Rumor has it something happened with Lord of the Rings Online that sparked some discussion?
But before that, this is one the better recent DarkFall videos (really picks up at 30sec), be sure to check it out.
Anyway, putting aside the general evils associated with bad F2P models, I do want to comment on one aspect of this recent move that I’ve yet to see covered; the difference between Dungeons and Dragons Online going F2P and LotRO going F2P. I think far too many people, perhaps Turbine included, are looking at DDO’s success and expecting the same thing to happen with LotRO.
Simply put, I’d be very surprised if LotRO experiences anything close to a DDO-like boost in revenue/profit. The key that everyone seems to be forgetting about DDO is that it had one foot in the grave before it went F2P. Triple of a few thousand (just assuming) subs is still not anything to write home about for a title with the lofty expectations of DDO, while tripling the amount of subs LotRO currently has is an entirely different level. Was it a smart move to go F2P for DDO? Yes. Is DDO making everyone at Turbine stupid-rich? Not likely. More likely is it’s now profitable-enough to actually get a half-decent sized crew to maintain it and add the occasional update. Those updates are of course also far easier to justify when you sell them piecemeal in a cash shop.
LotRO is very different. As far as we all know, LotRO has a solid player base that over the years has really established itself. It’s not the biggest MMO out, but I’m sure it was making a nice profit for Turbine to fund whatever they have coming out next. The change to F2P is simply far riskier for LotRO than it was for DDO, because if subs don’t go up, if for whatever reason profits don’t increase, you have take something already generating good money and messed with it. I’m not saying I think that will happen, but it’s simply a risk that did not exist with the DDO move.
I also think context is needed when making the comparison here. If someone asked me about DDO pre-F2P, I’d tell them it’s a good game but one that’s hard to justify a monthly sub for due to it’s structure and overall content length. If you asked me about LotRO, I’d tell you its well worth the sub cost and that it’s a top-notch product in the more tradition MMO style. In other works, while DDO started as a sub-based game, one could argue it was designed from the ground up to support the F2P model, and hence why the transition was so smooth for both Turbine and most fans. It’s going to take a lot more adjusting to get LotRO to fit into the F2P model in terms of cash shop features, pace/style of payment, and future additions. That transition, again for both Turbine and the fans, won’t be nearly as smooth.
So while I’m not nerdraging over the change, I do think the ultimate result is not nearly as assured as it was with DDO, both from a financial angle and also for LotRO’s future content updates. It’s definitely something interesting to keep an eye on, as LotRO’s results could very well shape how future and current MMOs adapt their pricing structures and content delivery methods.
Chuck-o-the-day: Chuck Norris can play Russian Roulette with a fully loaded revolver and win.
Hardcore Casual 
I agree with your premise that LOTRO will not experience an identical effect as of DDO, but most of your thoughts seem to be based on if Turbine only knew what we knew… LOTRO is their lifeblood. I doubt either Turbine or Warner Bros. are that stupid to just apply Whatever to their golden goose.
Honestly, I am glad someone is doing this to an MMO built for subs. I am a bit surprised the first one was a “successful” MMO, but it gives me hope that maybe WAR will follow suit.
Doubting someone would do something stupid in the MMO genre is rather dangerous :)
But LotRO is far from the first sub game to go F2P, it’s just the first successful one to try it. Plenty of past failures have done it already to keep themselves online. WAR definitely should do it, though how exactly they would break it out would be very critical… that might make for a good blog post actually…
DDO you mean, of course. But I think you are right, I wouldn’t put anything past MMOG developers these days, and the big wigs might’ve just said “Hey, this increased out revenue for DDO, do it for LoTRO!” Now, I think the reality is that players who are subscribing are going to get the same experience they are now, or at least close enough that in my opinion people shouldn’t be scared away based on their experiecne changing. However, perception is everything, and F2P is going to change the perception big time.
I think your assumption that this isn’t an act of desperation might be misguided.
LotRO might be more successful in terms of subscribers than many other MMOs but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s currently profitable to maintain.
Without us looking into Turbine’s accounting books, any theories into how profitable they are is little more than idle speculation and conjecture.
I’m not saying that this will work out for Turbine, but what I am saying is that obviously THEY believe this will be more financially profitable for them.
And given that they have both experience in DDO financials and LoTRO financials, I would say that they are the best educated and experienced to make that decision.
Certainly more so than any blogger’s financial theorycrafting…
I don’t know, I’m kind of a big deal.
Plus the same logic could be used about game design itself, stating that what some of us feel is not going to work out (story with SW:TOR) is definitely going to be great because BioWare knows more about the status of SW:TOR than we do, and they themselves said it’s awesome.
But the point I was trying to make was not directly about how profitable LotRO is and might be, but how different the situation is compared to DDO, both financially and the game design.
Yes, but the difference here is that Turbine understands the financials for BOTH LotRO and DDO.
And more than that, they already have experience taking one MMO from a sub to a F2P model.
If anyone has the experience and understanding to make this transition successful, it’s Turbine.
The thing is, LotRO is NOT going F2P.
What’s misleading is that the MMO blogosphere only seems able to come up with bipolar descriptions of things. It’s either Subscription or F2P, Sandbox or Theme Park, PvE or PvP and so on.
Most MMOs now aren’t clearly just any one of these things. They are increasingly blending the ingredients, some more successfully than others, it’s true. Payment model is just the latest element to get thrown in the blender.
In LotRO’s case, F2P is the least relevant of the labels, although it’s the one Turbine’s marketing department obviously wants us to pick up on. The “Free” part really isn’t a great deal more than an extended trial; access to all game content up to level 20 with restriction to utility, followed by access to limited free content (minus most of the quests that form the core of the gameplay) to level 50. That’s not F2P in the classic sense.
What Turbine is offering looks pretty much identical to W101s pricing system, which is a low end unlimited free trial, combined with the option to open access to later stagers of the game for discrete incremental payments that can be made ad hoc as you play. And all backed up by the option of a traditional monthly sub for full access.
It looks like the ideal pricing model to me. I could name you half a dozen MMOs I’d love to see follow suit, all of which would probably be revitalized if they did. Of course if they all did it at once, that might be counterproductive!
Seriously? Do people really equate F2P with always free? I thought the misnomer that F2P was not really free had sunk in for most people. Call it what you want, but players can earn TP in game, and just like DDO players can buy just about every piece of content (according to Turbine), but the grind becomes ridiculous.
I am appalled at the lack of nerdrage in this post. :)
Seriously, I agree with this points, and find your analysis of the potential pitfalls to be spot-on. As I pointed out myself, DDO was a natural fit for a FTP model even when it was subscription-only. LotRO was designed for, and on the surface is best suited to, a subscription system. This implies that Turbine is going to have to juggle things in a very different way in this case.
Then again, as I also pointed out, the FTO LotRO is looks to be something that’s more like a content-limited but not time-limited trial, much like AoC offers – only players players will have the ability to add features in a modular way through microtransactions, rather than committing to a subscriptions. This implies that Turbine realizes the difference.
So while I think there’s reason to be cautious about it, there are also reasons to be optimistic.
When you think about it, Turbine really has nothing to lose on this. Those that are paying monthly subscriber fees now will continue paying the monthly fee when it goes F2P, so no lost revenue there (that is of course they still want to play LoTRO).
Lifers would have been lifers regardless.
This will bring in additional review now but of course the crux is how much and would it help the game in the future in regards to more content updates? That we must wait and see.
What I have been bummed about is that lack of new content in Lotro since Mirkwood expansion last Novemeber, 1 a few months ago and it really was rather tiny. Now with the F2P announcement the next content patch is not coming until the day of F2P start. Until then I have pretty wellput this game on hold.
But F2P model has helped DDO in this regards….5th content update coming end of month since game went F2P last fall. SO in the interim this is what I have been playing.
I don’t think its a sure bet that current subscribers will all simply accept the switch to F2P-ish (Bhag is right above in that it’s not the traditional setup), and if more end up leaving then is made up for in micropayments, Turbine ends up messing with a (presumably) good thing.
Again though, that’s a lot of variables, which is why this whole thing will be interesting to watch.
“Lifes would have been lifers regardless.”
That’s an interesting turn of phrase given the discusions bent toward financial viability, and a point that hasn’t been clearly raised yet.
We know that the population of LotRO was pretty healthy. We don’t know much of the details of it’s financial earnings. Does anyone know how many lifetime subs they sold when it was offered? I only ask, because I’m sure by now that those people have made their money back and in turn, are being supported by everyone elses subs. How heavy of an impact did this have on Turbine’s decision to make the switch?
The thing about lifetime subs and them now costing Turbine money only works if you make the assumption that the lifetime sub owner would have instead paid his sub monthly that entire time. For every break someone would have taken,that increases the length of time before a lifetime sub is being ‘carried’. Add in those who would have only paid a few months but instead bought a lifetime sub, and I still think they made some nice cash off everyone overall.
Nerdrage inc.
To put my view most succinctly:
CASH SHOP > J.R.R. Tolkien
For an extended comment:
I feel nerdrage. I don’t even play LoTR, so where does it come from?
I have a strong, irrational dislike of f2p. If a game is designed f2p from the beginning, then I don’t care because I would never have played that game to begin with. I want a game that the developers care about. I want a game which was designed to be good for the sake making a good game only. This should in turn lead to a profitable product in the increasingly less populated moral universe I inhabit.
My nerdrage is exacerbated by the overwhelming positive response of the blogosphere in support of Turbine’s decision and the f2p model. I believe Turbine/Warner’s decision is based on short-term goals to grab as much cash as possible in the shortest amount of time possible with very little regard for the integrity of the game or the community. I believe the potential consumers of this game just want some cheap product to kill a few hours with here and there, as well. Nothing is “wrong” with either of those things, but I fear developers with long-term visions for quality games and decent communities are threatened by this short-term way of thinking.
F2p symbolizes the walmartization of mmos to me. It is driving out smaller shops with unique inventories. It is the “made in China” of the production world which represents the cheapening of our goods (in quality as well as price), the waste of resources associated with that, the lack of pride in workmanship that goes with it, etc.
If mmos were music: f2p = Lady Gaga or Justin Timberlake.
The mmo I want to play might be…Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix, Bach, Chopin, Miles Davis, I don’t know, fill in the blank with whatever is really good.
It is music made for the sake of music, not for cold cash.
You raise some good points, and I think it’s worth seeing what direction the actual content of LotRO goes once it’s F2P. Again, for DDO this was easy because it just meant continuing to add on to what they have been doing since day one. I don’t think LotRO can do the same, and so what they do instead will be very interesting to watch.
F2p symbolizes the walmartization of mmos to me. It is driving out smaller shops with unique inventories.
Uhhh. These guys ARE the smaller shops. WoW is the big boy in town.
Two things I have noticed about LotRO over the last year:
1. The boxed editions have plummeted in price and are now being sold off dirt cheap. I just picked up the Mines of Moria Collectors Edition for under $10!
2. Reduced subscription offers and “please come back and play” deals have been flowing from Turbine like crazy.
Both of these are sure signs that LotRO was not a healthy game. Certainly not a game in free fall about to fail, but on a downward trend. If the retailers are dumping your game, you’re usually in trouble. If you almost constantly offer reduced subscription rates (even to people like me that only did the trial), you probably are overall losing players.
I don’t think there was anything on the way that would reverse that trend either. Add to that the massive number of new games coming out these days (even if many are F2P cash shop imports), plus on the horizon a new WoW update, SW:TOR and the looking really good Guild Wars 2, plus many others. Seems to me Turbine, partially based on the results of the DDO change, decided the time was right to move LotRO to a similar hybrid business model before things got too bad.
A smart move, IMO. I wish a few other older and on the way down games would do the same. Should keep most of the subscription people while possibly adding a large number of people like me that will only play now and then, while occasionally buying things. They might even increase the sub/VIP numbers if a lot of people enjoy the game enough to go with a full subscription.
My nerdrage is regards to why the hell is Turbine making all of the newer games free to play, but the decade old Asheron’s Call 1 still requires a sub fee after all this time?
“The key that everyone seems to be forgetting about DDO is that it had one foot in the grave before it went F2P.”
I’ve read a ton of posts this past week on the topic, and I assure you, this is mentioned repeatedly. Nobody’s forgetting it.
Excellent piece written on this topic just today, though I disagree with the last two sentences. I was really surprised to find it in massively.
http://www.massively.com/2010/06/13/the-anvil-of-crom-completionism-and-avoiding-the-f2p-plague/#continued
Good piece indeed, and spot-on really. Only part I disagree with is that gaming fans will catch on to the F2P scheme quickly and things will go back to the fixed price. Like he says, most gamers are indeed fools, so I’m expecting them to continue getting bent over by F2P for some time to come.
LOL. I agree.