+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 125
Like Tree109Likes

  Click here to go to the first Rift Team post in this thread.   Thread: New Souls Need To Be Offered Individually

  1. #106
    Ascendant
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,433

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Muspel View Post
    Putting dollars to hours of enjoyment is a perfectly reasonable argument.
    It's weak at best as a way to justify the cost. I, myself, think they are reasonably priced.

    Quote Originally Posted by Muspel View Post
    So, hang on, is it that Rift never had a shortage of players before F2P (which, by the way, it definitely did), or is it that it was steadily declining through the original launch and after SL launch?

    You're contradicting yourself.
    Oh, dear. No contradiction from me. Yes the player pop declined, and I know you've seen those graphs. I never said it didn't what I said is that the remaining players were enough to ensure you could partake in any group content with no problem finding players. Icewatch was a very healthy shard. Maybe the only one but healthy none the less. I don't see how that's a contradiction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Muspel View Post
    Context is important. That interview was done when the F2P games on the market all WERE whaling enterprises with extremely restrictive F2P models.

    Things changed. F2P MMOs were released that weren't painful to play for free players.

    I'd guess that it was seeing that kind of thing that made them start to consider taking Rift F2P, because they saw that a game could be actually without viciously punishing players that didn't pay, and still be successful.
    Yeah, it was an act of humanity. We all believe that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Muspel View Post
    This is an MMO, not a fashion simulator.
    So you ignore recycled bosses so should I take by omission you agree with me then.

    Quote Originally Posted by Muspel View Post
    SWTOR was released with a subscription and went F2P in what I'm pretty sure was record time.

    ESO was released to tepid reviews, and we have zero data on how well it's retaining players (and even if we did, a month and a half of data isn't enough to draw a conclusion from).

    Final Fantasy 14's rerelease is less than a year old, and while it's certainly profitable, it's hard to judge how well it's retaining players. It's largely dropped off the radar of the MMO gaming news sites I follow, but it's hard to say whether or not that's a significant data point. It remains to be seen how much staying power it will have.

    Wildstar is not yet out, as you noted, so I would say it's not really a meaningful example to say "this game is launching with a subscription" when we have no idea how well it will do.
    While yes it remains to be seen how these games go under the sub model it does indicate that among those decision makers they don't believe the f2p is as good as people claim it to be. Are they wrong, possibly, but I doubt it myself seeing the decline in Rift under f2p.

    Quote Originally Posted by Muspel View Post
    More importantly, at no point did Ocho say that the subscription model was not viable. He just said that the F2P model was better. They went F2P because that way they could provide the game to a greater number of players, and I expect that they're making more money this way as well.
    Ocho was just regurgitated the company line on f2p. We've read the exact same stuff from other employees.

    Quote Originally Posted by Muspel View Post
    How dare they produce BtA cosmetic items so that they can provide the core content of the game for free!
    Seriously, you know damn well what I mean by lottery boxes.

    I lost a little respect for you with this post. I know you're in tight with Trion but lately you've been doing a lot of white knighting.

  2. #107
    Prophet of Telara
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,058

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ocho View Post
    ....

    It would be better if you offered outfits per item than per set and souls per soul than per set simply because it gives people more credits to work with which would be used to gamble for best in slots and mounts. That is just how I feel and don't think that it would be too difficult to implement. The game is a big grind already. If you don't believe me calculate how much time it will take you to get deplete cell + millions of favor for the warlord cells to upgrade to relic gear. You can argue that you don't need relic to be successful in pvp.. and this is true but some players definitely have an advantage over others for having the relic gear and it isn't like they are better at pvp than those with out it. Some of them just have more time to farm cq and others just have more money than brain cells.
    Last edited by Planetx; 05-19-2014 at 01:32 PM.

  3. #108
    General of Telara arus2001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    957

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ocho View Post
    What I suspect you're primarily seeing here is where we are in the content release cycle, and therefore where most of our content work is being done. We're currently pretty deep into working on 3.0, and therefore our content guys are working on 3.0 as well. New areas to play in, level cap raise, all contribute to more and more of those dev hours being spent in that direction. There is pve solo content in 2.7, the new soul quest lines for instance (that aren't gated behind purchasing the souls for the record), but it isn't as robust as it might be right after an expansion level release. That will of course change, and we appreciate the feedback.
    I won't deny sounding a bit greedy, as I think we all want more when we can get it. I think, perhaps, the content cycle style of peaks and valleys can lead to fleeting interest in more the valley phase. If it's more leveled out, then I could perhaps see more prolonged presence. Though, if I could liken it some to my past experience, it was kind of like getting EI at 50, running the the quests, then getting some ISS gear before it was just kind of all... "what now?" until SL came out a good bit later. I'd figured I'd get about 3 months out of that, which lined up roughly to how I played while the game was still P2P. Then it was valley again until Dendrome.

    Overall, I'm not sure how much data you guys are sitting on when it comes to feedback regarding dailies, rep grinds, and all that. I'll just say I'm not a particular fan of both, especially if dalies have no "memory" and instead become compulsory log-ins or you lose progress. I'd also say these don't quite fit into the F2P model as they are indeed things more better suited to stringing out sub retention. But this could also just be my dislike of strict time gating and repeating the same stuff a bit too much. IAs as pseudo-RNG can be okay, but I'd be lying if some objectives weren't annoying to have pop up, like some of the old zone event requirements that basically forced ending the group if it was something like the Blight event or one a smaller group couldn't finish in a timely manner.

    I could probably prattle a bit further about what I like and don't, but I think it's veering a bit off-topic now, as is.

  4. #109
    Rift Disciple
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ocho View Post

    I'm an old school guy and I liked the subscriber model myself. But as a player I've seen f2p now in a lot of games and seen how it brings people in who were hesitant to play because they weren't sure if they'd like it and didn't want to spend before they tested it out. I like playing with more people, and most other folks do too. It's also helped me learn there were a few games out there I was considering, but after playing them I figured out they weren't for me. That's a heck of an improvement for me as a player, saved me quite a bit of cash.
    I like the subscriber model, too, but appreciate being able to choose it after I've tried the game. The last five years have really driven home that almost all games sound good pre-launch into early post-launch. A company should fire its marketing department if it doesn't launch with good buzz. It's only after players have had a chance to get past the initial "ooh-ah" that you really learn what the game is like.

    For games that don't offer f2p with no sub, I won't try them out until there is enough sober assessment of them that I have a reasonable chance of determining if I'll get good return on both my time and my money, given how I like to spend my MMO time.

    Anyway, I like RIFT's model. I subscribe to RIFT, as I almost always do for a game a play for any length of time, but in the case of RIFT, I'm happy to get nice perks rather than must-have things. As for a certain other game that launched recently, not going to even look at it until they drop the required subscription and won't be in a rush even then as long as pay-to-acquire is full price. But on the plus side, that will allow plenty of time for reviews based on more than a few hours' impression to be commonly available.

  5. #110
    Shield of Telara
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    759

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Muspel View Post
    SWTOR was released with a subscription and went F2P in what I'm pretty sure was record time.
    Title's taken by ArcheAge.

    Quote Originally Posted by Muspel View Post
    ESO was released to tepid reviews, and we have zero data on how well it's retaining players (and even if we did, a month and a half of data isn't enough to draw a conclusion from).
    Ah, yes. What games have been released to glowing reviews, perchance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Muspel View Post
    Final Fantasy 14's re-release is less than a year old, and while it's certainly profitable, it's hard to judge how well it's retaining players. It's largely dropped off the radar of the MMO gaming news sites I follow, but it's hard to say whether or not that's a significant data point. It remains to be seen how much staying power it will have.
    You could do an ounce of research when quoting things; like visiting the website. http://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodestone/

    With the imminent release of Wildstar, previously released MMOs are certainly taking a back seat. You could easily say the same about Rift no longer showing up on gaming websites. I guess that makes it hard to say whether or not that makes a significant data point for Rift.

  6. #111
    General of Telara Jaedor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    985

    Default

    Saw some pretty high REX prices in this thread and thought I'd remind folks that not every shard has the same economy. It's worth doing some shard hopping to see what kinds of deals you can find when you are looking at a big spend.
    Thorin's Halls, Lost Cavern, The Road Less Traveled, Hypnotique, Avalon, Hero's Quest: Belly of the Beast, Avatar v2.0, Promenade Penthouse, Hero's Quest: Sleeping Beauty, Quadradream, Everwinter, Karthan Paradise, Halls of Intoxication, Court of Shadows, Dreamscapes, Lost in Wonderland, Hero’s Quest: Hidden Canyon, Bywater, Sanguine Summer Greybriar Dimension Geek

  7. #112
    Prophet of Telara Frailaq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,181

    Default

    The price seems fair... I just have no need of the other three souls. Comparing it to a McDonalds meal makes it sound not quite as bad but there's a subtle difference. How about comparing it to buying a car? When you go to the car dealership, you expect there to be a base model and then several options that you can add on. If the only way you could purchase the car was with all options added you might consider looking elsewhere. Likewise, if you compared it to a service such as an Office 365 account, you have your base plans with minimal features and then you can tack on more and more options as you need but there's still that base plan you can get. If you could only purchase the highest edition of Office 365 with everything included then you'd probably go with Gmail unless you absolutely needed some of the features that Office 365 offered.

    Same thing with Rift Souls. I expect there to be a base model (one soul) and if I want the others then I'll buy them too. In fact, I wouldn't even mind if buying all 4 at the same time came with a discount as opposed to buying them separately as long as I still had the option to buy them separately. At 4500 credits for the set or 1500 credits per soul I would still be satisfied and would still buy just one soul (of course I'd be paying plat but same end result for Trion).

    Is this really not going to be an option? I thought the one of the base concepts of sales was to offer the same product in as many different ways as possible in order to increase the chances of any individual person deciding to purchase the product in one of those ways?
    Last edited by Frailaq; 05-19-2014 at 03:23 PM.
    Avatar by Rotaken on deviantART.

  8. #113
    Ascendant Shattered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    3,932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frailaq View Post
    Is this really not going to be an option? I thought the one of the base concepts of sales was to offer the same product in as many different ways as possible in order to increase the chances of any individual person deciding to purchase the product in one of those ways?
    You would think, but I guess Trion feels they can milk more from the player base by forcing them into bundle purchases, like with outfits. I can tell you, that results in a lot fewer sales on my part.
    RIFT- now Pay 2 Gamble 2 Win
    <Shattered Chain> of Faeblight .::. currently enjoying Guild Wars 2

  9. #114
    Ascendant Laeris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,873

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ocho View Post
    This isn't the case anymore. Maybe 5 years ago, when free to play was relatively new, but now it's pretty much the norm (and for good reason). I've worked on a lot of games that have transitioned to free to play, and it was never done "to survive" on any of the games I've worked on. Free to Play is simply a better option for most games, because it reduces barriers for players who want to try the game. We're absolutely confident that RIFT is a great game, and once you play you'll want to play more. Converting RIFT Free to Play was done because it's a good game and it was a good strategy. Free to Play means bad games do worse and good games do better, because people aren't suckered in to spending money on a game they've never played.

    I'm an old school guy and I liked the subscriber model myself. But as a player I've seen f2p now in a lot of games and seen how it brings people in who were hesitant to play because they weren't sure if they'd like it and didn't want to spend before they tested it out. I like playing with more people, and most other folks do too. It's also helped me learn there were a few games out there I was considering, but after playing them I figured out they weren't for me. That's a heck of an improvement for me as a player, saved me quite a bit of cash.

    With RIFT being Free to Play now the pressure is on us to produce the absolute best quality game we can, because we can't rely on box revenue to generate income. As a community manager I like that too, because it means that we've gotta keep pushing ourselves. We can't rely on box+subscription to keep folks around (since they're already invested if they've put the money up front), it keeps us on our toes. We've got to keep adding stuff to keep you entertained, or you'll maybe leave. And that benefits all the players (old and new alike), because you reap the rewards of us adding more to the game all the time.
    I too have worked on several MMOs (from the business side of the house) and I can't recall one of mine that went F2P that wasn't a part of a multi-step contingency plan aimed at reducing overhead. F2P is rarely done to make money. It's done to reduce overhead which in turn, saves money and therefore raised the bottom line. F2P is OK in the short term but it typically dries up fairly quickly.

    The reason why has to do with how MMO players think. So many of them want a game to go F2P... but almost all people who don't play that MMO think that they went F2P because the game is dead or dying (and in most cases, they're absolutely right). Because of this, once the initial surge of looky-loos comes back to check things out... a game rarely maintains that same revenue stream for the duration. Then, you have games like EVE and WoW that focus all of their assets onto one product... and they maintain a sub due to the overarching quality of the game they produce... and in EVE's example, their numbers consistently increase. This is totally opposite of the model most F2P games work under... that being one of accepted, constant attrition and erosion of revenue. This is why so many F2P games end up micro-monetizing everything.

  10. #115
    Ascendant Laeris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,873

    Default

    And I hate to be the voice of common sense but if Trion's F2P model was so great, then why did they have to lay off half of their staff and close their satellite development offices?

    Trion isn't unique here. Every single MMO that goes F2P from a sub model has to scale back operating costs. That's because they don't bring in the same amount of revenues. The F2P model is better to operate under though because it costs less... it also delivers a LOT less to the players in return.

  11. #116
    Prophet of Telara
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Laeris View Post
    And I hate to be the voice of common sense but if Trion's F2P model was so great, then why did they have to lay off half of their staff and close their satellite development offices?

    Trion isn't unique here. Every single MMO that goes F2P from a sub model has to scale back operating costs. That's because they don't bring in the same amount of revenues. The F2P model is better to operate under though because it costs less... it also delivers a LOT less to the players in return.
    Laying off a large portion of staff after the release of an expansion pack is quite normal. They were there to get the expansion up and thier work was done. As for the satellite offices, you mean the ones that had nothing to do with Rift?

    The vast majority of MMOs that go F2P start having more players, make more money and continue development that would have stopped under a sub model.
    Lathais@Deepwood - <The Praetorians> - 60 Rogue
    Check out this guide Guide for fresh 60's: The One Level 60 Guide - Updated for 2.5
    Check these out:Gaming/Computer Glasses
    My Multi-Touch Table Project

  12. #117
    Ascendant Laeris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,873

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    Laying off a large portion of staff after the release of an expansion pack is quite normal. They were there to get the expansion up and thier work was done. As for the satellite offices, you mean the ones that had nothing to do with Rift?

    The vast majority of MMOs that go F2P start having more players, make more money and continue development that would have stopped under a sub model.
    Yes but their work wasn't done. They had 2 other games in development and were supporting Defiance. All of them were impacted. Rift was their only real money maker. Defiance isn't bad but it is very niche. Thus, to argue against this point you have to say that the decisions to go F2P and to scale back operations across the board were in no way related.

    To quote Scott Hartsman himself:


    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Hartsman
    "One of the assumptions people make is you can just take a game and throw a switch and change the model. For starters, you'd have to decide that that would be a good thing, and I do not think it would be -- that would be a fairly large net negative for RIFT and the RIFT community."

    "Take a free-to-play game or a social game, where the business is all about -- the social games' word for it is, 'going whaling. The idea is you have a paying player subsidising the play of, potentially, dozens or hundreds of other users. And so you have to be willing to create a game that has the ability to make huge sums of money from relatively small numbers of people. Once you decide that you are going to enter the whaling business, it's a different mindset and a different set of goals you're designing for entirely."
    Now given that their CEO has this mindset... do you honestly think F2P was done because of the good of the game? Hell no it wasn't. It was done for the reason I outlined in the posts above. It was part of a multi-step paring down of the company's overhead because life was not all rainbows and unicorns.

    Just as Hartsman said, it negatively impacted Rift to the point where... and I have complained about this so loudly as of late... people like me get nickle and dimed to absolutely nauseating levels. We are the ones who pay the way for all of the froobs. The froobs live the good life while the vets and "supporters" who pay the money get penny pinched for our trouble.

    I'm one of the vocal ones who said, "enough is enough." I doubt I'm the only one. I have also said this before... Rift is my favorite game ever. That's why I'm still here... hoping one day to be able to come back and just enjoy the game. That likely will never happen because I won't let myself be abused by a pay system that operates on the same fundamentals that a Las Vegas casino hotel and buffet operates on. If I want to gamble away a ton of money with no guarantee on any return... I'll just go to Vegas... not to Trion.
    Last edited by Laeris; 05-19-2014 at 04:10 PM.

  13. #118
    Rift Disciple Practicelap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Laeris View Post
    If I want to gamble away a ton of money with no guarantee on any return... I'll just go to Vegas... not to Trion.

    If you have that much of a problem with it, why don't you just quit paying and find something else to play?

  14. #119
    Ascendant Laeris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,873

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Practicelap View Post
    If you have that much of a problem with it, why don't you just quit paying and find something else to play?
    I quit paying and playing in November.

  15. #120
    Rift Disciple Nidhoggr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Laeris View Post
    I quit paying and playing in November.
    And yet you still can't get Rift off your mind.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts