a bit iffy with the idea of making them purchase-ables.)
• Limited market slots (can buy more) (Agreed.)
• Limited costume slots (can buy more) (Agreed.)
• Limited character slots (can buy more) (Agreed.)
• Low influence cap, you can buy bigger wallets. (2 millon cap?)

Developers won't go for this on an existing game. I hate to say this but who would knowingly enter a game with so many restrictions?

I know that (sorta acknowledged it in the post) but that still leaves the question of where would one go (and generally speaking, if they're in line at Taco Bell, I'm not sure their opinion on anything is valid ).

Aren't trial accounts currently restricted in terms of things like Global Channels?

True, non-subscribers could clutter up broadcast and local. Suppose we were to add this extra restriction: if you want access to broadcast and local (and maybe some other stuff) you don't have to pay, but you *do* have to either have a credit card on file or alternatively buy some minimum of in-game store currency. That way, the ban hammer has teeth, but players don't have to actually pay anything to use those services. If they buy store currency that is at risk, and if they have a card on file that card itself can be banned limiting the damage a single player could do.

I could imagine five tiers of players:

1. Free to play trial players. Absolutely free, nothing required to join. However, these accounts are more like trial accounts and they won't have access to broadcast, local, or global chat channels. They would be essentially locked out of the in-game economy: no buying or selling from the market, no global mail transfers. Things like supergroups would probably be blocked. And all higher end stuff would be excluded: no alignment merits, no incarnate powers, no epic archetypes, etc. But they could at least run the character creator, roll up a hero or villain, and try the actual gameplay out.

2. Free to play starter players: No subscription necessary, but either credit card must be filed with master account or minimal store currency purchased (doesn't have to be spent). Basic access to most core gameplay including basic chat channels. Tier 1 can be upgraded immediately to tier 2 at any time.

3. Free to play veteran players: No subscription necessary, enhanced gameplay awarded based on a combination of being player in good standing for length of time and by amount purchased from the in-game stores.

4. Basic subscribers: subscription necessary, enhanced gameplay due to subscription. Some elements of the game still ala carte.

5. Veteran subscribers: subscribers in good standing with many veteran badges and/or in combination with ala carte purchases. Increased access to optional gameplay items that are otherwise ala carte for other subscribers and F2P players.

You know that can't be answered because it violates forum rules.

Then talk about in general what they did and don't mention their name. I'm just curious...PM me.

Get a reasonably smart outfit, a fake ID badge and a clipboard. Go to the mall (or some other area that contains a reasonable cross-sampling of humanity) and ask people if they'd mind participating in a survey about video games.

Sure you'll get a horrible rate of acceptance and possibly even get arrested (or at least escorted out by mall security) but you'll still get a better response than you would on a message board (for the reasons Arcana already gave).

Without comparing, contrasting, or even discussing any actual game specifically, both of Turbine's fantasy role playing MMOs that switched from a subscription only model to a sub+F2P model have been stated to have greatly boosted their revenues after the conversion.

Honestly, there is no one place to go. If there was, even the MMO producers would go there and get their answer. Its very hard to determine.

However, one empirical way to determine if the majority of players genuinely believe that an F2P conversion means the kiss of death to an MMO is to see how recent F2P conversions have gone. Does it increase subscriber count, activity in-game, revenues for the company, and most importantly enthusiasm within the MMO community.

People talk. The devs at Paragon Studios collectively probably hear a lot of inside chatter from Turbine, Cryptic, and every other MMO development house out there. If its working or not working, if it seems like things are improving or not improving. In every profession the grapevine is a critical source of information. And if F2P was a disaster everywhere, you'd notice in the tone of MMO developers and producers. If it was wildly successful, you'd see that in the tone of MMO developers and producers as well. If it was somewhere in the middle, you'd hear that also.

Given the fact that industry people don't usually just give interviews randomly, what do you think this interview says about the mood and sentiment about F2P as a model within NCSoft and the MMO development industry as a whole? Jeremy Gaffney probably isn't the best person to ask about what the sentiment is within the MMO player community at large, but he might be a useful proxy to figure out what MMO developers think the sentiment is within the larger MMO player community, which is a useful data point.

You know how it is whenever a subject comes around that people, for various reasons, have an emotional investment in engaging in.

The vast majority of players probably will simply continue on, noticing but not especially caring, about whatever business model NCSoft decides to implement for City of Heroes into the future. Its we the vocal minority that will always be the challenge for Paragon Studios. We might be an asset in some ways, but we're a liability in others. Being vocal, emphatic, and involved are all good things most of the time, but when we're set in our ways that can be a problem as well.

The bottom line is that I like this game and I want it to succeed. That means I will do what I can to help it succeed. I won't lie about my dislikes and my disagreements with the developers: I won't spin something I know to be bad into something that seems good. But regardless of what I like and dislike, I will try to make the game better, not just for me but for all, or at least the majority of its players.

And the important thing about F2P, or any other commercial business model, is that its not the model, but the execution of that model that determines success or failure. So anyone saying things like "if the game goes F2P I'm quitting" is free to draw their line in the sand, but its a line I don't afford much credibility towards. I don't think it means much, just as most I'm quitting statements don't mean much. But even for the players that do ultimately quit, if you'll quit over something you don't know and don't understand, and cannot possibly predict its impact on the game, well I hate to lose you, but I'm also convinced we never really had you.

Speculation is fine, as long as everyone realizes that their speculation is just that. No one really knows what NCSoft is going to do with City of Heroes next week, next month, next year, unless they are an actual Paragon Studios insider with first hand knowledge. Everyone else is just guessing. And guessing what you'll do after NCSoft does what someone else guesses they'll do in response to someone else's guesses about what NCSoft will decide is premature at best.

Discussion along these lines should be thought-provoking, not unnerving. The future will be waiting for us when we get there.

Or will it??

The Electric-Knight ______ Malfaz _____ Zox'Oculox

@Zethustra

"Now at midnight all the agents and the superhuman crew come out
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan

www.pauldamonthomas.com - Original Music

...and it will.

[Citation needed]

The Electric-Knight ______ Malfaz _____ Zox'Oculox

@Zethustra

"Now at midnight all the agents and the superhuman crew come out
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan

www.pauldamonthomas.com - Original Music