Funcom Still Banging The Subscription Drum

[The Wooster]

Funcom Still Banging The Subscription Drum

The Secret World director, Ragnar Tornquist, talks subscriptions and the seeming inevitability of the free-to-play model.

While Ragnar Tornquist believes his recently released MMO, The Secret World, will inevitably end up free-to-play, he maintains the market isn't yet ready to abandon the subscription model altogether.

"Of course [having Conan go free-to-play] has taught us a lot. Five years from now, ten years from now, will Secret World be free-to-play? I'm sure of it," he told RockPaperShotgun.

That's no doubt reassuring news to those of you who purchased a lifetime subscription to the game.

"But that's a long time. For the time being, we're committed to this business model, and as long as people are willing to pay us in order to provide them with expanded content and ongoing content, we'll keep that business model.

"It is the only business model that makes sense in terms of giving players this living, breathing world and this constantly upgraded, expanded experience," he added.

Funcom's Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures switched over to a F2P, microtransaction-driven business model in May of 2011, some three years after its original release. Though scrapping subscriptions often proves profitable - Conan's revenue doubled following the switch - many see it as a sign of failure, a tacit admission that the title can't compete in the subscription market.

As the subscription phase of the average MMO's lifespan grows ever shorter, many are questioning whether the model is sustainable, regardless of any given game's quality. While Tornquist argues in favor of subscriptions, he admits he doesn't know if they'll be around in five years' time.

"But it wasn't right for us to come out and be a free-to-play game, because then we would have to find other ways to support the ongoing content," he continued. "Whether it would be DLC and charging people for that, or an item store and charging people for that, [I can't say]. At any rate, people are going to have to pay more in order to support the ongoing development. I think that at least for me and at least for traditional MMO players, a subscription fee is something they understand."

It's worth noting that The Secret World features both a subscription fee and a cosmetic item cash shop.

Source: RockPaperShotgun [http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/07/06/secret-worlds-tornquist-on-f2p-single-player-games/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+RockPaperShotgun+%28Rock%2C+Paper%2C+Shotgun%29]




Permalink

 

[CardinalPiggles]

I hate Free to play models, they're almost as bad as Microsoft points.

You can't (usually) pay out an exact amount of money, you have to buy in bulk.

 

[Quiotu]

I hate Free to play models, they're almost as bad as Microsoft points.

You can't (usually) pay out an exact amount of money, you have to buy in bulk.

You're not wrong, but that's exactly why it works. Those in the business of gaming have learned that charging small amounts for small upgrades instead of releasing expansions for substantial coin is more profitable. People are more willing to spend $1 at a time than they are spending $10 all at once. You can thank the I-Pod gaming market for that.

And they're right, every subscription MMO will eventually go F2P. Even WoW will inevitably go that route, and you can even see some of the signs that it's prepping for it. That's why I don't get people getting frothy when companies talk about the F2P model. It will always happen eventually, that shouldn't be breaking news.

Switching to that model isn't a sign that the game is a failure, but rather the game reaching that threshold where the F2P model works better. When you consider that 3/4 of MMOs out there aren't even trying the subscription model anymore, you have to assume that it's more profitable in the long run.

 

[Seventh Actuality]

The pattern I've noticed is that the subscription model only works for MMOs that are actually good.

 

[Skratt]

I hate Free to play models, they're almost as bad as Microsoft points.

You can't (usually) pay out an exact amount of money, you have to buy in bulk.

You're not wrong, but that's exactly why it works. Those in the business of gaming have learned that charging small amounts for small upgrades instead of releasing expansions for substantial coin is more profitable. People are more willing to spend $1 at a time than they are spending $10 all at once. You can thank the I-Pod gaming market for that. You can thank the psychology of humans for that.

Fixed that for you.

I just wish the F2P model was a bit more reasonable. What they charge a dollar for is typically not worth ten cents.

 

[Sixcess]

F2P five years from now? I give it a year, at most.

There's a lot of MMO tourism now - entire guilds migrate to the new shiny, then drop it in order to get in at the start of the next new shiny - and Guild Wars 2 launches at the end of August...

...by which time the tourists will have hit level cap/endgame/whatever in TSW and be bored, and they'll swarm to GW2, and then on to whatever comes next. A lot of MMO players now are (that dreaded word) casual and won't stick around one game for years.

Don't get me wrong - I've got nothing against the sub model. At times in the past I've had up to three subs running at the same time. I've also read mostly good things about TSW. But launching with a box price, a sub fee and a cash shop is nothing but an attempt at a quick cash grab while the game is the Next Big Thing for a month or two.

 

[Dirty Apple]

I'm sure that the last horse buggy whip maker produced a hell of a product, but eventually you have to realize that you've been left behind. Subscription models are on the way out, plain and simple. For awhile, initial F2P mmo's were lower quality, but now they are highly produced and technically sound. The winds are a changin' and any developer that doesn't get in line is gonna get blown over.

 

[tacotrainwreck]

From what I've experienced in TSW so far, I'm willing to shell out a little more money per month to at least ride that out to the end.

 

[WanderingFool]

They know the game is going to go F2P in a year or so, so why not implement the cash shop now while they also having the Subscription fee? It means double-dipping on customer cash, and more monies for them.

That's the only way Funcom does business now. Guy is obviously talking out his ass though because of that, because if they were so sure of it not going F2P quick, and that they really think Subs are the best way to go, then why bother implementing it other than knowing it's going to be inevitable, or as a quick-and-easy way of tapping people for more cash. Specially when you tout clothing options as a big thing about your characters.

Yeah, 5-10 years down the line... TSW will most likely be F2P withing 5-10 months.

 

[nintendo414]

In my opinion charging a 50$ price just to buy the game and then having to pay a certain amount every month is way worse than the occasional 5 or 10 dollars on a costume or an expanded inventory. That being said when the ps3 version of Final Fantasy XIV I'm getting it no matter what but that's just me. In closing, if you have both an expensive box price and a monthly subscription (except for 1 or two exceptions) I will not play nor buy your game.

 

[Whodat]

But launching with a box price, a sub fee and a cash shop is nothing but an attempt at a quick cash grab while the game is the Next Big Thing for a month or two.

I won't refute the point that it will go free to play and I know that this won't justify the box price + Subscription, but purchasing the game gives you 1 month free and the item shop is entirely cosmetic. Saying that it is odd that it has a cash shop since it just released but, given that its been in production for 7+ years, they need to make a hell of a lot of money back.

It's also a really great game, which, can justify the sub, that and the combination of waiting since '07 for the any info on the damn game and finally getting to play it.

 

[LastDarkness]

They know the game is going to go F2P in a year or so, so why not implement the cash shop now while they also having the Subscription fee? It means double-dipping on customer cash, and more monies for them.

That's the only way Funcom does business now. Guy is obviously talking out his ass though because of that, because if they were so sure of it not going F2P quick, and that they really think Subs are the best way to go, then why bother implementing it other than knowing it's going to be inevitable, or as a quick-and-easy way of tapping people for more cash. Specially when you tout clothing options as a big thing about your characters.

Triple Dipping actualy, You have to pay for the physical copy or CDKey. Then pay a monthly fee, and also have a item shop. Its a cash grab and I dont blame them for it, every company wants to make as much money as possible as quickly as possible.

From what I understand as well they are prepping to sell power in the item shop, which is the deal breaker for me.

 

[hooksashands]

Here's a translated version for everyone who isn't fluent in Bullshit.

"Of course [having Conan go free-to-play] has taught us a lot. Five years from now, ten years from now, will Secret World be free-to-play? I'm sure of it."

Translation: We reluctantly sold our latest IP to nimrods who don't know how to manage it, much less anything else they own. Hope you like to splurge, because we ain't even gonna try to talk them into making this reasonably affordable. Don't bite the hand that feeds and all that.

"But that's a long time. For the time being, we're committed to this business model, and as long as people are willing to pay us in order to provide them with expanded content and ongoing content, we'll keep that business model."

Translation: Please give the publisher lots of your money so they don't dismantle everything we've made and fire all of us.

"It is the only business model that makes sense in terms of giving players this living, breathing world and this constantly upgraded, expanded experience."

Translation: We couldn't convince our financial backers to take any more of a chance on us than they already are.

"But it wasn't right for us to come out and be a free-to-play game, because then we would have to find other ways to support the ongoing content."

Translation: EA is aware that it can't hold down long-term investments, so they told us to milk as much cash as we could from it right out of the gate.

"Whether it would be DLC and charging people for that, or an item store and charging people for that, [I can't say]. At any rate, people are going to have to pay more in order to support the ongoing development."

Translation: Our publisher will charge you whatever they think they can get away with. When this of course fails we'll blame piracy and used sales to save face.

"I think that at least for me and at least for traditional MMO players, a subscription fee is something they understand."

Translation: I am currently John Riccitiello's favorite cabana boy.

 

[robert01]

Overall my only issue with games that are F2P are generally they have mechanics in the game that you cannot avoid that pretty much require some form of microtransaction to complete in a same amount of time, or to remove some form of risk involved, they hook you in.

I think you will see a lot more games go the route of Guild Wars. This 'Premium Free 2 Play' setup requires you to buy the game, and then that is it. You are free to play it as much as you want. If you don't want to spend a dime more you don't have to. Large content updates may cost more money, but small patches will not. And the store sells mostly convenience or vanity items, and they have a very minor impact on gameplay if any.

It is games like the ones from Nexon that give the F2P market a bad name. Mechanics like RNG enchanting that will break or reverse gains on gear, with items sold in the cash shop that will prevent this from happening, or they will increase you chances of the enchant succeeding. Or games like Allods Online, that straight out required you to purchase items to remove debuffs that could not be removed any other way.

These are what plague the F2P market. It can be done right ,if you don't make the players feel like they are being hooked and forced into making a purchase I think they would be more willing to shell out for vanity, and novelty items.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

I hate Free to play models, they're almost as bad as Microsoft points.

You can't (usually) pay out an exact amount of money, you have to buy in bulk.

You're not wrong, but that's exactly why it works. Those in the business of gaming have learned that charging small amounts for small upgrades instead of releasing expansions for substantial coin is more profitable. People are more willing to spend $1 at a time than they are spending $10 all at once. You can thank the I-Pod gaming market for that.

And they're right, every subscription MMO will eventually go F2P. Even WoW will inevitably go that route, and you can even see some of the signs that it's prepping for it. That's why I don't get people getting frothy when companies talk about the F2P model. It will always happen eventually, that shouldn't be breaking news.

Switching to that model isn't a sign that the game is a failure, but rather the game reaching that threshold where the F2P model works better. When you consider that 3/4 of MMOs out there aren't even trying the subscription model anymore, you have to assume that it's more profitable in the long run.

My issue is with buying points that you then use to pay for items. In Tribes: Ascend the other day, I saw a deal for the Doombringer and thought, only 84 gold? I'll buy that! When I went to actually buy the gold however, the lowest amount I could buy was 800 gold! I only needed 84, and decided not to give them any money.

I know it's business, but I'm not about to sink £7 into that game for one character, because I can't guarantee I'll want to spend any more money on that game.