Now everyone can freely play with their CoX!

Tuesday 21 June, 2011 at 12:00 pm Steve "Slurms" Lichtsinn 2
FreeCouch

That’s right, City of Heroes/Villains is joining the ever expanding “Free to Play” MMO club. They must have had to be sponsored by Fallen Earth or APB to get in. OOH, wonder if they get one of those sweet jackets.

But all kidding aside, this is most likely a brilliant move for the “City of” franchise. It’s almost assured that any “on the fence” players who have been looking for a super hero fix have been playing Champions Online for free (or for small bits of money from their wallets) rather than dropping the coin to play a more visually antiquated (yet more fun, IMO) version. Add in those potential customers with those who jumped ship to the new hotness DC Universe Online, and you have competition.

So with all the rivals that they once never had, it’s time shake things up to make the game profitable again. But besides the obvious points of this all making perfect business sense and the usual sarcastic, “oh, never saw THAT coming” comments, what does going Free to Play really mean, and why are games even coming out anymore with a monthly payment model?

I ask this because of a tweet that fellow blogger Scopique laid out on the Twitters,

I’m REALLY starting to think that if you release an MMO with a monthly sub at this point, you’re about 6 months to a year too late

That’s a fair point, right? It’s all the rage, and it’s proven to have made a financially huge difference for some studios. So why WOULD you release a game with a monthly sub nowadays? The only answer I can think of is that “Free to Play” adds a stigma to your game. Until now, most FTP titles have been, for lack of a better single word to describe them, Janky. There’s nothing wrong with most of them. Heck, I’m loving the re-released APB: Reloaded, but I’ll be the first to tell you it’s an inherently janky game when compared to other third or first person shooters.

The reason games like World of Warcraft, Rift or Star Wars: The Old Republic (most likely) has or will have released with a monthly subscription model, is because it separates them, even if only via subconscious marketing, from the “janky” FTP games. Will there be a “Triple-A” MMO to break out of the mold and be FTP on day one of its release? I kind of doubt it. Instead, what we will most likely continue to see are games that try their hand at a subscription model in order to make themselves appear as card carrying members of an elite squad of super MMO’s, but will make the move to FTP once it seems financially beneficial, thus giving everyone who doesn’t watch the MMO market as avidly as we, the warm fuzzy feeling that what was once a high quality game, is now super affordable.



Related Posts

What Makes WoW Tick?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  • Dachartach says:

    Well, a lot of the difference is that many of the F2P offerings out there are complete garbage, Chinese grinders, etc. Point 2, free-to-play-dom isn’t free. Many of these games have an unnecessarily steep levelling curve that almost requires you to purchase some of their items. Tales of people spending far more than $15 a month are common. Point three, box sales and subscriptions provide a definite cash flow for a company that has just sunk a lot of resources (time, money, wo/manpower, etc.) into an expensive project. I really don’t think the subscription payment model is on its last legs yet. I’m sure there is a happy medium, but until we reach that point the two models can coexist in relative peace and harmony. Kinda like Science and Religion, Sith Empire and Republic, Chelsea and Barcelona; you know, barely contained hostility occasionally bubbling over into open conflict. Which is about where the f2p vs. p2p situation is as of now.

  • Professer says:

    I hate ‘freemium’ or f2p models that funnel you into their cash shop and practically force you to spend money to keep up with things, which is just about most of them.

    All except the more recent western titles that have shifted to f2p. They’re mostly set up pretty nicely. ” Here’s half the game, like it? Pay for the wrest.”

  • 2 comments

    1. Dachartach Comment:June 22, 2011 at 7:54 am

      Well, a lot of the difference is that many of the F2P offerings out there are complete garbage, Chinese grinders, etc. Point 2, free-to-play-dom isn’t free. Many of these games have an unnecessarily steep levelling curve that almost requires you to purchase some of their items. Tales of people spending far more than $15 a month are common. Point three, box sales and subscriptions provide a definite cash flow for a company that has just sunk a lot of resources (time, money, wo/manpower, etc.) into an expensive project. I really don’t think the subscription payment model is on its last legs yet. I’m sure there is a happy medium, but until we reach that point the two models can coexist in relative peace and harmony. Kinda like Science and Religion, Sith Empire and Republic, Chelsea and Barcelona; you know, barely contained hostility occasionally bubbling over into open conflict. Which is about where the f2p vs. p2p situation is as of now.


    2. Professer Comment:June 23, 2011 at 4:50 am

      I hate ‘freemium’ or f2p models that funnel you into their cash shop and practically force you to spend money to keep up with things, which is just about most of them.

      All except the more recent western titles that have shifted to f2p. They’re mostly set up pretty nicely. ” Here’s half the game, like it? Pay for the wrest.”


    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Please fill the required fields...

    You may use: <a href="" title=""></a> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>.