Making CoX F2P: How would you do it?

But VoodooGirl was just responding to people doing the same exact thing, but for the opposite side of the fence...

Exactly.


Anyway... I truly have no desire to see any such thing and, honestly, have a negative connotation attached to turning such a game into a free to play model.

And Forbin took my first answer...
Well played, sir.


However... I could see maybe making the Trial Accounts a little less restricted and treat it as a very limited free to play system, while not changing a thing subscription-wise and micro-transaction-wise.

The OP's suggestion seems a bit poor, as it gives a half-price luxury for subscribers... effectively costing the company money they'd be sure to get otherwise. I just don't think that the money you'd get elsewhere would make up for 50% off from the subscriber-base.

Oh, and VoodGirl... Both my wife and I were Trial Account users who enjoyed the game so much, we subscribed.

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

No they didn't. Turbine made an announcement as recently as January that revenue has tripled under the F2P model. The other F2P game they're hosting has an even more dramatic revenue boost. The latest news I can find about any layoffs at the company is from December 2008, which was two and a half years ago, and even that was in the QA and account management departments, not in core development areas such as programmers, artists, etc.

I can't find any evidence that Turbine experienced a net loss or laid off people due to changing the business model of their games.

Now, mind you, I'm not saying I'm 100% on board with converting CoH to an F2P game. I'm also not saying that F2P is always successful. I'm just saying that unlike some other posters here, I do not view the business model of the game as THE determining factor of whether it will be successful or not. It will depend, as it has always depended, on the developers' collective ability to come up with new and exciting stuff to keep us entertained, and to an even greater extent, the ability of the community to convey that excitement and fun to non-players to get them interested and involved in the game.

I think it's absolutely irrational to contend that a game must be less fun because it's free to play or more fun because you're shelling out $15 every month to play it. If I were a multi-billionaire fan of the game and told Paragon Studios that from here on out, I would personally pay the subscription fee of every player effectively making the game F2P with no additional microtransactions, would you ragequit because I've done you some grave disservice in taking away the utter joy and entertainment of paying $15 every month? Or put another way, should I put the Paragon Wiki behind a $5 per month paywall to magically make it better? Right now, anyone can read it for free, and anyone willing to take a few minutes to create a Titan Network account can edit it for free, so it must be crap? Since Wikia charges you in the form of advertising to read their version of the wiki, it must be a lot higher quality and generally better, right?

Surely it's not the microtransaction aspect that's bothering you, since microtransactions are already in the game in the form of server transfers, name changes, character slots, respecs, and booster packs?

Also, I still get the vibe that a lot of resistance is just normal resistance to the idea of any change. Hell, am I the only one that remembers the blow-up that ensued over the addition/removal/re-addition of the Mystic Fortune prompt? Hundreds of posts dedicated to debating a friggin' simple yes/no prompt! Is anyone surprised that we can't discuss anything without the obligatory DOOOOM! crying? The following is meant to be a blanket general statement, not specifically about going F2P: The one sure way to make sure the game dies is to not change. If Paragon Studios ever gets into the mode of thinking, "We can't try something new because it might upset existing players," they surely have doomed the game to failure.

The fact is that people leave. Without a steady influx of new players to replace or even supplant existing player who are retiring, how is the game supposed to survive? And I can't speak for the developers, but every time I see a threatening ragequit post, I can't help but think, "If they're so petty as to leave over change, it was only a matter of time before we were going to lose them anyway, probably sooner rather than later." I think it's a little ironic that those very ragequit posts may very well be driving the game's management even harder into thinking, "Well, how are we going to get new players to replace them?" because to be blunt, it's probably a lot easier to replace you with a new player than it is to keep your loyalty when you're in such a fickle state of mind.

Just to repeat my previous post here, people just need to chill out. First of all, I'll say yet again that all of this is hypothetical. Second of all, if it comes down the pipeline, it won't destroy the game any more than previous changes--some of them just as much or more controversial as this hypothetical one--have destroyed the game. Third of all, seriously, stop comparing this game to others, good OR bad, even with gyrations and vague allusions to dungeons, rings, champions, or whatever. It's against the explicitly stated rules. Industry-wide, F2P games have succeeded and F2P games have failed. Anyone looking for answers elsewhere is kidding themselves, and can just as easily be rebutted with yet another example from elsewhere. Fourth of all, the devs do listen to players. They don't listen to ragequit posts, so if you want to get their attention and/or sway their opinion instead of just pissing them off, keep it constructive!

Yeesh.

Which is awesome! What I was saying was, in my experiences, I haven't seen many Trial Accounts go to Full Accounts, and if CoH were to flip to a F2P model, restricting "free" accounts in the same way that Trial Accounts - well - we'd basically have the same model we do right now, and the idea with F2P is to make the base game F2P (ideally) with few restrictions, depending on the F2P model.

I wasn't talking about other games either. I was talking about the attitude that any City of Heroes player suggesting an alternative to subscriptions is a freeloading cheapskate who just wants to ride on the coattails of the people who are really paying for the game.

It's not as if you posted "The discussion first came up from a forum posting a year or two ago", Forbin. The extra added dose of judgment of the poster(s) was my point there.

This is all starting to sound personal so I'm going to step off of the subway train at this point. I've already ventured my opinion that the whole thread is mostly a waste of time, except as a thought exercise and that opinion hasn't changed.

I have to agree. Calling a trial account F2P isn't going to change anything.

However with the way CoH is set up I'm not certain that normal restriction can be set up to make it possible to run a F2P model like Turbine does. You would have to restrict teaming, paper/radio missions, AE missions and restructure how you get XP. With Turbine most of the XP is received when you turn in the finished Quest. With CoH, most of the XP is gained during the mission. The mission end bonus is not as major compared with other games. Zones would have to be restricted based on level and whether or not you purchased the zone. I wouldn't want to play with a F2P person who couldn't have access to Talos Island, for example, while I, being a VIP with a paid account have no access. Sure someone may have purchased Talos Island, but couldn't run Citadel unless they also purchased Dark Astoria.

Since we can go pretty much everywhere from anywhere there is no normal terrain gates leading from beginner zone to intermediate, etc.

While I like how Turbine has been able to transition from paid to F2P, I'm not convinced this game can make a similar transition. Turbine's transition was easy and blended well with how the game already operated. Too many things would have to be changed in CoH to make it work in my opinion.

Sorry Slick but I never said that ANY CoH player suggesting an alternative is a freeloading cheapskate. What I actually said was that SOME people don't want to pay for anything and think they are entitled to handouts.

You are also reading something that wasn't said into my post. Probably unintentionally because this has always been a hot topic.

Now as to the idea that what I said is a matter of personal judgement, that isn't true. We've had many examples over the years of people posting that they want stuff for free or at least charged far less than what is currently charged. and the justifications given have ranged from the reasonable to the outright idiotic. We even had one guy complaining that CoH should change it's fees because he wasn't willing to to change what he spent each month.

He listed his expenses among which were

Alcohol
Adult Entertainment
Restaurants
Gambling
Maid Service from a family member
Movie Theatres
Video Rentals
And about a dozen video games that required a sub fee.

Naturally when posters suggested that he'd be able to afford the game if he spent less on a few of the above expenses he listed he responded with


So I wasn't adding judgment into my post. It's a sad fact that those people do in fact exist.

To make CoH F2P, I think you have to make Praetorians the F2P faction.
All players start in Praetoria but at 20 the freeloaders get to stay praetorians and don't get access to the other content(cov/coh).

So it look like this at level 20.

1. Hero
2. Villain
3. Praetorian(F2P), then hero or villain.

As a sub, I would be mad if the freeloaders got access to the stuff I've been paying for. This new model would allow for new lighter content(30mins- to 1 hours mishes only). Also, we create the content for them through the MA that they have to buy on a pay per play usage($1-2.00 per team member). The devs give them maybe 1 or 2 new mishes a quarter. Mishes only no tfs. They don't get access to Incarnate stuff because their casual. F2P is a trend it's not a business practice!

Oh, that's simple. Look at the F2P level of the direct competition. When a thread was made about that going F2P initially, I commented that it was basically a watered down version of CoX. I still believe that holds true.

And it's not like NCSoft couldn't use a similar points store either. Anyone remember Exteel? It had a MTS and you could convert time cards into NCcoin. And see how well that worked...

While it's possible, I truly don't believe it is in NCSoft/Paragon Studios better interest to go the F2P route.

THank you for the time...

Actually, if CoH went F2P, I think just the opposite. This applies to the whole "put them on their own server" idea, too. I don't like being treated like a Pavlovian dog. "To do anything meaningful, you must pay" isn't my idea of free-to-play. Instead, they should figure out ways to integrate new players into the community, not segregate and ostracize them. I'm not saying there should be no limitations on F2P accounts, only that they should be as transparent as possible. There should be no occurrences of I-can't-get-there-itis that plagues some games.

If I'm looking for team members, ideally, there should be no discernible way for me to tell a player is a F2Per versus a paid player. What difference does it make? Today, do you discriminate who you team with among people you don't know based on who has been playing longer than someone else? If someone doesn't have at least a 3-, 6-, or 12-month badge, do you not invite them? If so, you're in a very small minority, and you don't represent the community as a whole, who I've found is usually very welcoming to new players.

If they do gate missions, it needs to be classes of missions; for example, certain task forces. If I'm a F2Per, I just don't join those task forces. If I join others that aren't gated, nobody is any the wiser. Or have the gating be on features that aren't mission-oriented. That's already being done with the release of the bonus packs; certain emotes, costume pieces, and even powers (jump jet, ninja run, etc.) are only available if you pony up $5 or $10. If someone doesn't have the self-destruct power, do I care? I don't even notice. Yet I see it enough to know that it must have sold pretty well.

I think that one of the recurring problems I'm seeing in threads like this is that people are proceeding from the invalid premise that F2Pers are second-class citizens. In fact, they need to be thought of as any other player; potential future long-time friends and contributors to the game. You can't force them to fork over their money, they need to want to do so.

If this is your feeling, then CoH in it's current form will not work. CoH2 will have to be designed to make room for F2P. This way everyone starts relatively the same and the game is designed for F2P needs. CoH now can't be leveled for F2P because the 7 year base will be angry with whatever they do but it's just not fair. We've paid all these years and now F2P comes along and I'm told thanks for paying all these year but now the content is free for everyone. This is why I never joined champions or STO.

No, I don't care about microtransactions for those things.

What I DON'T want is to have to pay a fee every time I want to roll a new character, or enter a new zone, or unlock a contact, or play a new powerset, or change my costume, or any number of other things that are currently included in my subscription fee.

If they charged $5 every time you wanted to roll a new character, I would have been charged $35 this month alone.

Oh, you want to go from Atlas Park to Kings Row? That'll be $1.99 please.

Oh, you want to make a character with a new powerset? $2.99.

You want to advance past level 10? $2.99. Past 20? $2.99. Past level 30? $2.99. And so on.

It doesn't bother me that microtransactions exist. The idea of having to fork over money every time I want to do ANYTHING new is what bothers me. The things microtransactions exist for now are purely optional items that do not affect your gameplay in any significant way. If it were changed so they charge you every time you want to level your character or go to a new zone, I'd be done so fast it's not even amusing.

I am not necessarily against free to play games in general. What I AM against is business models where how far I can advance in the game is determined solely by how deep my pockets are.

Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately.

I really don't think they would be as angry as you think.

Speaking of which, why would you be angry? Do you ever go to a movie, or even rent one? When they eventually show it on broadcast television for free, are you mad that you wasted your $x because now those freeloaders are getting it for free?

I don't see this as being any different. I've been paying for this game since around August 2004, and if they suddenly made it free, I certainly have concerns (some of which I posted way back towards the beginning of the thread), but I wouldn't be angry. I've had access to the game for presumably over seven years! In that time, I've built up a satisfying amount of stuff, I've seen history unfolding, I've made a ton of friends both online and offline, I've saved a ton of money I would have otherwise spent on other leisurely pursuit, an so on. It's well worth the money I've been paying.

Plus, if they made it free, I would likely get to welcome back a whole bunch of friends that have left over the years. Also, I suspect the "My server is a ghost town!" complaints would immediately subside; I'd have an influx of new people to meet and play with. Oh, and depending on how it's done, I might even end up saving money, and I'm guessing that they'd do something to reward their existing paying players.

I'm not saying, "Don't be angry." I suspect that you're representative of at least a chunk of the player base, and I do know where you're coming from. That's a legitimate concern that the devs and reps would have to think about if they took the game to F2P: Backlash from paying players who feel like they've supported the game for years and now a bunch of people get to come in and enjoy for free what we have built with our hard-earned dollars. I guess what I'm saying is, what do you suggest?

Does what I wrote above make sense to you? Because if the game ever went to F2P, it wouldn't just be the devs and reps that will have to convince people it's not the end of the world; it's people like you and me and others who have played the game for years and who want to see it succeed. If the game went to the F2P model (that is, forgetting the "don't do it!" option), what would it take to convince you that you're going to be fine, to embrace the new model and new players--including the F2Pers--and keep supporting the game?

The first part was just to add to your experiences, nothing more (not saying you were wrong or nuffink of the sort). Add two to the Free Trial turned Subscribers category, hehe!

And, as for the models of Trial Accounts and F2P... I wanted to include TonyV's thoughts on this as well...


I understand what you're saying and agree, of course, about the vibe of being something akin to second citizens would be far less than desirable.

However, to me, the major sticking point is this:
I think any transition to a F2P model for a 7 year old game should leave the same business structure in place for already existing/paying subscribers (and, thus, for future ones, as well).
I say this, not out of potential angst that others get what they had to pay for for free, rather because you have a good base of paying subscribers with the existing model and any changes you make, you want to keep them happy... but you also are looking to improve things/income by luring new people in with free play (that is less restrictive than the current Free Trials, but more restrictive than the regular subscription) so that a solid amount of those free players decide to fork over cash to get more out of the product and actually benefit the game more by more than just providing a bigger population.

You don't want to make the game free so that all the current subscribers no longer have to fork over the money to play...
And you don't want to change the plan on existing subscribers so that they're now being nickel-and-dimed for what used to just be a simple/single subscription plan.

Thems my thoughts, at least (just for the what-if thought exercise. I am not convinced, at all, that any such changes need be taken... although, I think a better trial account system could become the pseudo F2P model that could benefit things... if/when things should be done to improve things).

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

Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately.

We're not discussing if it's going to F2P - and as I've stated, I think it's highly improbable CoH will - but we're having a discussion of if it did, how would you construct an F2P model that would work for CoH?

My personal feelings would be mixed... sure, I'd be happy to not pay for it, but I'd be worried about how that would affect the game financially, community-wise and what evil plot I was being led into in order to actually get more money out of me than I was already giving.
Mostly, I'd see this as a bad thing, because it'd mean that the game would suffer for it (unless it was just some miraculous charitable action, but still... the community and the game would likely suffer, so I'd not be happy).


Tough question, because I'm thinking that higher levels (maybe 35 or so) would be a prime candidate for locking behind pay.
I'm honestly not sure... More advanced systems, content and features... but I see problems arising from such restrictions. Acquiring such content individually, I think... But maybe joining them with others would be okay... but that's not much of a restriction. It's a tricky balance finding restriction that doesn't feel restricting. Meditate on this... I will.

Again, difficult for me to say, offhand, but, let's try... (I know that whatever any of us answers with, people will find major faults with it. I could list valid arguments against each and any thing that I list, myself, hehe. Doesn't make the answers wrong, nor the complaints right. Nor the other way around, of course. Simply put, you have to break eggs to make an omelet).
Certain Levels (cap at around level 30), AE creation and access, perhaps CoOp Zones (probably not worth limiting), Incarnate Content, Certain Arcs/TFs/Content, the Market... Huh... you could restrict the Tailor... that seems evil (especially to a costume creator addict like myself), but... maybe that;s some good enticement to fork over money.

Again, all under the idea of being able to pay the standard subscription fee to have all of this covered and available, zero extra charge.

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

I feel an F2P that isn't custom made for the existing playerbase will fail. I don't think the reasons behind switching to it from a subscription based model are entirely evil. The community, I feel, would only suffer if they allowed their attitude to be as such; that this will ruin them.

I'm still not a big fan on the idea of locking out levels - I certainly wouldn't want to pay for levels 35 - 50 on each character I have, but, for me, the way I view it, it would cancel out the idea of "free to play." For me "free to play" means free to play the game, levels 1 - 50, not levels 1 - 35. I could stuff, like you suggested, the Market, Mission Architect, etc. as being MTS.

Nothing is ever perfect out of the gate - sometimes a foundation needs to be laid before the rest can be built.

Claws had a made a very important point here. "Current Business Model, " Banks/financiers look at the number of subs and revenue from the the subs. This model is vital for the company. It let's them "predict" business conditions to a degree. Example, we 50,000 sub that generated x amount of revenue.

The F2P model is not fully accepted by the financiers. Turbine is making it work supposedly but going from $1 to 3 dollars don't make this viable to me(this comment is made in regards to the OP that said turbines revenues were growing). Turbine is in the best position to make this work though. Cryptic did it but they ticked off paying subs and this irritated lots of people.

Finally, CoH has challenges because unlike turbine who is doing everything new. CoH has a base of paying which complicates things. If they go F2P, I'll leave the game personally, CoH doesn't even have enough space for paying users based on lag and disconnects that seem to be regular these days.

One More comment I want to make, F2P is not free. You will pay more. Don't let the name fool you. If COH should go F2P it is because they can make more money. Which is a business priority.

In case you missed it (and I'm not being accusatory or facetious; I don't keep up with all dev/rep posts myself), they are addressing this very problem in a very non-hypothetical way as we speak. I'll let Second Measure chime in from another thread...

This is the kind of constructive concern that I like seeing posted, something tangible that NCsoft/Paragon Studios could actually address. Unfortunately, with the "I'm leaving the game..." comment on a hypothetical change, you're coming off as pushing an agenda instead of having a good faith discussion. If the lag issue was solved even with higher populations of F2Pers, do you still maintain that you'd leave? If so, why?

At any rate, since this is hypothetical, I'm probably going to stop posting in this thread. As interesting as it is, I do have a bunch of other stuff I need to work on.

I understand what your saying but what we are talking about is hypothetical...coh will never go F2P.

What agenda do you think I'm trying to push? What agenda do think I have as a paid sub to CoH?

I play this game end of story. I commented on the current problems in the game. Since CoH will never go F2P, I'll never leave

If I did have an agenda, I would be banned or comments removed by Community Manager. Now if I said YOU should leave that's a problem.

I can speak my opinion this is America.