44 replies to this topic

[CobraFive]

No subscription please. F2P is fine.

Instead of being forced to pay $15 a month, I'll just pay what I want. If its $15/mo so be it. if its less... great for me.

[gregsolidus]

Common sense returns!

[BLeeD]

Tian , your wrong on all your arguments. F2p is the only way to go now a days. Almost all P2p have been done in except WoW. F2p allow the causal users to play as much or as little as they want. If you want to lvl quickly then you will have to purchase gold or what ever currency they use like in World of tanks. If you purchase one of their Tanks usually $30 and up you earn quicker money in those tanks and can get into a high tier tank instead of leveling all the way up. so basically you satisfy everyone total causally gamer and the guys who want to spend every min they cant playing.

BLeeD

[IceNine]

The argument for F2P can be seen with social games. Farmville brings in ridiculous amounts of money. There are people that pay hundreds a month on that game. Now, I think Farmville is very poorly done but it is a very basic game so they can get away with it. I would expect MechWarrior to be far more refined which the developers have already stated they are striving for.

And frankly, hardcore gamers tend to buy stuff they don't need all the time which is more of the market that MWO is going to be catered to initially. That is why League of Legends is rocking. That is why "collector's editions" are so popular.

[walkingraven]

I have played both sides, Free and Pay, and each side has its benefits.
Pay games tend to be better quality, more serious players, and more attractive for long-term play.
Free games tend to have more players in general, a better selection of sub-content (Store items and the like), and are sometimes more sweeping in their scope (if only to host for the greater number of players.).

I would rather support a Pay game with a modest fee if the option were available.

[Maverick Howell]

free to play model in these economic times is the best choice. you let the players choose to pay on their terms. league of legends is a perfect example of how good this model can be.

[DEADTIME]

I'll gladly pay to make this game a success. This games following is probably a bit older than some and I'm sure most of us could afford 10 to 20 bucks a month for a game with more content.

[Ancient]

Call me obolete relic of past times, but I belive F2P brings most of it's success while sucking life out of the game.
Sure a lot of F2P games bring cash to comanies like it's made out of air (which, to be honest, it is in such cases).

We're dealing with a differnt case here though (or so I'd like to belive). If the company's aim was to make easy money by sucking it out of gamers they wouldn't stick so hard to this title and it's painfull history. Which is what makes me belive that the argument started by OP has it's merit...

Unfortuantely, though, OP is mistaken (in my opinion, obviously).

I think you overestimated interest in this title and underestimated the company's health. I may be wrong though, since I haven't been hanging around BT community and haven't observed it's hunger firsthand. But I can say for sure - outside that community the franchise is mostly forgoten and written-off.

Like you said P2P model needs a big customer base. MW by itself doesn't warrant enough interest, and from what I gathered, the company cannot afford to hype up the project to cover the difference.

If that is true, then going P2P will soon prove to be a wrong move and will in the end only case unnessisary problems when switching to F2P.

I'd sure with for a succussful AAA p2p MW game, but I'm afraid that's not going to happen.

[Name144795]

Actually the best idea would be to offer both, with a variation.

Example custom decals & paints(presented), extra storage space(equipt and mech gantries) , special missions, xp boosts, c-bill boosts, salvage bonus boosts ect. These things could be sold for relatively cheap and be implemented. A person who decides to subscribe will get unlimited customization of paint, decal, extra storage, and special missions, but be unable to receive the Boost equipment. This way there's some balance.

Also since only the Multiplayer is being announced, selling DLC Co-Op 12 missions in sets would be profitable, I'm one that likes the story mode of games and mech warrior has a very good story that they can exploit. If they offer 12 mission Co-Op with a limit of 8 people (that all must buy that DLC in order to play together) for a good amount (about 25-30 dollars) and maybe rolls over something special from that DLC. It could be worth it.

This way those who want FtP can play the game as they see fit, if they spend some money its up to them. In the end if the player leaves he/she only spent a fraction of what a subscription would pull out. Those who buy subscriptions would benefit, and buying 12 Missions sets DLC would indeed extend the game far beyond its original intent.

[Skoll]

I personally, would not mind paying for a persistent MechWarrior game. Do any of you remember Chromehounds for Xbox 360, and how the entirety of that game was a persistent battlefield that only reset after each war?

It was a completely online game except for the offline tutorials, and the persistence gave every battle a sense of urgency when you deployed with your lance against other nations army.

Maintaining servers for battles spread across an entire galaxy, and PERSISTENTLY no less, would be anything but cheap and if this game is F2P, then I suspect it would turn into a kind of Combat Arms, but with mechs. Yes, the game would be free to play, but you'd probably end up having to buy time to use anything past a Medium Mech, and lord knows an Omni Mech aint happening for free. I'd rather just do a flat subscription rate so I don't have to worry about time expiring on my mech and dealing with all the hassle of customizing the loadout, etc.

And not to mention that we will probably get to completely customize paintjobs and insignias on them as well, which would also be reset in the event of a F2P, pay for "premium" mechs model.

Sorry if my words are a bit jumbled, it's nearly 4 AM here and I've not slept yet, but I do hope my point is across.

[Infine]

MW is not an AAA title. And definitely not in the AAA genre. AAA title is AAA (read selling gazillions of copies) because it can be played by a brain dead moron with a gamepad on a decade old console. MW is a very old franchise in a very beginner-unfriendly genre. It's not a game you'd buy for a kid when you have a generic FPS around. The flip side - MW fanbase is also old and by extension very loyal (because there's hardly a better word to describe a person who remained a fan through 10 years of dead silence) and most probably more willing to pay. So F2P should work better. It allows for milking hardcore fans till their wallets run dry like Sahara desert and allows an easy and non-obligating entrance for begginners. Which MWO will desperately need because a persistent world with ongoing story needs as much players as it can digest, and, let's face it, the size of hardcore MW fanbase would make it for dessert at best.

Also. I highly Highly HIGHLY suspect F2P games make much more on average than P2P.

[Name144795]

Infine, on 02 November 2011 - 12:18 AM, said:

MW is not an AAA title. And definitely not in the AAA genre. AAA title is AAA (read selling gazillions of copies) because it can be played by a brain dead moron with a gamepad on a decade old console. MW is a very old franchise in a very beginner-unfriendly genre. It's not a game you'd buy for a kid when you have a generic FPS around. The flip side - MW fanbase is also old and by extension very loyal (because there's hardly a better word to describe a person who remained a fan through 10 years of dead silence) and most probably more willing to pay. So F2P should work better. It allows for milking hardcore fans till their wallets run dry like Sahara desert and allows an easy and non-obligating entrance for begginners. Which MWO will desperately need because a persistent world with ongoing story needs as much players as it can digest, and, let's face it, the size of hardcore MW fanbase would make it for dessert at best.

Also. I highly Highly HIGHLY suspect F2P games make much more on average than P2P.

The Mechwarrior series at best is an A title during the height of its reign on PC. The is BT Series has a large cult following that rivals, D&D and Warhammer. This is new territory for the BT (MW) franchise.

If LoL is a good test that FtP works then its a smart move. Overall MW4 Mercs is actually free and that game is old but not that old. MW series has its deep loyal fanbase that would pay through the nose, for a game. A FTP with ability for subscription would be the better option, best of both worlds minus any tactical advantage other then maybe some special perks that arent game-breaking.

Edited by wolverine, 02 November 2011 - 12:26 AM.

[Asmudius Heng]

I think the biggest problem is we simply do not know enough of the economic specifics.

All products are a gamble but we do not really know the hard numbers and buying habits.

I do agree with one point someone made though - the battletech universe has a decent sized and hardcore following ... but it is not actually as big as you think.

Compare this with anyone who can relate to a modern themed shooter ... every kid, adult, grnadmother and everyone else knows this scenario without needing any introduction - we get it fed to us on the news every night.

Sci-fi already turns a massive number of people off (I loved BF2142 but half my BF2 friends said they didnt like sci-fi settings), then big robots are awesome to me, but have limited appeal to others even in sci fi because they want infantry combat with lasers (pew pew!).

The number of potential players shrinks and shrinks.

However. Free to play gives one massive advantage to this problem in that it WILL bring in people browsing the game. Tire kickers can convert to become fanatics ... hell that was me with mechwarrior. I played MW2 and enjoyed it but didnt understand it ... played MW4 and learned more than I needed to about battletech and totally nerded out on it. I only bought the game form a recommendation from my friend.

Free to play makes that sort of recomendation so easy that you will get a massive influx of new players. It could be a battletech revival of sorts as well as a mechwarrior revival.

As soon as you have a subscription fee you lose all of that and it becomes a much slower build up and you might never move the franchise forward as much as you could.

[Hellgardia]

I would gladly pay as long as it's something like i go to the store and buy the retail copy for 50 bucks or something. Subscription fees were one of the main reasons that made me left WoW.
Besides, like some people also stated, i prefer to pay for what i want to have then pay a monthly subscription.

[Brakkyn]

I'd much rather pay a flat, regular subscription fee than be endlessly nickel and dimed.

[Infine]

wolverine, on 02 November 2011 - 12:24 AM, said:

The Mechwarrior series at best is an A title during the height of its reign on PC. The is BT Series has a large cult following that rivals, D&D and Warhammer. This is new territory for the BT (MW) franchise.

There's a difference between a large tabletop cult and a generic FPS playerbase. A McKenna warship size difference. And not in favour of BT. The first is a bunch of fanatics (please don't take it as an offence. Let's be politically correct and call them geeks if you want), the second is everyone, their mom, their dog and cockroaches on their kitchen.

wolverine, on 02 November 2011 - 12:24 AM, said:

If LoL is a good test that FtP works then its a smart move. Overall MW4 Mercs is actually free and that game is old but not that old. MW series has its deep loyal fanbase that would pay through the nose, for a game. A FTP with ability for subscription would be the better option, best of both worlds minus any tactical advantage other then maybe some special perks that arent game-breaking.

Yes, my view too. WoT model looks good and sort of fits the usual BT importance of resources.

PS: I don't like clans as a premium content. I don't like the very idea of any major faction being premium content. And not because I want to play clans for free. Quite the opposite - I prefer IS. And that's the reason. The premium content would be exactly the thing I'm not interested in, even though I'm perfectly willing to pay if only to support the BT universe.

Edited by Infine, 02 November 2011 - 01:04 AM.

[Arkroyal]

I am more of a flat rate monthly subscriber too, but then I also play World of Tanks as well. 2500 gold which equals a 30 days of premium in World of Tanks also equals the same as if you were paying monthly for WOW or TOR or any other MMO which is around £8 GBP per month, so little difference in whatever business model is on offer, players will pay regardless. So these days F2P will most likely have a system in place that equals what AAA titles have to offer.
I am flexible, I rather pay a monthly subscription but if there is not one I will find a payment plan that either equals it or close to it to satisfy my gaming experience.

[Kargush]

Want to pay to play?

The developer can set up a paypal donation. Boom, there you go.

And then the rest of us can keep the F2P if we so wish.

[levowen]

Another issue is branding of the game. For older MMO players a pay to play subscription method would be considered the norm. With droves of previously pay 2 play modeled games switching to free to play, players are left with the impression those games have failed. I'm talking about Conan online, Star Trek Online (which BTW has a bigger following than MW), etc.

In my personal opinion I felt that those games were devalued when they switched to a free 2 play model. I also feel that new free 2 play games aren't going to be as well developed as something in the pay 2 play model. I still feel that Eve Online and World of Warcraft have infinitely more play value than one of the hundreds of Free 2 play games about. That being said though, they are slowly turning into dress up the doll games.

But I suspect the parent companies care significantly less about the games image than the balance books.

[Dozer]

I really don't see any sense in discussing model generalities when we know so little about what is on offer for the model i.e. what bang do we get for our buck (or not). There isn't much in the way of verifiable, sound research methodology in evidence here either. No facts or figures, just more speculation and conjecture. So essentially it's a discussion about nothing.

If you want to talk business models you first need to understand the strategic objecitves of the organisation(s) and their business profile first. None of this is in evidenced in this discussion so there is no sound basis for coorelation.

Why do we keep flogging this dead horse... apart from killing time ofc?

Edited by Dozer, 02 November 2011 - 04:16 AM.