From what I have seen it looks like at this point gamesas will be having subscription instead of free to play. Now most market professionals would agree that subscription is the most economical way to run a MMO. But Something gamesas would be ignoring by going with this system is the fact that many less internet savvy gamers do not trust online commerce. A non-free to play MMO would lose a large amount of potential players and therefore any chance of preserving any control of the Fallout franchise. I know, for example, I might NOT play Project V13 if it is not free to play (not free download just to clarify). This is mostly due to the fact I know that the larger amount of users gained by a free to play MMO can increase any advertising income by the same amount a subscription can cost and therefore is just costing me more money to pay a banking division that has not looked into the, in my opinion, more profitable option. And not just the income increases, generally tolerance to advertising is increased. Also gamesas could cleverly fit ads into the game world (eg billboards in the open world).

Another major feature gamesas has overlooked is the potential that a large user base can have on the company, if Project V13 was free to play and attracted a huge user base and gamesas had a substantial amount of advertising within the game gamesas could remake any loses they would have by not having subscriptions fairly quick and the main gain would be any non-Fallout players or Fallout 3 only players could become interested in gamesas. This can be easily demonstrated by the 1990s "Dot-com bubble". During this period Amazon.com employed a "get big fast" tactic, attracted a large user base and ignoring profit margins. This tactic has one thing that gamesas might need to consider, a lot of users not paying much or just looking at ads makes more money than half that many subscribers.

If none of this is convincing some basic maths might show otherwise. If gamesas would have 10,000 active users with subscriptions and 15,000 with free to play, the subscriptions were $50 per year (I used the most expensive subscription that I would consider paying) and advertising was charged like so: 5c per user viewing for a full screen ad, 5c per user entering the line of sight of a billboard ad, 5c per ten user viewings of non-full screen ads and 5c per ten small in-game ads in users line of sight (I tried to keep the prices as low as I could imagine a large company paying for ads but I don't run a large company so I don't know much about running a large company so you may consider finding more realistic figures). This shows that the first option would make $500,000 per year not including cost or any tax. The advertising option would make up to $547,500 per year not including cost or any tax if on average each user viewed one full screen ad or billboard and ten non-full screen or small in-game ads per day. Anybody can see the obvious gain, I just hope gamesas can. Plus there will be an increased amount of people that know of gamesas so it also acts as advertising.

usually there is pay/month and that usually lies in about $10-$15.

If 10'000 where playing that would bring a profit of $1'200'000/year if it is $10/month (actually very cheap by my experience). I have absolutely nothing against pay/month, and if it only is $10 I won't have any problem at all to pay for it, also I don't have to look at ads in the game all the time.

If 11 million can pay $15/month (think it is that if I remember) for wow, then I think 1/1100 (your number) of that total amount can pay at least $10 for fallout online if it turns out to be any good (holding my thumbs).

I think you are giving the ad model a bit too much credit.

Where would the advertisers come from? Unless a division is setup internally to deal with MMO ads there would be trouble getting advertisers at good enough rates. Unless gamesas will have multiple free to play MMO's I don't see much point.

Most free to play MMO's make their money on user purchases such as in-game items, bonuses, etc. Acclaim Games made their entire model on the free to play concept, I didn't really notice ads in game but when I did they were usually during load screens and about other Acclaim titles.

Runescape is a good example, over 10 million users and only 1 million have VIP accounts. Jagex only makes two million pounds a year on advertisemants. They generated nearly 40 million on subscriptions and purchases alone in the same year.

http://www.gamesbrief.com/2010/04/free-doesnt-work-try-telling-that-to-jagex-making-38m-from-one-free-game-runescape/

The ad model isn't anything to scoff at of course but it can't hold a candle to subscriptions when looking at revenue. And, as history shows, Fallout fans haven't been too kind to real world advertisemants in their Fallout titles.

Most MMO's make their money back out of the gate through retail purchases and second month subscriptions.

You do however make a good point about not all users willing to give out credit card information online or even have access to do so. Quite a few MMO's to help with this issue selling subscription cards in store, you can buy monthly or yearly subscription cards from places like Best Buy, Blockbuster, etc and simply redeem the code when you get home.

The problem with this math is that your numbers are completely arbitrary, and seem to be just guesses. In fact you even admit to guessing at advertising revenue. Ad income is generally much lower than what you postulated, and subscription fees are generally much higher. As far as I know there's no real evidence showing how subcription vs free-to-play models affect subscriber sizes either.

Personally, I find most ads to be quite offensive. I don't watch TV for this very reason. Because it's Fallout, I'd probably give gamesas the benefit of the doubt and try a game built on advertising revenue if that's the way they wanted to go, but if my gameplay was constantly being surrounded by billboards telling me to drink Coca Cola or that Raybans will increase my six appeal well then I'd more than likely stop playing. Of course this is just an annecdote, and I freely admit that I'm a fairly extreme example, but it's worth pointing out the potential at least, for a system like this to affect subscriptions in both directions. Maybe you'll sit and sigh, wishing that I were near
Then maybe you'll ask me to come back again
And maybe I'll say "Maybe"

I like the idea of free play.

But if you want more options you have to subscribe.

Possible example

Free play does not allow PvP. But subscription allows you to choose if you are PvP or not.

OR the opposite

Free play does allow PvP and subscription allows you to turn it off (on your character only).

Dave Chase

Also, many games that are free usually have the micropayment, pay for small boosts/items, like for $5 you get a xp boost for a week or for $3 you can buy a special item. This system I hate very much since players who have money usually are those who are better -.-'

Imagine the ingame ads:
Nuka Cola? Nope, it's called MOUNTIAN DEW: NUKE (it's launched around the same time as the game).
Leather jacket? Nope, it's called "The GAP leather jacket" (base on a real product, I'm not into leather).

Sure, you'll get a free month to try it out when you buy it, and there will be free trails later on. But I bet you my left nut (it's the smallest one) that V13 WILL have a monthly subscription. Maybe even have additional microtransactions for special features like respec and such. Free to play isn't really a model for a project that is being built over several years.

I'd pay for a good MMO, but I haven't paid a single dollar in a game that is using microtransactions, nor do I plan on doing that.

+1

As hsa been said in many other threads similar topic as this one,

Many individuals do not want to see the actual money for items or boost on this MMO.

I concur, no money to buy items, boost or such.

What might be neat is the initial MMO world is free and set in the United States.

shortly there is an option to buy into to North America.
2 months later North America is free to all and there is an option to buy into
South America
China
Europe

2 months later those 3 become free to all and there is option to buy into

Well you get the idea.

I personally still like the idea of if you want to PvP kill, you have to buy that level and you can only kill those who also buy that level.
Plus there are missions, items that are only available level and only apply to that level.

Dave Chase

free2play is always killing games... and this thing already was discussed many times here (at another topic)... pls dont make double posts...

If the game were to have in-game ads i would not play the game..just that simple.
The subscription model works the best (see Eve Online or World of Warcraft for details)

My question is how will skills level up?
will it be time based like Eve or will it be grind based like WOW?

Free to play games stay alive, p2p games thrive.

The bottom line is that a p2p game has a standard of quality to uphold and i personally want to play a quality game. Is there anything you cant do?
I cant fail the mayor.... not ever

There are games with monthly subscriptions (P2P). There are games that are free to download and play, with microtransactions (F2P). There are games where you buy the game itself, but don't need to pay for the play (F2P in most ways, thusly. Guild Wars is like that). All of these can thrive well.

P2P is safer for player in the sense that they know exactly how much they pay and know they have all the content available. Most players buy only one subscription at any one time, so if game has only P2P option, then new players are harder to come by - players do tend to stay where their friends play.

F2P players of course can get away with less... but only if they stay away from microtransactions. Some players sink a lot of money in those. Much more than they would in P2P model. The other F2P model is similar, but game company does get income from game sales. And since the P2P threshold is not there, it can sell a lot as player can get it "just in case" and play occasionally... possibly leading their friends there.

As some previous posters have said before, there is option of combining these models. If done well, it could provide both extra income and added players... leading to more income. Just it needs to be done so that as few players as possible feel themselves cheated. That PvP divider option might be one, but there could be other ways as well (customer support, crafting, housing, etc). It largely depends on the structure of the game and its world, which would be best way to go. In any case, I think this hybrid model is certainly worth looking into.

F2P is typically the model a game takes up when it's on the downturn.

An MMO is only an MMO as long as there's a massive multiplayer element. If you have a massive multiplayer element with subscriptions, then your doing good.

The second it's not, make it F2P ala Turbine with DDO and soon, LotR. They're likely the model for rejuvenating a game on the brink of extinction.

P2P is a feasible model for any MMO considering the amount of upkeep that has to be done. Although micro transactions seem to allow more profit margin. I wish more and more companies such as Blilzzard would adopt a smaller fee for the fact that they make more than enough money off their subs though. Not to mention they use a Micro transaction store also now that sold I think 2 million 35$ sparkly ponies in the first 48 hours that was just a reskin of something already in game. So minimal effort for a huge profit.

F2P on Ad's would annoy the common user. I have to deal with seeing that on UFC and some other games I have and while it fits I do not think you would have the room in this type genre. The working world as we know it is gone and modern ad's (pepsi or Adidas for example) would destroy immersion.

F2P by itself would destroy the games possible evolution and you would be severely limited. Example Guild wars. Not much content was released outside of expansions.

I hate micro transactions and if fallout goes that way, ill leave, but i'll gladly pay a flat rate monthly fee if i feel like the game is worth it. *The first time I saw a Deathclaw...well, now that's a story for a different day.*

+1