Cash limit to 10 gold?

[Loaf-of-Evil]

Sub is bad?

99.98 for a 12 month sub, which I think gives you 14 months, turns out to be $7.15 a month. Less than ONE movie. That's a pretty awesme deal for entertainment at .23 a day, less than starting your car...

[Anubium]

After you reach lvl 80, the main game play pretty much requires a subscription. AAs, t2, t3, t4 dungeons, probably most sixmans...

I can see being ftp up to lvl 80 to see if you like the game, but with the sub offers (it was under $100 for 16 months of gameplay last week) its not that much to play.

I pay more to go out to see a movie and have popcorn than 15/night and for even a base subscription its 15/month for full forum and game access. Pretty good deal imo. Especially since I used to play EQOA with four paid accounts which ended up being 50/month. Now I have one account with 18 character slots for about 8/month.

Plus if you watch for it you can generally get some nice subscription offers. I didn't sign up for the ring because I wanted more than one per account, but so far I have full account camels, white and orange tigers, Shemite stallion plus assorted rings and goodies such as the social pets and fighting pets for all my guys. Along with the exotic/advanced riding lessons in my /claim. And a ton of potions.

[Jaedelyia]

Unfortunately, it looks like I'll need the uber stuff in order to progress in the destiny quest, so I may need to sub later on, if only to keep the game from becoming stale.

For real tho, you don't need any uberpowerful weapon for your destiny quest. Just try to have gear that is the level of your character. Destiny quest can be tricky for some classes, but it's definitely not that impossible

[barbaricwildcat2]

Sub is bad?

99.98 for a 12 month sub, which I think gives you 14 months, turns out to be $7.15 a month. Less than ONE movie. That's a pretty awesme deal for entertainment at .23 a day, less than starting your car...

more like 16 mths

so $6.25/mth

[Kurt2013]

So, you are saying that a f2p member can't buy anything that costs more than 10 golds.
Very sad.

If I want a mount and the only chances to have it are to pay with real money or to renounce (and both are bad options in a so-called f2p game), I can consider myself "forced" to spend somehow.

Anyway, thanks for answer.

Exactly, that is their policy. How well it works, you can check for yourself Imo, it would even make a bit of sense, if there was the option to permanently unlock restrictions...but for many, there is none.

@Loaf: No, the cost is higher in Euros. Also, for a longterm sub you have to trust the company not to mess up things you like(d) about the game and want to be active in the sub only content. So not valid or a good choice for everyone (even for funcom). But that is how they want it to be now. Guess for them no money from certain customers is better than some money.

But if you like khitai, raids and the unchained dungeons, the sub really is a nice convenience bundle. If you trust funcom enough for a steady sub, is your own decision (you can compare it with a mag subscription)

[Treras]

Exactly, that is their policy. How well it works, you can check for yourself Imo, it would even make a bit of sense, if there was the option to permanently unlock restrictions...but for many, there is none..

Except then they get into a position where (a) they don't have the capacity to offer anything of value, (b) they don't have the revenue to build anything of value and (c) they end up with a volume of players that are not paying a cent, but costing them money.

Doesn't seem like a viable option for them at the moment. Hopefully, if they manage to dig their way out of this hole, they can build something and create something where F2P is more F2P than an extended trial

[Kurt2013]

Any proof or examples for that assumption?

a) if they don't have the capacity to offer anything of value, then it is not the customers fault. Maybe they should offer something then...in terms of more attractive offers for f2p and sub. Lots of suggestions for that can be found here in the forums and in literature.

b) First, if someone buys permanent unlocks and they are priced right and still attractive, that person generated revenue already. it is not causal, that they would earn less as you imply. For that, you leave out the customers who will not sub in general (for whatever reason). Back to the mag analogy: You simply neglect that a company makes money from individual magazine sales and ad hoc decisions too. Ask them, what the percentage of subs and direct sales is.

c) You assume players costing money. This is the wrong approach and probably not well calculated either, because you leave out the activity, advertising and population factor. And again it is not causal, that a f2p is costing more than a sub player.
You have costs for active players yes. But they can generate revenue just buy playing, not costing only (if only by giving subs someone to play with). Here i assume, that in an MMO there is a certain population requirement to keep all playing happy. If you restrict too much here without options for the players, they will reach a point of "sub or quit" and there will always be people choosing the latter (a trial model, not bad in itself either if the product fits). Even in a bad case, you will have an active happy f2p player who contributes with activity. I would not consider that "cost". By that logic, the most attractive server for funcom would be an empty one.

And seriously, since funcom does not give away numbers:
What is the cost of players? Space in database? More time spend in maintenance? More time spent in customer service?
I rather think it is the opposite way around. The more players you have active who contribute even a little, the less the fixed server maintenance and dev cost will count.

It is not even a big investment, since we are talking about virtual products here. It should cost next to nothing to create options to remove permanent restrictions single char or accountwide (because they already have it for some products). Same with adding accountwide options for all gear, bags and bank space. They should be able to add temporary access for all sub areas easily (copy&paste) and changing shop prices can be done easily too.
I see no real economic or technical reason for this, except policy.
I do not say focusing a sub model is bad per se, but it has to be in a non-restrictive matter (you can add benefits and differences, so the bundle stays attractive). F2p and subs add both to population and when it is not restrictive, both can play together. To avoid the "why am i paying and they not" feeling, there can be differences still. Even funcom has made some good examples here (AA, progression speed, convenience). In theory, if a f2p wants the same convenience and access as a sub, it should cost a lot more than subbing. Temporary unlocks therefore should be really cheap and fast available, permanent unlocks costly.

And similar important: you do not advertise your game as f2p, if it isn't.

Another thing is, that customers take only to a certain point, if the quality of the product is reduced (latency, server merges, server moves, revamps, population). In the magazine analogy again you are getting less pages per mag and more advertisement and worse articles. Do you really want to blame people to cancel the sub and go for a "i buy the mag, when i see something i like" variant? (that is why i simply to not accept the "oh, just sub, it is cheap and unlocks all" argument.)
I think a better f2p model would be doable and a valid way for them to at least soften the problems...and they will not likely loose out on subs (except those they would have lost anyway), if they make the f2p more attractive even (you might get vets choosing f2p over sub, but these are countered by friends of them or new players spending money to close the gap). It is a thing of targetting the right crowd, too (as in b)). And imo, by targetting a sub only crowd, they leave out a lot of potential...and i am not sure, they can afford such behaviour right now.

Sorry for the wall of text, Treras But i hope you can understand why i am a bit annoyed by that policy...it is like sabotaging yourself to me. They don't even need to offer permanent unlocks on everything right away...first a cheap temporary option and then expand, works fine even with whatever infrastructure they have now. Same with permanent unlocks (can work in stages, too) for other stupid restrictions (resource space, inventory space, 2/5 bank space, QUEST inventory and log, chat options, like 500 points for another 5g or 50 points for 5 slot unlock etc.). No need to give permanent unlocks to latest content...but imagine giving free 2 day passes as advertising and at the same time adding a <100 fc points access fee for more days. Then after some months/weeks comes the permanent unlock option. But if i am f2p and have to spent around 9 Euros for a 2-3 day pass to a khitai dungeon PER character (and then i have to look on THAT character only for a group for that particular instance and hope i am lucky)...that is not attractive or a valid alternative to subbing. And imo that is what a working f2p should offer.

[Treras]

Sorry for the wall of text, Treras But i hope you can understand why i am a bit annoyed by that policy...it is like sabotaging yourself to me.

Oh, I agree with you. But I've been playing both Age of Conan and The Secret World since release of both.

I've seen two Game Directors come and go. One who had the right direction and dream, but failed in execution. One who wanted to play World of Warcraft in Hyboria (I really dislike what Craig Morrison did to this game) and now we have Joel, a very capable person to my mind - I like what he is trying to do. I love his plans in The Secret World

But like it or not, I've also been through the layoffs and seen what that did to the company's output. The scandal with their stock and previous management. I've seen the impact of previous game directors on a game that had record launch sales and has ended where now? One populated server and two dying PvP servers in a game that was built with a strong PvP focus originally? (I don't, not in these style of MMOs anyway ) And it's still one of the best universes and games with the most potential out there.

So yeah, as a consumer I've seen what has happened over the last however many years to a game I've loved and loathed. That's the basis for me thinking too much F2P at the moment is a bad idea especially when a sub is already so cheap. In the future, when they've built the game and population back up sure - launch into a real F2P system then.

Now though? As soon as you start selling the rewards for subscribing for a once off fee you lose the incentive to subscribe. They'll be trading a short term cash injection for long term expenses in maintenance, support, bandwidth, power, etc. that keep on going even when they've run out of that initial cash boost.

[Kurt2013]

If they would just open up f2p like they did before, i would agree with you. But even these were good moves, though unnecessary (change to access and 10g instead of 2g). Sadly they always seem to miss the opportunity...they had the anniversary, new sub offers and changes to f2p...but apart from the event not much else happened, especially no system fixes. Also i would agree with you, if they had not the infrastructure and a "f2p" model already. And even then, they went that way for a reason after khitai...and it worked for a time, till people realized and experienced the restrictions of gameplay and the limits of the shop. Not even speaking of design problems here...but i have seen many players with me during 2012/2013 who started f2p, but always considered the cost of a sub.

Now it mostly makes sense to sub at 80 and the value is still hugely bound to the khitai expansion, which i see again as lost opportunities.

What do f2p earn funcom during the trial phase?
- bags?
You really only need the big shop bag, if you are a fashionista/collector or get close to 80. For the rest an ingame bag does the trick. Also the charbound one is VERY expensive (the accountwide price worked for me, though )
- vanity armor?
Actually this seems to work well for the cheap ones and bundles, especially now with the accountwide option. I have seen many new chars with vanity gear of that type. But it becomes unattractive fast with the >100 fc point stuff.
- power armor?
definitely too expensive, since you outlevel it fast and it not better than quest rewards or dungeon armor (and should not be, imo!). But for the whole charbound offer, it is simply too unattractive.
- paths?
too expensive...and when you decide to sub at some point, you wait for veteran ones
- access passes?
definitely too expensive. During the khitai world boss i checked and actually considered buying for a few chars to get the quest update. But a quick look at the time (days) and price (a few hundred points per char) quickly stopped that. This product could be ideal for ad hoc considerations and for joining a group in an instance you like(d).
- char slots?
Definitely worked for me and others, i know. And sure a better solution for funcom than dozens of f2p accounts made by the same physical person to avoid the 2 char limit. If they expand accountwide buy options, this will be an attractive product too.

Apart from that, there is not much funcom could earn. Of these 4 of 6 points would be more likely to generate more revenue, if they follow the suggestions. They also miss on more access passes (temporary or permanent), restriction unlocks (temporary or permanent, if you need to do THAT important trade), chat restrictions (not that important, since one month sub already does the trick), inventory addons (so far only bank space and inventory can be expanded. No way to expand resources and quests).

Especially with permanent unlocks they could get short term money boosts, if done right. Imo, this is better than more decline in population and i consider making the sub really more attractive actually work. This would involve constant maintenance, engine fixes, gameworld addons etc.. Something they should do anywhere, but here the "low resource" argument cuts even deeper than with updating the shop or f2p model.

Game designwise, they miss even more opportunities. Imagine rare tokens added to old world normal mode instances. Even, if some are turned into 2-4 people instances, because a premium vet is around. This game needs more interaction exactly during this phase, where the gameplay turns from mostly solo to group needed all of a sudden. And this transition should be smoothed out more.

About your last paragraph. I see no reason you should make it possible to equal a f2p with a sub. If permanent access costs enough, where is the drawback? That maybe in 4 years there will be players who can go everywhere without having a sub?
Even if it were possible to make it completely equal permanently (like a lifetime sub), then it will be better still than no revenue, especially with layoffs, because they need that money NOW.

There can be (and should be) still benefits for choosing the convenience bundle. But it should be something for convenience (veteran shop, offline levelling, AA gain, xp buff access) maybe with a tiny control aspect when it comes to latest content. But then, if you add new stuff, you should add special offers for subbing too.

I am not even speaking about the analysis possibilities you get, if you fix the f2p model. Instead of a vague feedback or bad feedback through the forums, you could just look directly at sales numbers for the popularity of instances and take a look, why this is so.

[Treras]

- vanity armor?
Actually this seems to work well for the cheap ones and bundles, especially now with the accountwide option. I have seen many new chars with vanity gear of that type. But it becomes unattractive fast with the >100 fc point stuff.

That's actually almost the only thing I buy in TSW. (Grand Master there) But if memory serves me right, the vanity armour ranges from about 600 to around 1200 per piece? I don't recall the prices, but they do come in account wide options which is nice. You don't have to buy it per character then.

What is the sub cost in Euro? The best I can find is a six month price at 10.99 EUR per month (Ex VAT, I think) but I can only see USD prices.

I don't disagree there's a lot they can do. And I'm sure they want to do heaps. The reality is probably that something has to pay for it, which is kinda a chicken and egg thing at the moment. They need more content and features and fixes to get more players, but they need more players to help pay for the content and features and fixes they need to get more players which will help ...

Heh.