Interesting statement from Kander about F2P and expansions

In this thread on the DBforums about adding ToT to the free-to-play foster, Kander replied with this:



(Dude has asked in-thread if this means nothing will ever be added again, but no clarification yet.)

 

To me that sounds ominous and could mean that the POP expansion will be the last one, and if so, then why bother adding to the F2P line up. They have been slowly whittling down EQ2 for a while now. The future for EQ2 is looking less hopeful all the time.

 

Sigh...I'm feeling that too. Seeing the PAX and Austin Game Con booth pics just kind of deflated me...

 

could just mean they think they've added enough to free to play. some games only allow a few expansions to be free. others go all the way up to current expansion pack but lock out key features/dungeons/items. I've always thought DDO did this the right way, with allowing free players to do everything but being unable to unlock some dungeons on more difficult versions with better rewards. That way you can still participate and see the cool stuff others get, but be unable to equip it or use it or go in without people that pay for it.

hard to speculate on what direction this statement from Kander indicates without knowing further details. Also, Kander is infamous now for randomly throwing out statements without corroboration or any further data. Heck, he admits to outright lying.



So, yeah. Unhelpful post is unhelpful.

 

Jesus...I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this point.

 

I might be remembering this incorrectly, but it's in the back of my head that they'd made an announcement at or around the time of the buyout that AoM would be the last one that would go free to play. I could be entirely wrong.

Regardless, it fits right in with their push to buy, buy, buy, sub, sub, sub - and having less and less incentive for non-recurring subscribers to play at all.

 

Agreed. And the rough part is that it is such a short, sharp statement...without clarification, it will only cause (more) confusion and uncertainty.

I am trying to keep my Pollyanna hat on and hope that it might mean they are going to buff up subscriber perks (maybe more of the IoR bonuses will make their way to the rest of the servers, as fast travel did) and put a bigger incentive on converting F2P accounts to subscription. Time will tell, though...

(heh, I typoed that as "Tim will tell"...whoops)

 

I take that comment exactly how he said it.

If you want access to content after AOM, you're gonna have to .buy the content

This is entirely consistent with the posture DBG has taken since CN bought the game.

Honestly, I'm pretty meh on this 'cause i don't f2p games - don't like all the restrictions. And really, eq2 gives access to a lot more that most f2p games do.

 

Added emphasis, this is what I want to address.

I'm not sure where this notion comes from in current year. Has it just been repeated so many times that folks believe it? What do they consider 'access'? What do they think should be part of the game, and what should be subscriber only in games that offer a hybrid model?

It's been my experience with three titles in the mmo market that I've played personally and extensively with a hybrid model that EQ2 is last place in every way for both access and subscriber benefits.

I have direct knowledge of a few other games via spouse that have hybrid which also rate higher in both categories.

I tend to subscribe to a game I'm actively playing but I'd rather be enticed to spend money, instead of punished for not spending money.

 

Kander used to be my favourite. Now, not so much. He just comes across as an arrogant pig in almost everything he writes.

I don't think it helps the game to speculate what it could mean. It could just mean they're stupid enough to think that all the f2p players will now sub and buy all the expansions.
I sometimes wonder if they realise that a lot of the f2p accounts are subbers second, third and fourth accounts.

As for EQ2 giving more with f2p than other games, it doesn't, and particularly now there are so many other games out there.

 

I'm sure you're right. Admittedly, I haven't f2p's any games for years, so I'm actually not a credible voice on that.

 

Please don't feel like I'm calling you out specifically, I'm really not. It's just a statement I see all the time, especially at the Other Place, that frustrates me and also intrigues me.

Regardless of frustration, I am actually interested in having a discussion about why folks think that. I'm stubborn, but relatively reasonable (I think!)

 

Nah, it's all good. I was pulling up experiences I had years ago. I really have no idea what's out there today. Heck, when I bought ESO recently, I just bought the box and subscribed. So I don't even know how they are structured.

 

You got the magic crafting bag of happy with your subscription - that alone is worth it!

 

Yup, that single feature means you will find almost NO f2p players in that game. A very smart incentive.

 

So what are the good options if EQ2 goes away? I think at that point I'll just hang it up...given 13 years to this game.

 

When I went looking around, I just hit up you tube and searched "Most popular mmorpg 2017" and "best mmorpg 2017". You'll return a bunch of streamers giving their opi ions end demonstrating features of the games, what they like, don't like, etc.

I ended up giving eso a shot and am having a good time with it.

 

How about listing those three titles so I can figure out how to answer you.

 

EQ2 vs ESO vs Rift - my own personal experience in regard to the hybrid subscription free model, which can be measured objectively. Not game play, which is entirely subjective.

 

It depends on what you're after: Raid? Small group content? Solo?

Does housing matter? Does wardrobe matter? If so, dyes?

Do you want subscription, hybrid, buy to play?