Level 34 huh, that would make assassins GODS! pa/cd in the lowbie battlegrounds? Basically only a plate class would make it out of that alive unless you spent every point in purge. Would be a blast hehe. 7 seconds is a long ass time for an assassin to kill someone at level 34 hehe.

 

-----signature-----

F2P would probably involve a minimum spend of $150 in some sort of shop!

EA have had several opportunities to promote DAoC and have not done so.

- they could have come out with a joint DAoC / UO sub when they took over Mythic;
- they could have bundled a 'free' DAoC sub (and/or UO) with WAR subs
(if only to placate WAR customers when WAR brought them to their knees);
- they could have launched an 'all access pass' like SoE did;
- they could have offered DAoC subscribers access to the WAR beta; ditto the SWKotR beta;

Not to mention various promotions used in WAR, WoW, EQ, Aion, Rift and so forth.

The inescapable conclusion is that nothing is going to happen.


When EA bought Mythic they made a valuation what what DAoC was worth over a 5 year period (from memory it was $3M). That will have been based on subs and running costs at the time. Not a lot.

Subsequently EA decided to close DAoC. Only the intervention of MJ (and maybe Rob Denton, Lorri etc.) allowed DAoC to remain open - cutting costs by letting staff go etc. Both MJ and Lorri were very open about the fact that should expect very little going forward, things had been pared to the bone and that every cost would have to justify itself.

Then GOA pulled out - they clearly weren't making any money; and although EA took over in the EU that has now been closed and the game has even fewer players i.e. paying customers. In other words DAoC must be in worst shape then when EA were going to close it.

In other words the same conditions prevail; every cost will have to be justified.

Pure F2P along the lines that Shadowbane introduced - with no support, CSRs etc. - would require EA to commit a sum of money upfront with no fiscal return. Worse it might pull paying players from other games. This is probably the cleanest way however. F2P with no support, no extra capacity for 12 months say; a final hurrah.

A micro-transaction model would cost money to implement and money to run.
It would need money to promote it.
And if - my some marketing miracle - they managed to attract new players they would need more server capacity; more money. And if the server capacity wasn't there = bad PR.
And it would need a plan to placate the existing players.

I doubt that anyone will be able to create a convincing financial investment model.
There is no (public) evidence that games that have moved from a sub based model to a F2P hodel are making a profit. (Profit not revenue).

So the only way that DAoC is going to change is if someone of note decides to go ahead regardless.
"We don't have the evidence but we are going to do it anyway".
MJ might have made that call from a creative/future market outlook- and he might have; Rob Denton could make the call (he is still at EA) - but I doubt he will because he has been the business side of things for a long while.

Maintenace mode!

Hmmm...

Free-to-play 'triples' LOTRO profit
http://www.strategyinformer.com/news/10380/free-to-play-triples-lotro-profit
http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/01/06/turbine-lotro-revenue-tripled-since-going-f2p/

 

-----signature-----

A level 34 endless free trial of DAOC sounds awesome. Make it so!

 

-----signature-----

it would make Wilton the place to be, so that there would be 3 battleground options for daoc

 

-----signature-----

Not sure how they would handle the endless aspect, but it would be all too easy for them to simply force F2P players to cap out and be kicked out of the 34 BG and thus either make a new toon or pay up for this one.


Of course upon reading the much anticipated announcements today I'm not so sure anymore.

 

-----signature-----

Lightingbird333 posted:

<<
gervaise1 posted:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no (public) evidence that games that have moved from a sub based model to a F2P hodel are making a profit. (Profit not revenue).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm...

Free-to-play 'triples' LOTRO profit
http://www.strategyinformer.com/news/10380/free-to-play-triples-lotro-profit
http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/01/06/turbine-lotro-revenue-tripled-since-going-f2p/

============================================================================================

No evidence of increased profit; revenue yes.

The coms director gives out some info, strategyinformer, report the exciting extra players / potential revenue in the article but then use the word profit in their title; no evidence in the article about profit. The joystiq link takes the info and talks about profit - even though the title of the link refers to revenue.

Will going f2p increase the number of players: almost certainly.

Will going f2p increase revenue: maybe if it gets enough additional players. Certainly possible. Revenue in a f2p game is not guaranteed however and after the initial rush of players / people buying stuff you need to have some way of keeping it going. Advertising maybe once the free publicity around going f2p wears off.

Will going f2p increase profit: another matter entirely.

WarnerBros certainly avoided talking about profit generated by Turbine but I couldn't find any in WarnerBros's results. Lost in the noise - maybe; or maybe WarnerBros acquired Turbine as part of there drive to manage their own IP (for all games not just mmo stuff).

f2p can be profitable for sure - and it can make a loss; but I have yet to find evidence that conversions work. And if it was so obvious EA woud have switched by now - we have to assume that they can do the sums - especially as they are players in the f2p market.

So let me get this right.

The articles clearly say profit. Not only that, there are numerous articles talking about how they made three times as much profit. Yet, you a consumer like myself, knows better? I think I'll go with the professionals who actually know what they are talking about. F2p tripled lotro's profit. Also, how are you confused between the benefit of increased revenue versus profit? If you want to make up some imaginary facts, then do so. Ha I hope you don't work in any form of business. In all my years of business school, there was a term for person who makes up stuff like you do to create their own facts. I forget the name, but it wasn't something nice. Do you really think that its something to be blown over that can potentially triple your revenue and hence your profit? (aka gross profits)

 

-----signature-----

Didn't read the links, but gross profits are much higher than are operating or before tax profits. Gross profits typically only include variable costs and typically exclude fixed costs such as advertising, promotion, R&D, salaries, etc. I think in this industry there are big differences between the two.

If you google and read large numbers of articles you will find that most “professionals” who discuss F2P and lotro discuss Revenue increases and not Profit increases. The articles that discuss profit seem to be written lazy writers, who are copying from others, and do not understand the difference between Profit and Revenue (so they swap one for the other not realizing they are two completely different things). Then unsuspecting people read the poorly researched/written article and come to the boards repeating the silliness.


There are some old VN threads that discuss lotro ‘profit’ increases and then link to an article that discusses F2P and lotro ‘revenue’ increases.


Lotro had large increases in REVENUE.


Revenue can increase (even triple) while profits could stay the same, decrease or increase only slightly.


Edit: Whenever a company discusses their revenue instead of actually discussing profit/loss, they usually discuss revenue because they want to blow smoke and obfuscate the facts about actual profit/loss.

 

-----signature-----