|
Post by Pion on Jul 5, 2011 10:16:25 GMT -5
You've been given more than you realize. With the exception of the Adventure Packs, all content is free, which isn't the case with Lord of the Rings. This is probably the most generous hybrid model currently on the market. Puzzle Pirates disagrees with you. And considering YPP has gravitated almost entirely to its F2P model (~6 english + some foreign language F2P servers vs. 2 subscription servers at present, and the subscription servers are the oldest), clearly they make more money on the F2P model. That's flawed logic. Just because they have more servers doesn't mean they're taking in more money; correlation is not causation. Anyway, why is this discussion happening again in a thread directly above 3 other directly related threads?
|
|
|
Post by squirrelloid on Jul 5, 2011 12:32:07 GMT -5
Puzzle Pirates disagrees with you. And considering YPP has gravitated almost entirely to its F2P model (~6 english + some foreign language F2P servers vs. 2 subscription servers at present, and the subscription servers are the oldest), clearly they make more money on the F2P model. That's flawed logic. Just because they have more servers doesn't mean they're taking in more money; correlation is not causation. So, a game which started on a subscription model, then opened F2P model servers, and has opened almost nothing but F2P model servers since then, and *closed* the third subscription server they opened, isn't strong evidence that F2P can be more financially successful than subscription? I mean, yes, I'm drawing an inference, I'm assuming the company is pursuing a business model that has proven itself successful. So successful in fact that F2P oceans outnumber subscription oceans by ~4:1. I mean, the alternative is the company is pouring money into F2P even though its losing them money. I think we can reject that hypothesis. I'll note that at least I *have* evidence. Flawed logic is assuming subscription models are desirable without any evidence. Flawed logic is claiming CO has the best F2P model when there's an obviously better one that's generating millions of dollars of profit. However, if you insist, documentary evidence that YPP made more money on the F2P model than subscriptions (as well as description of how a bunch of other F2P games work): www.forbes.com/2008/03/31/free-video-games-tech-personal-cx_mji_0331free.htmlNote: the F2P model earned Three Rings *double the revenue* of the subscription model when they switched over back in 2005 (that is, 2/3 of their gross revenue was F2P generated). That was on 2 F2P oceans vs. 2 subscription oceans. As of 2007 that was up to 3:1 or 75% of revenues. Any moron can say correlation doesn't imply causation, but when you're talking business decisions in evidence in a predictable pattern over 5 years, it probably does. And the actual numbers are available for anyone with internet to see. (That was like the 3rd hit for 'puzzle pirates profit')
|
|
|
Post by scorcherofthorns on Dec 5, 2011 11:44:48 GMT -5
To put it simply, this would be financial suicide for both the company and the user. Cryptic Studios and its staff have bills to pay, and the best way to do it is to have a consistent flow of income. Monthly subscriptions are the most efficient way of doing that. While freeform character slots could certainly bring in a lot of cash in the short term, it would kill all incentive to purchase a Gold membership unless they were priced accordingly. The problem is that people are more and more getting into the F2P model rather than the sub model, which is the reason so many sub games are going F2P, in fact some games titles have actually cheated death with F2P, maybe in a year or two there will be no more sub only games online, given the susscess F2P is having, and I do believe that the fact you can't buy everything in this game is somewhat deterring people from buying stuff from the C-Store making CO F2P less susscessful than what it could be, because why bother to purchase anything if you still gonna be bellow the Gold so lets just stay freebie! This is to the mind of many acceptable because they still see F2P as some kind of extended trial designed only lure the gamer into subscribing. While that sounds like an awesome idea the main problem with that criteria is that it doesn't take into account the ever increasing amount of players that have trully embraced F2P as their defacto form of gaming and that such gamer (which is increasing in numbers) would not subscribe under any circumstance, and one might actually lose them to other games titles that don't place the gamer who is willing to invest but not sub so bellow the subscribers in terms of power. And yes I know many sub players hate F2P because of its history of "pay for power," which is more or less "Pay to win" but I'm a firm believer that having a sub system that renders the player more powerful on top of the induvidual purchase system of F2P is doing just that. With the difference being the subs find themselves with the upper hand. But then it comes the issue you were stating, that nobody would sub if F2P is a better alternative, well, I guess it bowls down to what you believe, sub or F2P? What is more important to have, can the game survive with just the subscribers? Can it compete with other games with that old system along? If no then can F2P be the replacement that would make the business model work? I think somewhere along the way Cryptic concluded that subs are the important ones and that the F2Pers are just for complement and that's why things are that way but I can asure you things might change in the future not just for Co but problably for ALL online games, and F2P will be more than just a lure to the Sub system.
|
|