F2P Failure and Elite Dangerous

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

a server aren't they since the rest of MP is P2P? How much to run one server? Can't be that much.

It probably won't be one server, but server cluster. After all it will have simulation going on. However it shouldn't be that much expensive. Although running costs include hiring admin team to do backups, maintenance, etc.

However, it will cost to add something extra to the game (sans expansions), which FD certainly plans to do, as they have lot of ideas and plans for post-release.

 

[Ushgarak]

Strongly disagree, unless the cash shop is only for vanity items. Comparing to a game like SWTOR is wrong because it has a completely different architecture as their servers have to handle all game logic. It's only reasonable to compare to other titles where the servers mainly track data and handle matchmaking. So games like Blood Bowl, Left 4 Dead 2, Diablo 3, StarCraft 2, Counterstrike and Battlefield 3. A game like SWTOR, EvE or World of Warcraft is a totally different beast as they require big server farms to host the game. This requires a lot of upkeep.

Alternatively each player could monthly be awarded a fee depending on how many game sessions he hosts during that month for the upkeep of his "server." Or we could just call it even after buying the game. One thing is certain - no way in Hell am I paying FD for hosting game sessions on my computer.

I already used the GW2 'cosmetics only' example for the cash shop. However, I think you'll find the server infrastructure required for ED is closer to other MMOs than you think.

Box buys + cosmetic cashshop + expansions- still the way to go. And it's the way they will go, at that. Not mandatory subscriptions. As far as adding more value to voluntary subscriptions is concerned- sure, there can be more things. I just wanted to be clear that no voluntary sub in similar games has ever just given people everything in the cash shop as one of its perks, as that would be a grave financial error. I got the impression that some people thought that paying a voluntary sub would negate microtransactions- that's very unlikely.

As for what should be in the cash shop- well, other successful ones have set the tone.

- I don't mind things that save people time, though as Elite is not a levelling game, this might be shortcutting your experience. Time saving does not mean buying things directly but buying boosters that speed what you are already doing, so you still need to make effort. This is the most complex area to get right in a game like Elite but the principle is still fine.

- I don't mind cosmetics, obviously, which are huge draws in a cash shop if done correctly. People like to show off.

- Everything in the cash shop should be attainable without real world money if need be- both GW2 and TOR let you buy cash shop items with in-game money, albeit indirectly.

- The red line is the cash shop offering any equipment for ships that is mechanically better than what you can get by normal play. That must not happen.

Do it like that and it's a winner. TOR doubled its income and saved itself by switching from subs to that model (minus the box sales but with some restrictions on play before you buy them off; it evens out). GW2 launched with that model from the start and won big.

The other controversial cash shop item is lottery items- packs that give you random drops of stuff with a small chance for some super-rare cosmetic. These sell extremely well, but there is a question mark over whether they are, basically, encouraging a gambling addiction. I've seen people buy random packs in insane numbers- thousands and more.

 

[Andrew Sayers]

During KS FD said they would sell credits for real money

To back Pesick up, here's a FAQ item on the KS main page:

We do not plan to make it subscription-based. Once you have purchased the game up front, you will be able to play thereafter for no further cost. Everything in the game will be purchasable with in-game Credits, earned from trading, bounty-hunting, etc. We will probably allow the supplemental purchase of Credits with real money, for those who want to accelerate their progress through the game.

We do plan to charge for additional updates, to be available sometime after the original release. These will offer additional content, features and gameplay.

 

[Ixnatifual]

Box buys + cosmetic cashshop + expansions- still the way to go.

And this is fine by me, as stated in my previous post. I'm only against subscriptions and a F2P type model (where you're being nickle-and-dimed for basic game features and content, prime example being SWTOR.)

I have zero problems with a standard game pricing model with a cosmetic items cash shop.

Also Andrew, thanks for that post.

 

[Slawkenbergius]

In perhaps the greatest nose-thumbing, tongue-baring move of all time, GOG are offering the original Dungeon Keeper for FREE until Sunday. That's free as in free, not free to play. Download it, install it (DRM free) and play it.

 

[Ixnatifual]

In perhaps the greatest nose-thumbing, tongue-baring move of all time, GOG are offering the original Dungeon Keeper for FREE until Sunday. That's free as in free, not free to play. Download it, install it (DRM free) and play it.

Haha, that's pretty awesome. I played the EA's new version and it was probably one of the worst games I've played. Clash of the Clans with a Dungeon Keeper skin. Blech!

 

[KING5TON]

Molyneux didn't like the new one
http://www.vg247.com/2014/02/09/dungeon-keeper-f2p-ridiculous-and-not-quite-right-says-molyneux/

He also said he had an idea for a game where you play a piece of newspaper being blown around by the winds of discontent.

 

[Bob_H]

I only have two things... well, one thing from two different angles, to say on this subject really.

I've played GW2, DDO and LOTRO. DDO in both F2P and subscribed and LOTRO in F2P only. I've also played EVE, WoW and SW:KOTOR before it went F2P which are - or were - subscription only. By far the games I've enjoyed and played the most are EVE (I'm still playing this with two active accounts) and WoW.

I like the subsciption model it gives me a sense of investment and involvement in the game, the company and the community that the MT model just doesn't have in the same way for me. Yes, I'm over 45 and I don't believe in the 'throw away' culture that permeates everything gaming wise now. That's not to say I'm against it per se. Just that it rubs me up the wrong way and I would like the option to bypass the constant nagging in game to buy something in the MT shop that completely destroys any immersion that the game may provide. I see a subscription option as a way to avoid the MT shop ruining my experience rather than a substitute for an MT system.

In my opinion charging subscriptions does not doom a game to failure. Woefully overpriced or badly packaged subscriptions do do immense harm to a game though. Considering the type of multiplayer experience and the way the PU and instance server systems are expected to operate I would not pay the £10 per month per account I do for EVE or even the £7 per month WoW would cost me if I were still playing that, to play ED in multiplayer mode. I would, however, pay somewhere between £2 and £4 per month. Which, no doubt, is the sort of sums FDEV would be expecting to bring in per box sold to keep the lights on through a MT shop and/or Cash For Credits exchange.

 

[Slawkenbergius]

Molyneux didn't like the new one

Godus beta had some pretty horrendous timers, which by some miracle of hocus-pocus handwavium could be circumvented by using 'gems'. At one point there was a placeholder for a store page where you would be able to buy gems... The whole thing is a bit of a joke really.

 

[KING5TON]

The Elder Scrolls online and Wildstar are two MMO's coming out that are subscription based.

With my Nostradamus hat on I predict they'll both be F2P within a year. Either that or ghost towns.

Can you name any MMOs other than Eve and WOW that are still subscription based?
Final Fantasy online maybe?

 

[KING5TON]

Godus beta had some pretty horrendous timers, which by some miracle of hocus-pocus handwavium could be circumvented by using 'gems'. At one point there was a placeholder for a store page where you would be able to buy gems... The whole thing is a bit of a joke really.

I bought it on Steam and played it for half an hour. Wasn't really what I was expecting being a successor to populus. Too much clicking on purple orbs.

 

[Bob_H]

The Elder Scrolls online and Wildstar are two MMO's coming out that are subscription based.

With my Nostradamus hat on I predict they'll both be F2P within a year. Either that or ghost towns.

Can you name any MMOs other than Eve and WOW that are still subscription based?
Final Fantasy online maybe?

LOTRO, DDO, Rifts and SW: KOTOR are all hybrids in that they are F2P games with a monthly subscription option. One of the very first MMO's to go with a MT shop and in game advertising - Anarchy Online - is, as far as I'm aware, still going strong and has always had a good subscriber player base despite converting to F2P.

The two models aren't mutually exclusive. Done right they even complement each other quite well. One shouldn't automatically exclude one monetisation method over the other.

When F2P MMO's first came out everyone and their pet budgie were decrying the model saying it would never work and subscriptions would be here for ever. Now that F2P/MT shop games are all the rage everyone and their pet budgie is demanding the death of subscription fees. The fact is both models are alive and well and happily living side by side in varying degrees of harmony and quietly getting on with it while all of us punters are waving our collective epeens around trying to make out one or the other is best.

 

[Zarconian]

F2P isnt bad in itself, its bad when it turns into P2W or you need to purchase something to actually play the game.

 

[Theodrid]

re.

To all of you who are against subscriptions, I kind of understand your views but not necessarily your logic. The people who are willing to pay a subscription for this game, (and I include myself in that), are clearly stating that any subscription would be OPTIONAL. People state that subscription based models have 'killed' games and 'would kill this game in a heartbeat', you may be right. But none, and I repeat none, of the people who are advocating optional subscriptions are saying this game should be solely based on said subscription.

Surely, for FD, the more revenue streams you have coming in the better, surely it is better to have box sales, expansion sales, 'cash for credits' + MT's + an OPTIONAL subscription than just one or more of the first 4?

And even if those willing to pay an OPTIONAL subscription are fairly small in number, it doesn't matter, it is an added revenue stream. Some of those who are willing to pay a subscription will also, dare I say, be using 'cash for credits' and MT's as well, surely this equals more revenue for FD, which in turn equals higher quality, more sustainable development?

And once the player base settles in terms of numbers, you would hope that the subscribers would offer ED at least a fairly consistent, reliable income. Income would of course fluctuate as subscribers come and go, however, I strongly believe that the fluctuations would be far greater, the predictability much less if FD was relying on MT's and 'cash for credits' only.

As far as the box/expansion sales go, well, if an expansion gets pushed back, which, let's face it is inevitable, then relying on sales of that expansion and the profitability of that expansion goes down pretty quickly. Why?, because every day past the scheduled' release date = more costs based on development, lost revenue from sales of items in the new expansion from MT's or people buying credits to buy goodies.

TLR - The more revenue streams available to FD the better, more revenue streams almost always equates to more revenue, more revenue equates to a better game, better development, better marketing etc etc etc.

I am very much for OPTIONAL subscriptions.

 

[Ushgarak]

Well, like I said before, if it is a voluntary subscription and does not impinge on the viability of the cash shop, then no problem at all- that's the TOR model and it's worked well for them. The trick is- what do the subscribers actually get?

 

[X2Eliah]

I'm perfectly okay with an optional sub model, aye. As long as there's still a well-outfitted basic "buy the game and play it forever" system, without any paywalls, then it's all kosher.

 

[Cosmos]

Re: subscriptions:

Ask SW:ToR how those turned out. Or Warhammer Online. Or, heck, wait and see how it'll turn out for ESO.
Now consider that elite has way less of an immediate multiplayer aspect, and you have *THE* recipe for instant disaster... And you're claiming that f2p would be bad? HA.

Actually, I think you can still sub but its optional. The point is that to get the most out of the game you still have to spend money. Generally F2P take more money from people.

Having dropped a ton of money on backing this project I'd find it hard to justify spending more but if I bought the game for £40 it would look a little different.

A number of companies do a hybrid model. I used to play TSW a lot and you can sub as a member or just buy the DLCs now. Before they dropped the sub you could buy a grandmaster access which meant no subs for life.
They transferred that to the present system and those people now get all updates and credits to spend each month on the game shop stuff.

If there are optional subs or lots of MTs I'd hope that backers like myself are taken care of. We could all be getting our pants in a twist over nothing but I agree with Kroy.. If they screw up the monetisation of the game I can't rule out walking away either.

Be nice to have an update about what the plan is.

 

[KickahasTier]

TLR - The more revenue streams available to FD the better, more revenue streams almost always equates to more revenue, more revenue equates to a better game, better development, better marketing etc etc etc.
.

No more revenue streams does not equate to a better game, or better development. Possibly yes better marketing. Development of P2W, F2P and MT revenue streams would be a cancer and poison, constantly evolving to find new ways to monetize and farm the player base.

P2W, F2P and MT revenue streams destroy immersion in the world. They make a worse game and will drive me away if implemented. I am not alone 95% of people will not P2W/F2P, and unfortunately I don't particularly want to play with the 5% who would be remaining in a competition to see who can buy more stuff.

I don't believe that FD will let this happen, they wont let us down.

 

[jedt]

Subscriptions. I've said it once and I'll say it again. I know not everyone likes them. I don't think for a minute that everyone will even be happy if they exist even if they are an option. But there are plenty people (like me) who would most happily drop £8 - £12 a month if it meant we didn't have to worry about being nickle-and-dimed by MT in Elite Dangerous.

Offer six month and annual options and better yet. If it's good enough for The Elder Scrolls Online and Star Citizen to offer a subscription model (two very different models there, true, but both offer chance for regular flat-fee payments).

Please when replying, take on board the fact that I'm only ever suggesting subscriptions as one of many options to pay. If you don't like or want to pay by a subscription, you shouldn't be forced in to it. Never would I be foolhardy to suggest that they be the only means for Elite: Dangerous. It's not that kind of game, and has never been billed as such. But from Fdev's perspective, flexibilty is key, and knowing your market is important.

^^this +1

i would happily pay a sub to keep this game running. not a fan of mts particularly if its for fluff.

as an option i can see no harm in subs.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

^^this +1

i would happily pay a sub to keep this game running. not a fan of mts particularly if its for fluff.

as an option i can see no harm in subs.

Different strokes I guess but if there were subs I would not be interested. As it happens there can never be subs for early backers at least as that was part of the KS promise