Making this work - Page 6

exLupo · 2011-08-13, 03:07 AM

No hostility from me, chummer. I'm just trying to stop the spread of prejudice. Bias spreads from person to person like wildfire, regardless of its veracity. It's part of the pack mind nature inherent to humans.

See, your math and perspective is way off. While it's true that there could be 40,000 players using today's pop caps as a base, that isn't the reality. During beta, these 333/333/333 caps did not exist. Early fights were 1000/1000/1000 or more. Unplayable? Sure but they were still there. Look around on this site. The faq discusses servers capable of sustaining hundreds of thousands of active accounts. Even the beta numbers broke 20,000 active accounts. That's a closed beta and one server.

EVE has 40,000 simultaneous players per day. Want to know how many active accounts, shelling out $15/mo? Over 400,000 this past November. You're just not thinking big enough. You haven't done the research, which is fine, not everyone is a numbers nerd, so you didn't know. It's ok. 1:10 simultaneous:active for schedule pay games isn't uncommon by any means.

Another set of numbers to chew on? Games that have gone from schedule pay to free have tripled their player base. At first, my gut says "Well, they're all freeloaders". However, at the same time that box prices and monthly fees are removed, the project's income doubles. Triple the player count. Double the income. These are real numbers. Just something to think about.

Kouza · 2011-08-13, 01:07 PM

Lupo is arguing to have it be more expensive by his own arguments... I giggled.

Hamma · 2011-08-13, 03:40 PM

It's really speculation to assume how many people would play this game.

If it's a hit it has the potential to be HUGE.

MasterChief096 · 2011-08-13, 03:48 PM

The gist of this thread is that if SOE doesn't have a monthly sub then they are doing something wrong. In addition, if they don't have some measure of F2P for those who don't want to pay monthly subs, they are also doing something wrong. And in my opinion, if they don't have the option to buy playing time in terms of hours, they are also doing something wrong.

The general discussion of this thread has pointed to the necessity of a financial model that caters to every type of gamer, in order to pull in the most population.

Crator · 2011-08-13, 04:35 PM

^^^

That

ECM · 2011-08-13, 05:52 PM

A hybrid system is likely what SOE is going to try to aim for, hence the whole 3 year model. All I can say is if PS2 is huge then I am going to shell out the subsciption fee (hopefully a bundled sub fee discount). But a f2p model would be great to help get my friends interested to spread the fanbase.

Zulthus · 2011-08-13, 06:25 PM

F2P would be good for increasing subscriptions and fanbase. The only reason I am so against it is because of the massive amount of hackers that would use the feature. Even with a dedicated 24/7 security team, I'm pretty sure the hackers would be incessant. That is, unless, the F2P model requires a credit card to be entered. THEN, I would be all for a F2P feature.

Crator · 2011-08-13, 09:40 PM

Good news, SOE did annouce they bought an anti-hacking program for PS2!

nathanebht · 2011-08-13, 10:49 PM

No problem paying a $10 monthly subscription. $15 a month and I'd probably drop a month or two while I was heavily playing other games.

If PS2 goes F2P, then I'd pay to unlock certs so that I could then train them. Paying to advance faster or get an XP bonus seems tacky to me. I don't see how you can combine a $10 monthly subscription with a F2P model. I guess a $5 monthly would work with F2P.

Of course paying for cosmetic stuff doesn't bother me. The question is would it bring in enough money. One time fees to unlock premium certs would definitely bring in money and shouldn't upset the playerbase.

Kouza · 2011-08-14, 12:21 AM

I`ll Pay 20 dollars a month if the game is good. Throwing it out there. Take my money sony, just make it worth my while

.

exLupo · 2011-08-14, 01:38 AM

Originally Posted by Kouza

Lupo is arguing to have it be more expensive by his own arguments... I giggled.

citation required

---

edit: Let me help you with a quote from my own post

"Games that have gone from schedule pay to freemium have tripled their player base. At first, my gut says "Well, they're all freeloaders". However, at the same time that box prices and monthly fees are removed, the project's income doubles. Triple the player count. Double the income. These are real numbers. Just something to think about."

If anything, I'm arguing for it to be free so we can have 3x the players and SOE can have 2x the profit. But here, let me say it out loud for you: I'm not arguing for either. All I'm doing is trying to stop the spread of prejudice. If you need me to quote myself again so you can understand what's going on, I can.

/giggle

Kouza · 2011-08-14, 03:42 AM

Basically By arguing a F2P Game brings in more money for the company....... The money does not just appear.

exLupo · 2011-08-14, 04:56 AM

Originally Posted by Kouza

Basically By arguing a F2P Game brings in more money for the company....... The money does not just appear.

Indeed it does not "just appear". Had you actually read the thread you would know how this money -does- come from somewhere.

One more time, for anyone else who just skipped to the end of the thread:

Freemium games, before they were mainstream, averaged $15/mo per user. That includes the users that paid nothing being outmatched by people paying 2-3x as much on cash shop items. This number has grown with the familiarization of the market to this payment model. With the exception of WoW, every other AAA MMO has gone freemium and made -more- money for their trouble.

PSxCarebear · 2011-08-14, 07:00 AM

I would like to see a P2P model. Never been a fan of F2P just out of person preference.

I can't stand having the cash store pushed on me constantly.

Crator · 2011-08-14, 08:31 AM

There's a difference, or can be, between pure F2P games and P2P/F2P hybrids. Not that they exist, that I know of, but SOE is innovative so I don't see why they can't figure out something.

Pure F2P typically means development does'nt have a whole lot of money to start out with. So they get a base build that's kind of crappy and then go with it, full flegded cash markets. I agree, I don't like those games either. Doesn't mean SOE can't create a game that isn't crap and is a F2P/P2P hybrid. Just don't give people permanant power ups. But, I don't see an issue with one time use power ups.