|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Deadeye Dic
IMPSwarm
Negative-Feedback
130
   |
Posted - 2013.06.09 05:31:00 -
[1] - Quote
As long as it was a Dual Model (F2P and P2P) then yes. Several "AAA" titles use this format and it seems to working for them. That being said, I would also expect to see P2P perks, nothing serious, but something. I just don't think that CCP can float Dust on PSN sales of AUR. It's one of the downsides of being an independent company, they have to use investors that they have to pay back, which means smaller dev teams and other cuts. Dust could benefit from a P2P and F2P model. I would sub up to support the game. |
Deadeye Dic
IMPSwarm
Negative-Feedback
131
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 06:14:00 -
[2] - Quote
Ludvig Enraga wrote:
I don't quite agree with you. I think there has been much more hype around F2P model as being the way of the future than any of it being based in reality. The biggest money makers in the industry are and imo will always be P2P games. The only problem with P2P games is that they are not meant to be played for over than a year or so - the developers have much higher incentive to release a game and then it's sequel shortly after to continue making money of the title. Unfortunately an MMO cant survive with a payment model like this for obvious reasons.
Blizzard has.
Sony, specifically that Star Wars Galaxies hating jerk Smedley, has constantly and recently said F2P was the way to go, that is why DCUO went F2P cause even Sony feels that is they model to go with. EA, Bioware, Cryptic, Turbine, they have all in the last 5 years went F2P, but Bioware, Cryptic, and Turbine are using hybrid models, a P2P and F2P system, with perks for P2P players. F2P is old in that it has been around for a while, but as mainstream, it is relatively new compared to sub models.
Other than Blizzard, I can't think of any big MMO companies that are P2P. The only reason Blizzard is P2P and not F2P or a hybrid model, is because it has 8 years or so as a P2P MMO and before companies started moving to F2P, Blizzard was already well into the market. What is bringing F2P to the forefront of gaming is that there are some quality F2P MMOs out there. Maybe none that you'd like, but SWToR, AAA title, Star Trek Online, AAA title, Champions Online, AAA Title, Neverwinter, AAA Title, the list goes on. Hell even Sony's DCUO and Everquest games are considered AAA titles, and have a large following.
I think there is enough of a following that 20% of the current Dust players would P2P, another 25-30% of the player base would opt for F2P and buy from the market. The rest would continue to play without spending a dime until CCP "fixed" the game. Also, of the 20% that would sub up, all 20% would continue to spend cash on the market for AUR to buy boosters. Already that is 45-50% of the player base supporting the game. Now that doesn't translate into millions, but every little bit helps, if you believe in the direction CCP wants to take Dust, then I see no reason why someone wouldn't sub up. |
Deadeye Dic
IMPSwarm
Negative-Feedback
131
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 07:08:00 -
[3] - Quote
Ludvig Enraga wrote:
I read his interview on the link you provided. I think there are two 'buts' in it. First he is speaking from the position of a developer/publisher behind a large f2p project, so he has to defend this model. Second, iirc planetside 2 did not start out as f2p, they converted to f2p only after it was obvious that it would have enough players to support a profitable f2p. I think this difference is key as developer invested into planteside a ton of money from the get go - I think the may not have done it if they started out with the f2p concept in mind - it's just too risky. So I think planetside is more of an exception than the rule. You also see in the interview how he defends p2p: he says that really big games with a lot of effort going into their creation (he offers COD as an example) are obligated to be p2p - otherwise, they would not make money.
Not on you, but you kind of missed the point. Smedley has been President of SOE for years, almost 10 for sure (He was around when SWG was released 10 years ago this month). Until the last two years or so he never mentioned F2P. Neverwinter is a new release (more or less, it's still OB I think) and it was built by a F2P developer (Cryptic Studios). The difference between major studios supporting F2P and CCP supporting F2P is that these studios have BIG backers. In the case of Neverwinter, Cryptic has PWE to back them. CCP and Sony have no idea how to really market F2P games, Asian companies do, they have been for years, you'll note in that interview that the number one game in the world, based off of subscriber numbers is a F2P game (League of Legends), that is what everyone late to the game is trying to get into, including CCP. The problem with Subscription based games on a console is that players don't want to have to spend money to sub for a game on a console. Microsoft and Xbox Live are the reason that players are not interested in this. Who wants to spend $60 a year for access to a $15/month subscription? Sure Sony isn't doing what MS is doing, but they get a cut from every dollar spent on PSN. People will pay $15 to sub to a console MMO, but once the middle man get's his share, what does that leave for the developer? Therefore, for the developer to get there $15, they have to charge a higher subscription price and players aren't going to pay $20 a month in a F2P market where they have options. That being said, I would still spend the $20 sub if CCP had a hybrid model. While I'm not happy with Dust at this time, I still play from time to time and I believe that CCP can deliver on the future, but I seriously think that they need income to do it.
People are complaining that Dust isn't great and they won't pay. They want a AAA MMO title for free. Most people don't realize that games, any type of AAA game, cost millions to make before it is even worthy of being a beta, much less release worthy. That money has to come from some place. Dust is my game, it's not CCPs, they work for me to provide me with something. So why shouldn't I pay them? If I hire a maid, that maid provides a service or function and gets paid for it. That is how I look at it. |
|
|
| |
|