Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn

[Berylstone]

Is this available in asia?

anyway it looks good, though with the current state of my internet connection at home and my laptop, I don't think I can play it... 

I've been told the Japanese servers are suppose to be expanded for Asia, though I'm not sure if your particular country is going to be included. 

 

[The Dragon God]

Excalibur server. Name ~ Reyna Softpaws ~ Nyaa!!!

 

[JacobM]

My addiction to this game is only cured by my addiction to making my game. lol it's an endless cycle! I play on Typhon (gonna move to another server) and Hyperion (played 1.0 back in the day too =P)

 

[StrawberrySmiles]

I'm playing on Marboro as Koralyn Dessun.

I have another character on Balmung named Aelina Rowan. :3 I usually play with my boyfriend, but maybe that won't always happen? I don't know. Haha.

 

[Eschaton]

Me:  "Is it an MMORPG?"

Seller:  "Y-"

Me:  "No, I won't play it."

 

[The Dragon God]

Needs to be F2P, I miss my friends.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

yeah... or at least the installer should be free (it isn't right?)

 

[The Dragon God]

The updates and patches are free, but still Square Enix needs to make it F2P. I have no other mmos to play except RuneScape. 

 

[Galenmereth]

The updates and patches are free, but still Square Enix needs to make it F2P. I have no other mmos to play except RuneScape. 

F2P would ruin the game; it's the last thing I want them to do to it.

 

[Berylstone]

F2P would ruin the game; it's the last thing I want them to do to it.

The quality of MMORPGs seem to take a dive after they go F2P.  At least LOTRO did.  And my negative experience with that one is still fresh on my  mind.

I used to love that game.  But now, I can't even bear to play it.  It annoyed me so much I cursed the developers and got banned

 

[Galenmereth]

A company needs money to stay afloat, and to pay its employees. If a game is F2P, either everyone has to pay a little (which is pretty much what you do with a subscription), or a few have to pay a LOT. If you want a few to pay a lot, and the rest to play for free, you have to incentivise spending money for the few. And while cosmetics can work for a while, it usually ends up with gameplay benefits, because the few want an advantage for paying so much money to play the game. And once you start down that route, your game is fundamentally broken.

The only game that I know of where this works out relatively fairly is Guild Wars 2, but it's only free to continue playing; it costs a lot to get started (it has a premium price tag for your account). And even in that game, there are issues with the model.

 

[Berylstone]

A company needs money to stay afloat, and to pay its employees. If a game is F2P, either everyone has to pay a little (which is pretty much what you do with a subscription), or a few have to pay a LOT. If you want a few to pay a lot, and the rest to play for free, you have to incentivise spending money for the few. And while cosmetics can work for a while, it usually ends up with gameplay benefits, because the few want an advantage for paying so much money to play the game. And once you start down that route, your game is fundamentally broken.

The only game that I know of where this works out relatively fairly is Guild Wars 2, but it's only free to continue playing; it costs a lot to get started (it has a premium price tag for your account). And even in that game, there are issues with the model.

Probably the reason Guild Wars 2 does better at it in your opinion is because it was actually designed from the beginning to be a F2P game.

I think when games turn F2P it's usually because they are desperate to increase profits, and that becomes the new priority rather than producing a quality game.  

In other words: it turns into gimmicks and creative ways to try and lure players to participate in their store.  And games tend to take on a significant decrease in quality when that aspect becomes their focus.   

 

[Milkdud]

Probably the reason Guild Wars 2 does better at it in your opinion is because it was actually designed from the beginning to be a F2P game.

Guild Wars 2 isn't free to play, since you have to purchase the game before you can play it.

I played a little bit of FFXIV using my friends account, and I do agree that they should ditch the subscription model, but should still charge $30 to actually own the game. That's my opinion at least.

 

[BigEd781]

Probably the reason Guild Wars 2 does better at it in your opinion is because it was actually designed from the beginning to be a F2P game.

But do they really? I don't know, GW2 is pretty damn boring at max level. What content have they added since launch? "Living stories"? A couple of small dungeons? Bleh, crap. There's nothing to do at max level and the promise of competitive PvP was broken. It had promise, but it let a lot of people down.


Anyway... didn't mean to derail, just a sore subject for me. I plan on trying out FFXIV soon.

 

[Galenmereth]

But do they really? I don't know, GW2 is pretty damn boring at max level. What content have they added since launch? "Living stories"? A couple of small dungeons? Bleh, crap. There's nothing to do at max level and the promise of competitive PvP was broken. It had promise, but it let a lot of people down.

Anyway... didn't mean to derail, just a sore subject for me. I plan on trying out FFXIV soon.

I agree. I quit GW2 because of the "living story" updates which they prioritize over everything else; the things I did care about. I played a ton of WvW, but the gamemode is fundamentally flawed. Did they fix it? Nope. They added some new bells and whistles, but WvW is a zerg fest now more than ever, and nothing more.

Every living story update is just a lot of fluff that honestly stresses me out a bit since it's time limited. And it always comes with a ton of stuff you can spend real money on in the store; stuff that is exclusive to the store. GW2 might be the best "free to continue playing" game out there, but it's still not that good.

 

[The Dragon God]

F2P would ruin the game; it's the last thing I want them to do to it.

Not always the case for games DCUO does well enough and it's F2P. RuneScape has been here since late 1990s if I'm not mistaken, it went F2P back around 2001 I think and yet it's the biggest Wrb Browser MMO out there.

A company needs money to stay afloat, and to pay its employees. If a game is F2P, either everyone has to pay a little (which is pretty much what you do with a subscription), or a few have to pay a LOT. If you want a few to pay a lot, and the rest to play for free, you have to incentivise spending money for the few. And while cosmetics can work for a while, it usually ends up with gameplay benefits, because the few want an advantage for paying so much money to play the game. And once you start down that route, your game is fundamentally broken.

The only game that I know of where this works out relatively fairly is Guild Wars 2, but it's only free to continue playing; it costs a lot to get started (it has a premium price tag for your account). And even in that game, there are issues with the model.

Only greedy ppl think they need alot of money, Games are made for the players not the Devs. and though I agree the company needs $ to stay afoot, I do not believe a company needs more $ then what's necessary for it to stay alive. The companyies who need money THAT much are the ones who create the crappy games we gamers are stuck playing because it's foolish to think a human being won't want more money if they see a easy way to get it. Greed exist in opportunity.  But hey this is just my opinion.

 

[Galenmereth]

Games are made for the players not the Devs. and though I agree the company needs $ to stay afoot, I do not believe a company needs more $ then what's necessary for it to stay alive. The companyies who need money THAT much are the ones who create the crappy games we gamers are stuck playing because it's foolish to think a human being won't want more money if they see a easy way to get it. Greed exist in opportunity.  But hey this is just my opinion.

For indies it's simpler. For big companies that make games like GW2 or FFXIV? You need a lot of money. These are the basic expenses: Server farms and everything that comes with them. Community managers in all the languages you support. A website crew that maintains all your websites in all your languages. Developers to patch bugs. Developers to make new features. Developers to work on the next big expansion or patch with new content. Debuggers, game testers and managers of these, to communicate between testers and the dev team. Team managers on all levels.

And then there's the fact that investors in companies prefer your company to be profitable, not just break even. The bigger you are (Square Enix is BIG), the more you are bound by your investors and your board of directors, who want to see you turn a profit.

Developing MMO's is not a charity, and it requires a TON of money. And few MMO's are even profitable; WoW is one of the very few examples. Why do you think most of the other WoW-alikes went F2P and then went bust when even that didn't make them any money? F2P is usually where a company goes with their MMO when it doesn't earn them enough through subscription, using incentives to keep a few people paying a LOT.

I'd rather pay a set price a month and that's it, than for the game to try and reach into my pockets every step of the way, like almost every single F2P MMO (and game in general...) does.

 

[Berylstone]

But do they really? I don't know, GW2 is pretty damn boring at max level. What content have they added since launch? "Living stories"? A couple of small dungeons? Bleh, crap. There's nothing to do at max level and the promise of competitive PvP was broken. It had promise, but it let a lot of people down.

Anyway... didn't mean to derail, just a sore subject for me. I plan on trying out FFXIV soon. 

It's boring to me too.  I was sick of that game after 15 minutes into beta, so you are preaching to the choir on this one.

I was just suggesting to Galen that might be why he thought it was better than most other F2P games.  Since it started out that way and was designed to be so from the ground up.  So it has an edge over other F2P games who went that way out of necessity rather because they wanted to.

in my humble opinion - if you aren't willing to pay for the game then chances are it's not very good to begin with.  Turning something F2P probably isn't going to make any game better.  In fact, it often times makes it worst.  At least in my experience.

Now there may be some exceptions to the rule, such as Runescape as Dragon points out.  I can't speak to that because I've never played that one.  It could be good.

And Final Fantasy 14 isn't bad.  Think WoW on steroids.  If you like grinding instances at endgame it's worth playing.  If that's not your thing though, I would stay away from it.  

 

[Kaelan]

Needs to be F2P, I miss my friends.

http://www.vg247.com/2012/11/19/final-fantasy-xiv-keeping-subscriptions-to-regain-trust-of-fans-says-director/

As part of an upcoming Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn interview with Yoshida, we asked the developer why Square-Enix was keeping the game’s subscription model intact when the rest of the world seems to be embracing free-to-play.

Yoshida replied, “The main reason why we haven’t decided to take the free-to-play option is that, at the game’s original launch, it didn’t live up to expectations and it let down a lot of fans. We lost the trust of fans who had followed us across our 25-year history. We want to regain that trust and to deliver on past promises.

“One of the promises we originally stated was that we would release the game with a subscription model. Players will be able to play it 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days in the year if they paid a subscription fee.

“So to regain the trust of our players we must of course fulfil this promise. Right now we believe that to be more important than any kind of business decision.”

Yoshida also stressed that the pros and cons of both models are yet to be seen, and argued that it’s hard to make a clear judgement between them both.

“The other thing is that – depending on what kind of game you have – its hard to say which model is better. Is free-to-play better? Are subscriptions better? It just really depends, and it’s hard to say which one is better.”

It’s all rather confusing, but one thing makes sense: that Square-Enix doesn’t want to be running Final Fantasy XIV out of someone else’s pocket, and this is where the need for subscription models makes sense, even if it’s unpalatable to those accustomed to free-to-play.

“The last thing is that our aim is to make an MMO,” Yoshida continued, “and a lot of companies do their development for MMOs by getting money from investors. Then the investors want their money back, so if the game doesn’t make enough money or doesn’t have enough users, then what do we do?

“We’d have to pay our investors back, and free-to-play is an option to get that money back to investors quickly. Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn is a product that is independent to Square-Enix. All of the money’s coming from us, so we had more time to put it into what we wanted to do. We’re not in a rush to pay anyone back.”

Anyways, Patch 2.1:

 

[BigEd781]

Only greedy ppl think they need alot of money, Games are made for the players not the Devs. and though I agree the company needs $ to stay afoot, I do not believe a company needs more $ then what's necessary for it to stay alive. The companyies who need money THAT much are the ones who create the crappy games we gamers are stuck playing because it's foolish to think a human being won't want more money if they see a easy way to get it. Greed exist in opportunity.  But hey this is just my opinion.

Ummm... no. Games are created in order to make money. That is all. A company rightly wants to make as much money possible. They have an interest in keeping the playerbase happy, but that doesn't mean that their motivations are altruistic. They have a responsibility to their shareholders/investors to return as much as they can on their investment.


No company has a goal of making as little money as possible just to stay afloat. That is a ludicrous idea. You can't grow without surplus. You can't hire the best talent and reward your employees (bonuses, raises, etc.) without surplus. If you think that a company is "greedy" because they want to make a lot of money you don't understand how business works or you simply don't like capitalism.