Should we restrict F2P to generate more subscription revenue?

As both an EQ1 and EQ2 player, I've noticed that the EQ2 F2P model is very generous.

If you are a casual player (limited to Solos or Heroics), you just need to purchase the basic expansion to enjoy the content.

I get the sense that this forces the company to seek out revenue in the form of marketplace transactions (P2W/Pay to Shortcut).

In other words, the min-maxers (T1 raiders and subscribers) are subsidizing the game costs for everyone else.

I believe EQ2 F2P benefited the vast majority of players early on but hurt the game in the long run. Unlike EQ1 which thrives on multiple boxes (some EQ1 players subscribing on 6 or more accounts each month) and a more organic min-max culture, EQ2 has failed to secure this niche.

Is it time to restrict to F2P in EQ2? Could it lessen the need to rely on the cash shop for revenue? (It would be like shifting the model to EQ1's Stormhammer - Legends - subscription tier).

If so, here are some suggested restrictions (in whole or in part):

• F2P is completely or partially locked out of the latest expansion. (If partially, F2P could be limited to the starting zone or hub).
• F2P is limited to 10 levels below maximum level.
• F2P cannot use mercs, mounts, or familiars.
• F2P cannot access Overseer.

The counterpoint is that EQ2 is an old game and restrictions would push players (who buy expansions, use cash shop, and/or sub sparingly) away. Where a game like WoW, which institutes a Level 20 F2P restriction, has the leverage to do so. This could create a Catch-22. Put in this context, I have a greater appreciation of the current model (slightly heavier reliance on cash shop).

If there are to be changes to EQ2 F2P, it would have to occur the next expansion cycle (BoL Part 2) since many F2P players likely purchased BoL on the understanding that they could play through the whole content.

No. Why? F2P is very generous and it should continue to be. If someone does not want to sub but does not mind buying items in game. Then why should they not be able to?

I personally would prefer to keep it as is myself.

However, players are often bringing up the argument of P2W/Pay to Shortcut since the devs incentivize cash shop purchases.

If the revenue stream moves more towards subscriptions, would it end the need for the cash shop/microtransactions (and the controversy that surrounds it)?

And, is it unfair for the hardcore players to subsidize the game for everyone else (casuals, seasonal hardcore)?

Personally I don't feel it is P2W. Sorry but I don't feel one has to pay anything to win. Win what? It's an MMO there is no end to the game.

I don’t remember anyone ever asking me exactly what I want to buy. I'm used to buying what I like and not what they say I like

The collective lack of understanding on this subject makes me wonder what kind of experience people are actually having in game. Don't get me wrong, if you're enjoying yourself great, but how can the reality of P2W have escaped so many people? To explain simply, the dps check challenge mode raid mobs require certain levels of potency (on top of resolve check etc), which you would seriously struggle to achieve without the bonus infusers, which are only available from crates from the marketplace. If your 24 man raid doesn't include at least a handful of dps classes who have a good deal of these infusers, you can just pack up and forget about it at that point.
There's more, like the mount and the merc, but I don't see them as necessary for progression. Bonus infusers MUST feature to some degree at that point however, or you WILL fail.

Edit to keep on topic: I think ftp isn't the problem and changing it isn't the solution.

Meh. IRL: Marketing (subliminal marketing) and modeling (social engineering) makes you "desire" (nudge you into) something you otherwise would not need/like.

They can dis-incentivize F2P and incentivize All Access.

Please keep this on topic. /cry

Revenue stream is the underlying issue.

If they don't make nearly enough from subscriptions to maintain operations, they have to monetize elsewhere (i.e. cash shop).

Another problem is stat bloat and calculation that magnifies what should be otherwise minor-middling upgrades in the cash shop. On the flip side, players realize those infusers, mounts, and familiars usually become obsolete within one year's time.

this is their game - not ours, not of community. alas - this is a withdrawn vicious cycle. there is no model like kickstarter

EQ2 is real. Vaporware (Star Citizen, Pantheon) is vaporware.

You remember Pillars of Eternity? History could perhaps go and way of further development if community didn't break up. In any case, we have quite no control over their (dbg) activities in relation to us. Even if we are willing to pay for it.

restrict it all u want , there is no new f2p players joining , the one that comeback or try the game run away fast , once they hit 100.... some buy last expansion , lvl to max only to find the grind wall , ok lets sub , they sub and what? those 500 points wont last ,0 cash shop points and nowhere close to even do any content other than solo....yeah no way they are gonna put more money down the drain.

If they want to bring in more subscription revenue then they need raise the price of subscriptions. It is not 1999 anymore, that $15 /mo just doesn't go very far in today's economy.

f2p is painful enough as it is. I do spend money on the micro transactions.

How about, perhaps a novel concept;

Make content enjoyable that it keeps players engaged? It's pretty clear, the amount of people playing has decreased significantly. (Numbers are clearly heavily bolstered now by bot accounts, but it's not hard to track the number of raid guilds per server over past few years).

Why?

• Broken Content
• Constant Lag
• Lack of Balance (I mean, hello Bruisers).
• Lack of meaningful content (Overseers do NOT replace quests)
• Pay2Win / Pay2Shortcut - Why play the game even remotely competitively (As most DPS do), when it's a case of who spends the most $$$.
• Ignorance of play styles (Hello Crafters).

Do I expect it to ever be sorted? Not really. It's quite clear the direction of the game, and that is to milk current customers of all that they can. There is little/no encouragement to bring returning players back.

I suggested increasing subs about 2-3 years ago, and basically got called an idiot by a developer for ever suggesting it.

Granted, a AAA title with a billion-dollar war-chest like Fortnite has also seen a decline in quality this past year (i.e. lag, delayed development cycles, anemic content, lower player numbers). Too busy making the Unreal 5 Engine?

Perhaps, the quality of EQ2 has declined as revenue - specifically, subscription revenue - has dwindled. In other words, the game has not be able to allocate necessary resources (i.e. hire more or retain devs) to maintain quality. Though, we can't discount that EQ2's older engine precludes the training of new talent or streamlined upgrades.

Since F2P changes are likely too late. You are, in essence, asking for EQ1 revenue to subsidize EQ2 development and costs if your plan is to go "All In." Is it fair to siphon money off from a self-sustaining game (EQ1)? (Though, hate to sound like a filthy capitalist, but the pandemic might spark reinvestment in the gaming industry).

My suggestion is tweaking the revenue model now with more focus on subscriptions by instituting some F2P restrictions if we reach the "P2W/Pay to Shortcut" tipping point (public outcry, loss of players).

I personally like the current model myself. But are we reaching the cash shop revenue stream tipping point (public outcry) where the game increasingly relies on micro transactions to stay afloat?

I can foresee a light/minor restriction on F2P by locking F2P out of Overseer.

You are right. Not only does low(er) subscription revenue become an issue, but inflation plays a major part. Subscription and expansions costs are probably on the lower side. (Is Darkpaw mirroring WoW and other MMORPG costs?). And the fact that Daybreak is based in Southern California (high rents and cost of living) doesn't help that situation.

I agree. The game is old and it's less likely to garner new players and/or retain current players.

I've conceded that we've reached a vicious cycle.

Devs now have to incentivize micro transactions as part of their revenue strategy.

The only way for EQ2 to "break out" is to siphon off some of the EQ1 revenue (which they probably already do). (And that's probably also why we see EQ1 less reliant on the cash shop or micro-transactions). But if they do, EQ1's quality takes a hit and the golden calf loses its allure. (The pandemic might spark reinvestment in the gaming industry, however).