Making this work

[Zulthus]

Originally Posted by exLupo

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.

Could you back up this data?

[Hamma]

Here is one:
http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/01...nce-going-f2p/
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011...venue-triples/

[Zulthus]

Originally Posted by Hamma

Here is one:
http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/01...nce-going-f2p/
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011...venue-triples/

Thanks for confirming it. Is LotRO the only game that has had this happen?

[NlightN]

My concern with PS2 running a F2P model was not so much about being able to pull in enough players, but instead about bringing in enough income to revel this 'three year plan', and also concern about the rampant use of hacks and cheats in games that administer that business model.

But some of you have made it evident that a F2P model can actually bring in more than enough funding for the game, which also correlates to a more effective and thorough, anti-cheat team.

I guess if SOE can make a F2P work, I'll be all for it, as long as players can't make any game-breaking purchases....like NOT being able to instantly unlock ten or twenty BRs of skills ahead of everybody else.

[Hamma]

Originally Posted by Zulthus

Thanks for confirming it. Is LotRO the only game that has had this happen?

Not sure - that's the one I recall.

[Kouza]

F2P Forfeits game quality, and community quality for profits.

[nathanebht]

Originally Posted by Kouza

F2P Forfeits game quality, and community quality for profits.

Age of Conan went F2P not too long ago and seem to remember reading that it was a big success for them.

World of Tanks is another huge success.

True there are a lot of icky F2P games. However, I don't think you can make blanket statements about all F2P games. Its just a more successful revenue model.

[Huma]

Or if you want to see a current business model that SOE already has in place with the F2P/Pay mix:

http://everquest2.com/free_to_play/game_overview

I'd post it here but it turns into word vomit. I'm assuming since they have this system in place for 1 game they'll probably roll it into the next.

[Malorn]

DDO is another game that was going down the crapper and was madly successful after F2P.

The EQ2 model Huma linked looks unsurprisingly very similar to the DDO model. It's proven to be successful.

So the question just becomes for PS2 - what are the differentiators?

If you look at the EQ2 list most of the differentiators are convenience-based, with a few 'what you can do'-based, like race and class selection.

I would not be surprised to see as set of core roles in PS2 free but some roles (like the command-rank one) would require a one-time purchase to acquire OR a subscription or something like that.


Some things just make sense to restrict for free players.
- limited chat & mail access (I expect this is mainly to prevent spammers from using free accounts to spam)
- not being able to create an outfit, but able to join one, etc

Other things like not being able to create an outfit also make. The moment you give them some amount of money they up your privileges.

Customization options may be limited for non-subscribers.

If you take it to the next level with free players being able to give missions to other players that's one reason I think that some classes/roles may be restricted to paying customers (could be one-time purchasable though, like DLC from other games, that's a well-established model). If guilds are managed via certifications then they too would also be restricted.

The in-game advertising one is an obvious carry-over. Eyeballs are always an easy internet sale. We had some of that in PS1 with the billboards. It might be similar to that, or more inconvenient. But it makes sense - they do have to get revenue from somewhere and if the players don't want to pay advertisers will. Customer support is another obvious carry-over. Customer support tends to be one of the more costlier parts of running a service. Servers, data, bandwidth, and maintenance are all rather small compared to having thousands of customers having problems with the service every day.

All that stuff has little to do with power. You could make a claim that class-access is a form of power-selling but some of it just makes sense. Also, DLC that is purchasable is something that is common in the gaming market these days, and you don't need to be able to use every cert in planetside in order to enjoy the game. You may not even care about half of them anyway but would probably shell out 5-10 bucks to play a class you are really interested in. As they add new content they could do it as restricted to subscription OR one-time-purchase or something like that.

I like the model a lot, especially if it brings in new players and anything that has power or accountability has some monetary cost paid.

[Heaven]

It would be nice to have an endless free trail, say to BR6 but also not giving these free trails the option to join an outfit or use certain items and even certain chats then this way we have some cannon fodder and a bigger pop.

I agree that F2P is a big turn off as it has a the cheap factor to it, I am willing to pay £8.99 a month for PS2 as I did for PS.

[Logit]

Originally Posted by Heaven

It would be nice to have an endless free trail, say to BR6 but also not giving these free trails the option to join an outfit or use certain items and even certain chats then this way we have some cannon fodder and a bigger pop.

I agree that F2P is a big turn off as it has a the cheap factor to it, I am willing to pay £8.99 a month for PS2 as I did for PS.

This.

8 years ago monthly subscriptions weren't as popular as they are now. A lot more people have this attitude now because, in most cases, the money is going back into the game.

[Gimpylung]

Nice thread, good thrashing out of pros and cons of various revenue streams.

I gotta wonder if the OP is an SOE employee however, I get the impression that Smed and SOE haven't fully figured out the revenue yet, this thread must be very insightful for them if they haven't settled on a model.

My 2 cents, freemium and cashshop for vanity items. Freemium requires very effective anti-hacking measures however.

[NlightN]

Originally Posted by Gimpylung

Nice thread, good thrashing out of pros and cons of various revenue streams.

I gotta wonder if the OP is an SOE employee however, I get the impression that Smed and SOE haven't fully figured out the revenue yet, this thread must be very insightful for them if they haven't settled on a model.

My 2 cents, freemium and cashshop for vanity items. Freemium requires very effective anti-hacking measures however.

No, I'm just an average joe PS fan like you . The reason I started this thread like I said in my op, is because the business model for PS2 will be a key point in determining the success of this game. So in hopes of not being limited to just the 'niche' based success that the first game had, we all here at the PS premier fansite could discuss the pros and cons of the standard MMO models, and maybe push any lurking devs to really contemplate what kind of model would best suit PS2.

Now my personal stance is that they should have the normal retail boxed copy to solidify a staple source of revenue, meaning less likelihood of undercutting players by needing to sell some sort of advantage to the buyer crowd in a primarily F2P model. Then add a store for cosmetic and convenience purchases, with maybe a sub option that includes access to the major purchases in the store.

And to those who say ("well ppl won't buy a game they haven't tried"), have a *two week free trial lasting until the population reaches their ideal level, and once it starts to drop, throw the trial back out again.

[Graywolves]

I think making it F2P with limitations in either progression (less experience/rank cap) or elsewhere (certifications/skills)

I also got this idea where a F2P account would only have a few hours or so each day to play or so.


The idea of a F2P model is that you get the player to spend money through either actually subscribing or making other purchases for extra things.


I'd personally prefer to see a subscription model than anything else. A cash shop on top of this is also possible, WoW sells minipets and other random stuff that are pure aesthetics in the game. They also recently made it free to play to level 20, although this is after they lost 1million subscribers.

[nathanebht]

Originally Posted by Huma

Or if you want to see a current business model that SOE already has in place with the F2P/Pay mix:

http://everquest2.com/free_to_play/game_overview

I'd post it here but it turns into word vomit. I'm assuming since they have this system in place for 1 game they'll probably roll it into the next.

Good find Huma! Have to agree. They are likely to follow a similar model in PS2.

Pay money to get access to premium certs. Perhaps also pay money to get access to more continents. They could limit the battle rank of free players. However, note that they aren't limiting character levels in EQ2.