Goblin Squad Member
|
Thats correct Nihimon.
Which means Eve's free to play model is one player selling game time to another player for game money.
Eve was trying to go to a free to play... that lasted about a week. As soon as the player population got wind of it, they started canceling accounts.
Eve players wanted to keep it pay to play, the free to play games die off way to quick from what Ive seen.
And yes, I cancelled my 4 accounts until CCP (Eve) reversed their decision.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thats correct Nihimon.
...
Eve was trying to go to a free to play... that lasted about a week...
I don't understand how those can both be true.
In PFO, you will (currently) be able to log in and play a character even if you don't have an active subscription. You won't even have to be using a Skill Training Kit.
Is that true in Eve? Or do you have to have an active subscription (or an active PLEX) to log in and play?
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of people inside CCP want EVE to be free to play. However they're faced with the Innovator's Dilemma. As they have two really big irons in the fire (DUST 514 and World of Darkness) the risk/reward ratio for making fundamental changes to EVE's business model is really poor. If they tank EVE while experimenting, it will kill the company.
So they're not experimenting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
ubscription. You won't even have to be using a Skill Training Kit.
Is that true in Eve? Or do you have to have an active subscription (or an active PLEX) to log in and play?
You have to have an active subscription to log in.
And plex costs more than a subscription. They make more money when people are playing for free.
Yea a sub is $15 a month. But to buy a Plex from CCP it's $19.95 (or $20).
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
... Implying that every player bought a sub or PLEX at some point (unless you can make enough ISK to buy one within the trial period).
That's a pretty significant gate to entry for some; the elitist in me wants to keep that gate in place because I associate it with an undesirable demographic.
Then again, that particular demographic has no trouble getting $60 games on launch day and covering an XBOX live subscription, so it probably wouldn't keep them out.
I know what you mean Decius. I do believe that games that have no cost to access have a greater population of people who just want to ruin the fun of legitimate players. That's why I'm generally not in favor of the f2p model. But if there is a box cost, digital or physical then at least it requires some expenditure to play.
I think people misinterpret the impact of PLEX in EVE. A couple of things should be understood:
1) For every month an account is live, someone paid CCP cash for it. Whether that is a sub from the account holder or a PLEX purchase from a third party is irrelevant to CCP, except that they make more money from PLEX.
2) I would guess most people sub for a few months before PLEXing their account. Some don't PLEX because it would take too much of their game time to generate in game currency to buy each PLEX.
3) I think it highly unlikely that the existence of PLEX draws undesirable types to a game. EVE has the system and probably the most mature MMO population I have ever experienced. See point 2, PLEXing is a fair bit of work, so probably not something the 'undesriables' are inclined to do to keep an account active, unless I misinterpret your meaning.
4) Training stops in PFO when subs cease. Based on my EVE experience it will be years before people run out of things they want to train. I doubt the free to play without training will discourage too many subs. This element may, however, increase the likelihood of 'undesirables.'
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I know what you mean Decius. I do believe that games that have no cost to access have a greater population of people who just want to ruin the fun of legitimate players. That's why I'm generally not in favor of the f2p model. But if there is a box cost, digital or physical then at least it requires some expenditure to play.
Curious about this also. Veering thoughts: Niche population involving like-minded playerbase is probably conducive. Equally the common interest eg game, should have it's own language eg learning curve in EVE or esports understanding is both a shared understanding and a barrier to entry? Price imo is better for online community as the value is the social collection of people which requires some form of investment/commitment; at least I find that in rl social groups, even if it's not that high a cost/membership fee. Alternatively f2p + hacking, as seen in PS2, maybe is an issue for any online activities? I wonder if the self-organisation qualities of mmorpgs is another important element to this taking a positive growth, such as in EVE Online?
Perhaps that flies in the face of removing all barriers eg F2P trends in mmorpgs, but can't shake that feeling F2P is better suited for app games than mmorpgs?!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
4) Training stops in PFO when subs cease. Based on my EVE experience it will be years before people run out of things they want to train. I doubt the free to play without training will discourage too many subs. This element may, however, increase the likelihood of 'undesirables.'
I'd say the big 2 issues that PFO will likely have, is the danger of as mentioned, undesirables, IE suicide gankers etc... Eve had this issue also of f2p 2 weeks or younger characters performing suicide missions to accomplish things.
If I am not mistaken that was a cornerstone of the famous titan takedown, wherein thousands of low level characters in the weakest ship in the game.. basically teamed up to take down the most advanced, and expensive ship that was in the game at that time, I believe a pretty large number of combatants in that fight, were trial accounts that were people who had never played before but simply registered to be pawns in the fight, and some were alts of people who did not want any losses on their main.
Other high risk I see happening, plex sold between players at a rate that, well hypothetically one could earn it in the time of a trial, if the character seriously busted his hump and played 9 hours a day or so.
PFO there will be no time pressure to earn the money... but I imagine that could also create a much higher price of the training item. It could take months of 9 hour days doing nothing but the highest profit tasks possible, to be able to afford 1 month with training.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
EVE has never really had a problem with the trail accounts having a meaningful negative impact on things. You can't get into a Battleship fit for suicide ganking with a trial account. You can use a trial as a disposable market alt, or bait for a trap, or as a tackler in a big fleet fight, and people do, but they're not really an issue.
The Goons perfected the art of massing lots of pilots in relatively cheap ships with relatively cheap fittings and using that horde to take down much more experienced, much better equipped foes. They did this with accounts that weren't usually trial accounts, but were much younger than their opposition. The key to their tactic was a short interior line of communication; they stockpiled ships and modules very close to where their fights too place so that pilots could refit and get back into the fight very quickly, whereas their opponents usually did not have the same luxury. The longer the line of supply became the less effective the Goon tactics became, and eventually they morphed into a fairly high-skilled, high cost battleforce like their original opponents.
Getting a pilot trained up to be an effective Goonswarm member usually took longer than the trial period, so they did not rely on disposable alts for their victories, just raw numbers of new recruits, and a set of tactics that their opponents had never encountered.
Sorry Ryan it is obviously a while since you played eve then the common choice of boat for suicide ganking these days is the catalyst a destroyer. You can easily get into one of those on a trial in fact the tutorial missions give you one
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, thats mostly true Ryan.
But you could train a free trial character into a destroyer with enough volley damage to kill a Hulk (mining barge).
This was done quite a bit, along with using a week or two from one of your alt slots for the same purpose. (this is I think what the Goons were doing)
All three things were being done, until now when CCP changed ships enough that barges could handle the volley damage long enough for Concorde to show up.
and now the destroyers come in groups and still achieve the kill
Thats correct Nihimon.
Which means Eve's free to play model is one player selling game time to another player for game money.
Eve was trying to go to a free to play... that lasted about a week. As soon as the player population got wind of it, they started canceling accounts.
Because, by and large, the EVE playerbase is elitist in the extreme.
Eve players wanted to keep it pay to play, the free to play games die off way to quick from what Ive seen.
All games I've ever heard of that went F2P saw increases in their revenue between 300 and 400%, among them most famously would be Turbine's DDO which began turning a profit for the first time in a long while after they went F2P. Enough of a profit that the game saw a solid year of intense content production including a new player class (the Druid), several huge content expansions (dungeon and adventure hubs) and a rapid patch release rate for maintenance. I don't have solid numbers on their player population, but what I saw during the change was that the playerbase expanded radically. My gut estimation is between 1.5 and double.
And yes, I cancelled my 4 accounts until CCP (Eve) reversed their decision.
Would you like to tell us what was your reason for opposing F2P? Do you mean it was entirely the way EVE's account-age-for-character-power advancement model allows newly created accounts to be able to at least contribute meaningfully in combat?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where to begin...
Eve players are elitist, agreed there, its a high skill level game. Most people cant handle it, nor can they handle the PVP aspect.
I dont know about the money of F2P games... but the ones ive played are boring, and way too many kids being kids.
In Eve new players can contribute in combat, once they have learned the game a bit. Which is why eve players are elitist. Again, most people dont have the attention span to learn it.
I oppose F2P because it invites griefers and children (mentally more then physically) to come into game... and make the place terrible. Also there is the turn around of players. People come and go in F2P way too much for a game like Eve to be meaningful.
Back in '06 I ran a new player friendly corp. The turnover with new players was insane. Sure people left and went on to other things, but more people just cancelled their subscriptions and left their characters in corp. It was really annoying to clean the roster every week or month of players that havent logged in for over a month. Especially after you spent a ton of time teaching them the game.
Eve players are elitist, agreed there, its a high skill level game. Most people cant handle it, nor can they handle the PVP aspect.
Judging by EVE's charted total population, I don't think the data supports your opinion. That the population has grown steadily to reach 500k shows that players can definitely "handle" the skill requirements, and given the age of EVE, it's impossible for them to not know going in what EVE is all about. So they can definitely "handle" the PvP, too.
As an aside, EVE is by far one of the easiest games I've ever played in my life. Gameplay wise. The meta-game may be complex (which is not the same thing as saying it's difficult), but the act of playing the game itself involves about as much attention and requires as much skill as watching paint dry. Which is the big reason I can't stand to play it anymore after eight or nine years off and on.
I dont know about the money of F2P games... but the ones ive played are boring, and way too many kids being kids.
It's likely the F2P games attract minors without incomes of their own, but a mere subscription most certainly does not prevent their entry. Besides, when it comes to childish behavior, I would say that's exactly what EVE is all about. Petty warlords, ponzi schemes, backstabbing and general skullduggery is exactly what EVE is famous for and it's exactly what its target audience wants to engage in. That is, EVE is the only game where the developers allow (and even openly encourage) the sorts of behavior that can only be described as "negative".
In Eve new players can contribute in combat, once they have learned the game a bit. Which is why eve players are elitist. Again, most people dont have the attention span to learn it.
I did find myself wondering what there was to feel elite about if even a noob can fight effectively. I think you'll find, though, that people who lack the attention span for EVE are just those who realize that they've been paying for a form of entertainment they don't enjoy. If they want to wrangle spreadsheets and mindlessly tap buttons, they can usually find gainful employment in the real world which will pay their rent for doing so...
I oppose F2P because it invites griefers and children (mentally more then physically) to come into game... and make the place terrible. Also there is the turn around of players. People come and go in F2P way too much for a game like Eve to be meaningful.
Griefing is the sole reason for EVE's existence. It's a P2P game boasting the largest concentration of griefers and designed with a lack of rules to punish or inhibit them. That's it's claim to fame. The game's purpose, theme and method.
Children will be attracted to any entertainment they perceive as "cool", with varying coefficients on their influx based on how many of their friends are doing it, whether it's popular among their idols, and how easy it is for them feel satisfaction with. In this case, I think the EVE playerbase's fears of being overrun by kids is unfounded since if you can find a population of kids who can keep their eyes open while playing EVE you should want to cultivate and keep track of them because they'll be valuable employees in ten years.
Back in '06 I ran a new player friendly corp. The turnover with new players was insane. Sure people left and went on to other things, but more people just cancelled their subscriptions and left their characters in corp. It was really annoying to clean the roster every week or month of players that havent logged in for over a month. Especially after you spent a ton of time teaching them the game.
Not logging in doesn't mean your character isn't gaining skill points (XP). And that's probably the main reason your new players didn't bother logging in for a month at a time if they were training something that would take 60 days or whatever. Just play WoW instead, so they say. Hard to get excited about playing EVE when all you've got to look forward to is yet another mindless mining expedition for what amounts to a pittance of ISK or getting insta-popped and podded for the umpteenth time. The income potential of a newer player is simply not enough of a reward to log in when other games offer instant and visceral feedback.
Again, the weaknesses of EVE (especially in '06 when WoW was reaching a zenith of splendor) is how freakin' boring it is as a gaming experience.
EVE abstracted away everything that most people find pleasurable about playing games. EVE resembles work at an office job more than it does the romance and thrill of being a space pirate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
um...
Youve played the game on and off for 8 or 9 years? Then you were there early enough then it is easy. In the beginning for new players it is not.
I disagree that eve is about "yadda yadda." There is that element, but thats not what its about. Most corps Ive been a part of were not. Eve Devs do not "openly encourage" it either, they just dont discourage it.
If your Eve experience was spreadsheets and mindless button tapping, Im sorry. That was not my experience. A noob can only fight effectively if they have been trained or are in a group... thus learning the game a bit.
Griefing is not Eves sole reason to exist. If that was your experience in the game, again Im sorry.
If you have had a problem keeping your eyes open playing Eve, Im sorry.
Yes, a noob not logging in for over a month is a cancelled sub. They have nothing to train that takes 60 days, unless they have been playing for alot longer to begin with.
Seriously if your Eve experience was work and boredom, but played for 8 or 9 years... ...Im sorry...
...Did you run mining ops or somthing? Maybe run missions all day?
Eve is a PVP game. If you played Eve and did not PVP most of your time online... then ... again ... Im Sorry.
...y'know what's a great game?
Runescape.
In seriousness, I have heard it said that the EVE community possesses...
...the greatest concentration of sociopaths I have seen.
That was in response to a story he'd just recounted. Not sure if it's relevant, but I'll put it up here.
As head of Goonfleet, one of the most powerful alliances in EVE space, he targeted a gullible miner called "The Wis" (as in "wizard"). (In EVE, miners are people who escape reality by pretending to be computer programs, repeating the same boring actions over and over to make a small number bigger.) Goonfleet annihilated the Wis so brutally and repeatedly that he sent the Mittani a personal message begging to be left alone, confessing that EVE was all that kept him going since his wife left him and pledging to stay out of Goonfleet's way.
By the way, it's a good rule to assume that anything you write online might be seen by the entire world.
The Mittani didn't just share this mail: He flew to Iceland to present it as a PowerPoint, grabbing a microphone and putting on a wizard hat to read it out in a whiny voice at the official EVE Fanfest 2012, which was being broadcast live around the world, closing by giving out the target's name and inviting everyone else in the game to target him and help drive him to suicide.
The guy got banned for a whole month for that stunt. A WHOLE MONTH, GUYS.
Now, I can't say for sure that this story is true--I have never played EVE. I play real games. Like Runescape. If it is, it's probably an interesting insight into EVE at its worst. That's probably the element PFO is most surely going to be avoiding, of course.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So... it sounds like "The Wis" was a macro miner.
The Goons ran a Hulkaggedon campaign to destroy all Hulks in high sec... The intention originally was to force CCP to make mining more lucrative in 0.0 space, but it turned into griefing.
Yeah Mittani is a joke to most of Eve, and yeah now runs the second biggest alliance in Eve. Who honestly are jokes as well. They have the numbers to do whatever they want really... But are still a joke.
I dont know if he was banned for a month, but he was kicked of the CSM board. Which is a player elected board to discuss Eve planning with CCP.
Oh and LOL Runescape
Yes, that is the kind of garbage that Im sure PFO is trying to (WILL) avoid.
I don't see anything showing the Wis was a macro miner. I think the guy my friend was quoting was just being snarky about the repetitive nature of mining. ;D
I rest my case.
PFO still has a chance to avoid EVE's mistakes... but isn't trying very hard to do so.
Often when a game goes f2p they dumb down the game, making leveling easier, often giving bonus exp and even loot in an effort to draw a line between those playing for free and those paying to play.
Often when a game goes f2p they dumb down the game, making leveling easier, often giving bonus exp and even loot in an effort to draw a line between those playing for free and those paying to play.
I'm unsure how easier leveling and loot makes the distinction between F2P and P2P players more clear...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Often when a game goes f2p they dumb down the game, making leveling easier, often giving bonus exp and even loot in an effort to draw a line between those playing for free and those paying to play.I'm unsure how easier leveling and loot makes the distinction between F2P and P2P players more clear...
Possibly the tendency to go from P2P - F2P - P2W is what is being alluded to? Even PS2 and LOTRs, there have been grumbles over certain aspects of F2P.
Possibly the tendency to go from P2P - F2P - P2W is what is being alluded to? Even PS2 and LOTRs, there have been grumbles over certain aspects of F2P.Often when a game goes f2p they dumb down the game, making leveling easier, often giving bonus exp and even loot in an effort to draw a line between those playing for free and those paying to play.I'm unsure how easier leveling and loot makes the distinction between F2P and P2P players more clear...
That's pretty much it. They have to create an artificial (in some games it's physical) barrier between those playing for free and those who are paying. Something that makes the free people say " man I need to buy that" or " wow if I pay I get these". Often they give the
Paying people free exp each week or so, free coin, all kinds of things.What this does is change the game from what it once was, to something an old time player doesn't enjoy playing if they tried to return.
That's what I was talking about, I was still pretty asleep earlier ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... Even PS2 and LOTRs, there have been grumbles over certain aspects of F2P.
But Avena the sad fact is that the presence of grumbling is a common enough occurance among gatherings of humanity to be proposed a candidate for an identifying characteristic of the species, along with 'bipedal', 'bilateral', and 'chordate'. I just don't find the presence of grumbling particularly revelatory toward whatever they grumble about.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is there a way to know how many people actually play EVE? Could the 500K subscribers be 250K just every person averages 2 accounts? EVE has a "sidekick" promotional that lets you cheaply start an alt account. Could that be the true source of EVE as a "growing" game? one of the posters above mentioned he subs 4 accounts.
These are important questions to ask because GW seems to have a fundamental tenant of their business model the "fact" that EVE is a growing niche game. Is that true?
Second, EVE is not free to play. You can buy PLEX from other players with in-game currency, but SOMEONE had to buy that PLEX from CCP. This is my second concern about the GW PFO model. Could EVE have been profitable on the GW business model?
For example, I start a crafter main and join a company. I train all the skills I need to make the most amazing short swords in the game. I turn a nice profit selling shortswords. I stop paying GW any money because I turn such a nice profit on selling shortswords that I buy my skill training with in-game money. Where is the future GW income from me
For example, if EVE was free to play but you needed to buy PLEX or subscribe to get skill training.... Play for free, whenever I collected a spare 500,000isk (eve money about enough to buy a PLEX) I buy one plex every few months to advance my skills.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For example, I start a crafter main and join a company. I train all the skills I need to make the most amazing short swords in the game. I turn a nice profit selling shortswords. I stop paying GW any money because I turn such a nice profit on selling shortswords that I buy my skill training with in-game money. Where is the future GW income from me?
Training time in PFO is going to work like plex in eve, IE someone has to buy it, the prices will hit supply/demand rates etc... The issue would come if say your alt trader, reached a point where he could make enough money to feed your main's training, and thus you no longer need to train your alt, but someone would still need to be paying real money for any characters you train, and of course training time will be subject to the laws of supply/demand. IE if there are far more people who are attempting to buy training time, than there are people buying extra training time, the in game cost of it will go up, as people selling it will be able to mark the price up further.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why we would be worrying about EVE Online here?
EVE obviously has a good working model for its revenue stream. It has been around, on a subscription basis, for over 10 years. It has broken the 500,000 subscription / account mark for the first time.
We can only hope that PFO will be as long lasting and successful. It would be great if it could surpass that, but not at the expense that comes with not being a niche game I hope it will be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Training time in PFO is going to work like plex in eve, IE someone has to buy it, the prices will hit supply/demand rates etc... The issue would come if say your alt trader, reached a point where he could make enough money to feed your main's training, and thus you no longer need to train your alt, but someone would still need to be paying real money for any characters you train, and of course training time will be subject to the laws of supply/demand. IE if there are far more people who are attempting to buy training time, than there are people buying extra training time, the in game cost of it will go up, as people selling it will be able to mark the price up further.
Onish, you raise an excellent point. Has it been confirmed that GW will only allow you to buy training time with real money? I'm sure it has.
I guess my point though is that in eve, if they have 500K subs, then even at 15 per month (its higher because plex is higher) you know you are bringing in 7.5 million in revenue.
But in the PFO model of buying skill training when you want. Subs won't be "paying" all the time like they are in eve. Someone may only buy training time 3 or 4 months of the year. Lets say the average in PFO was an optimistic 50% of the time. The same 500,000 subs that EVE has would only generate 3.75 million in revenue. The "danger" of the PFO model is supporting 500K players with less revenue. Lets say this is a niche game that peaks at 100,000 subscribers in the first year with an optomistic half paying for training time. Can the game grow with less then a million in revenue a month? Will GW be profitable with a free to play model in a small niche?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't see why we would be worrying about EVE Online here?
Bludd, repeatedly it has been stressed by GW and the other posters that PFO is not so much the roleplaying game translated to an mmo as this is goign to be EVE set in a medieval fantasy setting.
This game is eve online translated to the pathfinder setting.
For example, I start a crafter main and join a company. I train all the skills I need to make the most amazing short swords in the game. I turn a nice profit selling shortswords. I stop paying GW any money because I turn such a nice profit on selling shortswords that I buy my skill training with in-game money. Where is the future GW income from me
You then become content for other players. You'll need raw materials to create your short swords. People who need short swords will use your crafts to fulfill their needs. Maybe in the future you will want to create an adventurer and will need to buy training time, or maybe you'll want to buy that epic cool looking mount from the RMT store. There are all sorts of possibilities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Soldack Keldonson: PFO: Relationship with Pathfinder and with MMORPG Sandbox (key exemplar: EVE Online) - Summary
That's not to say it's equally neither Pathfinder (it's not PnP, it's a online computer video game) nor EVE Online (it's not spaceship in space!). ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Soldack Keldonson: PFO: Relationship with Pathfinder and with MMORPG Sandbox (key exemplar: EVE Online) - Summary
That's not to say it's equally neither Pathfinder (it's not PnP, it's a online computer video game) nor EVE Online (it's not spaceship in space!). ;)
I get it. I was trying to explain that to others.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why we would be worrying about EVE Online here?
Bludd, repeatedly it has been stressed by GW and the other posters that PFO is not so much the roleplaying game translated to an mmo as this is goign to be EVE set in a medieval fantasy setting.
This game is eve online translated to the pathfinder setting.
The title of the thread is asking if a F2P model would work for EVE Online. My question is, who cares? Our concern should be for PFO.
The real question should be, would PFO work with a revenue model like what is used by EVE Online?
As for PFO being a "medieval / fantasy translation of EVE Online", I give that a big /thumbs up! EvE Online is my longest running and the most unique MMO I have played and still play. This does not mean that PFO should not be better, but if EVE is its base.. What a great starting point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... Even PS2 and LOTRs, there have been grumbles over certain aspects of F2P.But Avena the sad fact is that the presence of grumbling is a common enough occurance among gatherings of humanity to be proposed a candidate for an identifying characteristic of the species, along with 'bipedal', 'bilateral', and 'chordate'. I just don't find the presence of grumbling particularly revelatory toward whatever they grumble about.
Well said. I'm insinuating F2P's dirty little secret*, even on successful F2P games (P2P conversion & designed with F2P from the beginning) ;)
But in terms of pricing, "F2P" opens up the game to a larger paying userbase, so as you said in the other thread an "artefact" of pricing reducing potential players is not a good thing ie people can budget on options that suit their time/money situation (high/low) and prioritise their particular area of interest of the game.
So I accept a form of F2P in that sense. *But in the sense of the effect it can easily have on the game design and future decisions (from analytic data to max. revenue) it opens up those potential issues, more so the game starts to struggle. Tbh, I think the EVE plex/isk idea is ideal (hybrid approach). But I'd like to see initial "box price" (x1 month training time) start and then the hybrid MTX option or sub (package option). Possibly a trial server/area for advertisement/new players outside of the actual game also, if they don't stump up training time?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is getting to be a really long thread of people conflating "don't have to pay real world money to play" with "f2p" and they're two very different situations.
Whether you subscribe or buy training time for ingame gold someone will have paid GW real money for your time in the game. Therefore you still have full access to all content of a subscription supported game and the cash shop is (hopefully) not a key pillar of the game.
In genuine F2P you have to pay to access certain classes, areas, content, etc. and the game revolves around the cash shop. See the difference?
As far as characters existing in game but not paying to train rotting the game inside out and destroying PFO... anyone else think that's just another of the hyperbolic worst-case-scenario panic attacks that happen every week? (usually about seven minutes after the latest blog is released) and I'll bet you real money none of those imaginary issues ever materializes the way that got threadnaughted.
The real question should be, would PFO work with a revenue model like what is used by EVE Online?
Yes.
EVE is primarily a subscription-based game. PLEX doesn't account for the majority of CCP's income.
As far as characters existing in game but not paying to train rotting the game inside out and destroying PFO... anyone else think that's just another of the hyperbolic worst-case-scenario panic attacks that happen every week? (usually about seven minutes after the latest blog is released) and I'll bet you real money none of those imaginary issues ever materializes the way that got threadnaughted.
Yes, Elitism kills games.
Not "free" players.
The fact is that more people playing the game that you pay to play is to your benefit, regardless of whether those people pay a subscription or not. It's even more crucial to maintain a "critical mass" of population in a sandbox where players literally are the content.
Facts: when games go F2P, their population increases and so does revenue. No one will stop you from giving cash to GW if you want to.
If ya don't want the game to be F2P, then you're a hypocrite because you were going to pay a subscription anyway, so your only reason for opposing F2P business models is elitism. I.e., you don't want other people to enjoy the game that you enjoy. And that just makes the rhetorical "you" in this situation a complete douchebag.
As my own two cents, PFO will be far better off without the sorts of players who put "no girls allowed" signs on their forts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Aunt Tony: Actually there's more things to consider on the table. Just to summarise, I think F2P is part of a cycle in the pricing model reacting to :
1) Technology
2) Innovation
3) Market reaction/expectation/history etc
The Hybrid model which PFO will be using is very satisfactory imo. A pure F2P model for PFO would be work less well in a variety of inter-related ways, imho.
@Aunt Tony: Actually there's more things to consider on the table. Just to summarise, I think F2P is part of a cycle in the pricing model reacting to :
1) Technology
2) Innovation
3) Market reaction/expectation/history etc
I'm fairly unconcerned with the causes of the prevalence of the F2P model. I think it's more or less irrelevant since the phenomenon is clearly set in place for PFO. No point worrying about something you can't change, as it were.
The Hybrid model which PFO will be using is very satisfactory imo.
Oh I am totally in agreement with you there.
A pure F2P model for PFO would be work less well in a variety of inter-related ways, imho.
No way of knowing without actually doing...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PFO still has a chance to avoid EVE's mistakes... but isn't trying very hard to do so.
I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion; I feel there is ample evidence from dev posts and blogs that the opposite is true. Even the blog and dev posts from a year ago detail GW's commitment to banning griefers and restricting PvP to meaningful player interaction.
Then again, your definition of 'meaningful' may differ. I think they, myself, and others believe that the complex plots and other intrigue in EvE is meaningful. Though, Ryan has posted that there will be many safeguards that settlements can put in place to make sure that no single person can single-handedly ruin it, if the founders want them. I think he was responding to somebody's experiences with EvE, so that may be one difference. I'm not sure, I never really played EvE more than a week.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This discussion seems to be moving along the same lines as the thread created during the kickstarter by Ryan, Kickstarter Community Thread: Subscriptions & Microtransactions. Link posted for your convenience.
In that thread, Ryan made a post regarding some concerns of the 'slippery slope' of Free-2-Play/microtransactions --> Pay-2-Win. Linked for your convenience.
In his next post, he says this, which I think pertains to the current topic more closely, so I'll quote it:
@Hroderich Gottfrei - our thoughts on "playing for free" are evolving. There will be some form of free play, that's a requirement in today's market where people want to try an MMO before they put in any money.How long you can play without paying anything is something we're thinking about. We don't want a game full of folks who trained for 6 months, got reasonably competent, and are now playing without producing any revenue.
It seems clear that there won't be F2P in the strictest sense of the term, that rather it will be more like EvE's Plex system (where every account is paid for) with a trial period.
I'm somewhat surprised Ryan didn't post something along these lines in this thread, since there certainly seems to be some confusion about PFO being somehow more 'free to play' than EvE is, which doesn't seem to be the general gist of the above quote. It does seem that he left it open that people may be able to play without having active training time for short periods, though, and he did say that it is something they are still thinking about. Perhaps their ideas have changed a bit over the past few months, or they are still hashing out more of the details, or it's just too early to tell.
Judging from the length of the thread I linked, it's certainly a hot topic that calls for a lot of thought =)