Implementing both F2P/Sub is also an option

[ArkAurelius]

oK, i see people REALLY want the F2P model for ARR, but here's the big question.

HOW would it work for ARR?

If the game became part F2P or full F2P, then it could come to numerous things, like even longer time periods between patches or lack of content.

Also, F2P supports the game through microtransactions, but what could ARR do for microtransactions?

Only get tomes via cash? Stamina, aka limiting ones playtime and then you playing more with Buyable Cash Stamina Potions? Limited number of dungeon runs, and then more runs buyable with cash? Market Board or Retainers only useable with cash, or even Allagan Tome Armors only buyable with cash?

So many things could go wrong with the F2P model on ARR. Maybe its cause I've played the game so much that I just cant "see" it going F2P without doing anything drastic.

[Swishytail]

oK, If the game became part F2P or full F2P, then it could come to numerous things, like even longer time periods between patches or lack of content.

This right here. Patches would definitely not happen every 3 months anymore, it's impossible to budget on a F2P and make
any kind of road map. You don't know if you are going to have to fire staff or cut back on resources month-to-month.

Wouldn't be a fun time if that had to happen, you're looking at possible 6-8 months for 1 patch if not enough people play.

[DragonFlyy]

This right here. Patches would definitely not happen every 3 months anymore, it's impossible to budget on a F2P and make
any kind of road map. You don't know if you are going to have to fire staff or cut back on resources month-to-month.

Wouldn't be a fun time if that had to happen, you're looking at possible 6-8 months for 1 patch if not enough people play.

LotRO and EQ/EQ2 disagree. They both still get plenty of content and both are freeium (F2P with an option of monthly sub.)

EDIT: Oh and the amount of locked out content isn't too bad. (at least IMO).

[DoctorPepper]

LotRO and EQ/EQ2 disagree. They both still get plenty of content and both are freeium (F2P with an option of monthly sub.)

EDIT: Oh and the amount of locked out content isn't too bad. (at least IMO).

While I didn't play those games after they went F2P and can't really make an argument against them, there are also a large number of MMOs that do suffer from this issue. Rift, SWTOR, and Tera for example, all of which were originally sub based games that suffered drastically in terms of released content after going with the F2P model due to cutbacks in staff.

The problem with F2P games is that first of all you can't make a proper budget because the amount of income you make fluctuates too much from month to month and secondly that dev's have to spend more time working on cash shop stuff as opposed to real content, both of which take significant amounts of time to produce.

[TheRogueX]

This right here. Patches would definitely not happen every 3 months anymore, it's impossible to budget on a F2P and make
any kind of road map. You don't know if you are going to have to fire staff or cut back on resources month-to-month.

Wouldn't be a fun time if that had to happen, you're looking at possible 6-8 months for 1 patch if not enough people play.

I know of three games off the top of my head that prove you wrong:

Lord of the Rings Online (hybrid F2P/Subscription model)
Champions Online (hybrid F2P/Subscription model)
Star Trek Online (hybrid F2P/Subscription model)

LotRO has had 4 FULL-SIZED expansions since it went F2P and numerous smaller free patches in between.
Star Trek Online gets new Seasons with new content constantly (it also recently got a full-sized expansion with an entirely new faction and restructuring of the original two factions), and Champions Online gets new 'Issues' with new content.

Oh, and I just thought of a fourth: The Secret World.

You can have a F2P game that doesn't sell actual gear in its market. Cosmetics, new mounts, collectible items, etc can still make a crapton of money.

[Calyanare]

[snip]

The Secret World isn't F2P, it's B2P, like Guild Wars 2. You pay $30 for the game, and then it's free to play, with a cash shop and an optional subscription.

Actually I do think TSW does the cash shop thing just about as right as you can, since nearly everything in there is cosmetic... Wait, let me log in and check the item shop before I say anything more.

Okay so there are XP boosts, items that let you access bank from anywhere, items that remove weekly lockouts (!), healing potions, extra inventory/bank slots, packs of quests/dungeons (when I actively played this game, you got these free with your active sub), and.... tons of cosmetic stuff.

Honestly, I've played F2P games where I felt like if I wasn't spending money in the cash shop I couldn't get anything done in the game (looking at Runes of Magic, Neverwinter, etc) but TSW and GW2 never felt like that.

[Starlord]

The Secret World isn't F2P, it's B2P, like Guild Wars 2. You pay $30 for the game, and then it's free to play, with a cash shop and an optional subscription.

F2P and B2P are one in the same to me except you have too pay a one time fee for B2P. I personally don't see much difference outside of that. You could say FFXIV ARR is B2P w/ subs