Camelot Unchained

[Ingmar]

Yep, you got me. Nothing says casual WoW gamer like 40-60 hour gaming weeks and 0 hours of WoW since 2011.

[Lantyssa]

ToR is Space-WoW.

[Paelos]

ToR is Space-WoW.

And poorly executed at that.

[Ingmar]

To me, it's much better than WoW, but I would never hold up either as my example of how to do PVP/RVR which is what we're actually talking about, which makes this whole derail even stupider. 

[Sjofn]

I love that all these years later, we can still count on INGMAR DOESN'T EVEN RVR LOL posts. 

[Hoax]

If the evidence that Ingmar doesn't stick merely to the most mainstream of titles is that he doesn't play WoW anymore he plays ToR... 

[Ingmar]

Can we maybe stop making this thread about me now? I wasn't even the one tossing insults this time.

[Mattemeo]

The last page and a half of this thread needs denning... 

[Paelos]

I like turtles

[kildorn]

I like turtles

You would, mainstream reptile lover.

[waffel]

Aaaaanyway....

http://www.polygon.com/2013/4/14/4223160/camelot-unchained-dev-says-free-to-play-model-headed-for-disaster

According to Jacobs, free-to-play will "hold its special place" within the industry as other models have done, but will face a fall in a few years that "will be a bit of an apocalypse."

See guys, Mark Jacobs is an innovator. Free to play is just a fad, monthly sub is where its at!

[Lantyssa]

Man.  These old developers really need to find a new line of work.  Or put down the crack pipe.

[apocrypha]

I think he's partly right - the way most F2P/freemium models are going at the moment is such that your game experience is so crippled unless you pay that they may as well be sub-based games.

Several of my friends have said that they'd rather have a good game, that they paid a monthly sub for, if that meant they got *everything* instead of being nickel-and-dimed every step of the way.

Where he's wrong is in thinking a remake of DaoC is going to be the success story that comes out of that crash.

[HaemishM]

Now we all know that Mark Jacobs has never been wrong about ANYTHING in relation to subscription games. 

Romans in space.

[kildorn]

I think he's partly right - the way most F2P/freemium models are going at the moment is such that your game experience is so crippled unless you pay that they may as well be sub-based games.

Several of my friends have said that they'd rather have a good game, that they paid a monthly sub for, if that meant they got *everything* instead of being nickel-and-dimed every step of the way.

Where he's wrong is in thinking a remake of DaoC is going to be the success story that comes out of that crash.

Pretty much where I'm at with them. I like the idea of F2P games. I dislike most of the implementations because in order to make money the things they sell need to be good enough to be worth money. Also, some of the companies absolutely don't understand micro transactions, and you wind up with things like $20-$60 items and such. Just sell me the fucking sub and put it all in at that point.

[Mattemeo]

The only people to get F2P right are Arenanet. Both GW and GW2 are completely, fully operational and fun to play without spending one penny extra beyond the box-charge. I haven't checked out The Secret World since it went F2P so can't comment on their implementation but I know the F2P of City of Heroes was horrible and I've resubbed to SWtOR because I found the penny pinching bullshit their F2P model espouses just made me monumentally angry. I don't mind if you want to charge me for new things, but charging me for shit I used to be able to do, or massively increasing the in-game currency cost of items and then crippling the ammount of currency they can own (so they'll go for RMT as an 'alternative') for nonsubbers is where I draw the line.

[apocrypha]

I think some of the non-MMORPGs have got it almost right.

Path of Exile's implementation is fantastic - only cosmetic items or bank/character slots, but the free allocation of bank/character slots is decently generous. I hope it turns out to be a viable model financially.

World of Tanks is pretty good too. You can play free no problems with some caveats - high tier tanks are expensive to run so you'll need to learn which lower tier tanks you can make money with. Also the premium-only tanks are, IMO, overpriced.

The only F2P MMORPG I can think of that worked for me was STO, although it lockboxes and starbases fucked that up a bit and were what drove me away in the end.

I've seen no evidence, ever, that Mark Jacobs is sufficiently analytical enough, nor aware enough of anything outside his own world, to get these kind of sums right. Therefore I have to say that going sub-based is the only option that makes sense at all for CU.

BTW they need to call the first expansion Nova Tepok. 

[Draegan]

I believe DDO and LOTRO did a great job with F2P. GW2 is great.

[apocrypha]

Have to admit I've not played any of those, but I do intend to check out GW2 sometime, I've heard so many people say good things about it.

[Nebu]

Have to admit I've not played any of those, but I do intend to check out GW2 sometime, I've heard so many people say good things about it.

GW2 is well worth the box cost, especially if you enjoy adventuring.  Playing with a friend makes the game 10x better. 

I still don't like free-2-play in any shape or form.  I'd rather show my support with a subscription or lack of support by leaving.  The ticky-tack nickel and dime shit in today's games makes me crabby. 

I know, I'm old.   

[Hoax]

STO's model seems perfectly fine. DDO got it incredibly EQ2 levels of wrong at the start but they have fixed it. Tera went f2p and seems to have done so in a good place for them to make money and for it not to piss all over customers.

I've heard nothing but bad things about WoT being P2W but a game like that is going to have a lot harder time being f2p than a MMO where pvp isn't much of a focus.

[palmer_eldritch]

I also prefer simply paying a sub to microtransactions.

The trouble with free to play is that it's so often a misnomer. It can't really be free because servers cost money, but if you say it's free then people tend to believe you, only to get upset once they discover there are restrictions designed to make them pay.

In a perfect world though (from the player's point of view) I guess every game would be like GW2. Does anyone know how their business model works, ie why they can offer genuine f2p when firms like SOE can't or won't? Do they just make do with lower profit margins or rely on massive box sales?

[Mattemeo]

An exceptionally well balanced triple economy (real money is traded for gems, gems can be traded for gold and gold can be traded for gems at a real-time exchange rate) and a RMT/gem shop full of useful but not game breaking items and bonuses and costume/weapon skin/pet fluff. I'm personally surprised how much free expansion has gone into GW2 so far, but you can bet there's going to be a boxed expansion within the year. GW had 4 boxes in the end, I wouldn't be surprised if GW2 follows the same pattern. It's entirely possible Arenanet has a less aggressive stance on fleecing customers than say, EA, but they're definitely staying afloat.

[Lantyssa]

Jacobs is wrong.

Not because being f2p versus sub makes a game automagically great, but because people have learned you can have a good game without a sub.  Tacking a sub on to a game does not make it quality.  It doesn't suddenly improve the service.  The pay system in a f2p game still needs to be designed well.  The game still needs to not be shit.

For a well-designed and implemented f2p game what you get is something that is fun for everyone.  You allow those willing to spend a little money, for whatever reason, to get insignificant perks that make them happy.  You have those willing to wet themselves tossing money at the devs keep the lights on.  And everyone gets to do it at the price-point they are happy with.  With a sub, it's take it or leave it.

Management of resources is still an issue.  Making not-stupid business decisions remains important.  Gameplay still matters.  What f2p allows is for a wider player base.  All a sub guarantees is a limited market.

[Paelos]

I still like puzzle pirates and LOTRO as F2P examples done right.

[Ingmar]

I feel like LOTRO would be nigh-unplayable if I didn't have the lifetime sub (or a regular sub). The amount of deed grind to get points to unlock quest/zone packs to progress is just utterly insane - you get people creating a character on every server to grind the same deed repeatedly to get the 5 Turbine points for it etc. Trying to play that one totally for free makes SWTOR look really generous.

Puzzle Pirates on the other hand is a great model, yes.

[Lantyssa]

It's silly, but they have the option at least.  With a sub LoTR and TOR would both be shuttered right now.

Not needing to do such things is part of designing it well.  (And to be fair to both studios, they opened as sub-based games, so they had to hack in f2p systems.)

[Zetor]

Yep, I agree that LOTRO is pretty bad. Deed grinding is terrible, and forcing players to re-buy questing zones ranks pretty high on my list of F2P Transition Dick Moves. SWTOR... eh. I tried it, but all the flashing SUBSCRIBE NOW text was pretty egregious, so I ended up resubbing for a month anyway.

I was sort of ok with COH, but that's because I had enough vet rewards to perma-unlock the invention system and the MA for free. GW2 is great... I like the B2P approach in general.

[Paelos]

I meant that for LOTRO is was doable if you were poor/masochistic. But it's there.

Puzzles Pirates just makes me smile because it's silly, and I like to sail.

[Merusk]

STO's model seems perfectly fine. DDO got it incredibly EQ2 levels of wrong at the start but they have fixed it. Tera went f2p and seems to have done so in a good place for them to make money and for it not to piss all over customers.

I've heard nothing but bad things about WoT being P2W but a game like that is going to have a lot harder time being f2p than a MMO where pvp isn't much of a focus.

STO has a great model, but PWE has begun really putting the screws to people on pricing.  The lockboxes are the first problem in that gambling for items gets fucking expensive.

Now, with Neverwinter, they're also charging $30-$40 for mounts and companions in addition to $5 for 8 bank spaces (expandable 5 times) and that's just over the line.

[kildorn]

STO's model seems perfectly fine. DDO got it incredibly EQ2 levels of wrong at the start but they have fixed it. Tera went f2p and seems to have done so in a good place for them to make money and for it not to piss all over customers.

I've heard nothing but bad things about WoT being P2W but a game like that is going to have a lot harder time being f2p than a MMO where pvp isn't much of a focus.

STO has a great model, but PWE has begun really putting the screws to people on pricing.  The lockboxes are the first problem in that gambling for items gets fucking expensive.

Now, with Neverwinter, they're also charging $30-$40 for mounts and companions in addition to $5 for 8 bank spaces (expandable 5 times) and that's just over the line.

My issue with STO's model is that the actual stuff you can buy is crazy goddamned expensive. It's a pretty playable game without spending a dime, but if you do actually want to spend something, it's about $1 per key for their stupid lockbox stuff, or ~$25 for a ship.

IMO, WoT has the same issue with their premium tanks being entirely too expensive. I get that I'm essentially buying a tiny DLC, but the price of a full retail game for a single item?

[Fordel]

Can we maybe stop making this thread about me now? I wasn't even the one tossing insults this time.

NEVER!




Jacobs is a crazy person, there's not much else to discuss.

[kildorn]

That's a photoshop imo.

[Mattemeo]

What happens next: Nevermore and I plus 62 more ravening Baby Eaters crest the hill behind...

...and probably decide there's too many Mids looking at the dead Hibby to risk it.

[Sjofn]

Puzzles Pirates just makes me smile because it's silly, and I like to sail.

I always get chained to carpentry!

What happens next: Nevermore and I plus 62 more ravening Baby Eaters crest the hill behind...

[...and probably decide there's too many Mids looking at the dead Hibby to risk it.

Alternately, you trickle up to us three at a time. It was very sporting of you guys.