I think lotro's failure has nothing to do with the f2p model.I remember when it first became public that LotRO was going f2p and I ranted and raved about it. Everyone thought I was crazy.
What do you think now?
Agreed. If they had kept the promises they made I would still be paying LOTRO.I think lotro's failure has nothing to do with the f2p model.
Turbine, Kate Paiz in particular, has decided that lying to their userbase is a good way to pursue business. Unwanted features forced on the player, censoring on the forum and annoying people with in-game ads for things they already bought have nothing to do with f2p.
According to the numbers I collected it's not working and play time goes own. That will have an impact on revenue, and more so in a f2p scheme (because VIP people still pay something even when not logging in). The question is whether they catch the game and make it attractive for people with a backbone again before it is so down that it is canned.
That's a prime example of what I'm talking about when I say f2p sucks....since then every update pisses me off more and more with either combat advantages sold in the store...
Well, what I was saying is that the LOTRO would have had the potential to make cash in the shop while still doing what they originally promised: that they don't sell direct combat advantages.That's a prime example of what I'm talking about when I say f2p sucks.
You can argue that LotRO just happened to go down the drain at the same time they introduced f2p, but that's one hell of a coincidence, don't you think? And the same "coincidence" has occurred in other games that have gone down the f2p path. These problems may or may not be directly related to f2p -- at least in a theoretical sense -- but they are indirectly related because they're part of the development shift that always seems to accompany the f2p model. Quality content and quality control always seem to go down the drain while profit margin considerations top all other priorities.
I'm not claiming that there aren't positive aspects of f2p, because there are few good points here and there. However, gamers thrive on unique and interesting challenges, which are the very foundation of good game design. Which raises the question: how good can a multiplayer game be when players can simply buy success?
LotRo is unique in that regard in being heavily PwP (Person with Person)...I think you're aware of this, but if not, the PvP play is restricted to one tiny corner of the world, and in some cases requires separate character creation (i.e. monster play).Buying success in a single player game is no big deal and, when you think about it, that's really what cheat codes and walkthrough guides amount to. But being able to buy success in multiplayer games is a huge, huge problem. Particularly for games with a heavy PvP element.
Completely agree with this.It's an online community, so you see some dude ride by on a horse wearing some thing, you just assume he earned it and there is a story to go with it. Seeing anyone with anything now and knowing it is very likely they just bought it - it's all a colossal ho-hum, who cares now. Any kind of personality the avatars in the game might have in linking them to flesh and blood people is gone. The whole world is just now faceless, storyless drones. It wasn't that way before.
Theoretically the layers might only be on where they expect high traffic, such as in Bree. If so then you can pile up as many people as you want in the lone lands.How do you do that in multiple layers?