Venturebeat.com had as interview with $OE's head honcho John Smedley.

Snippet -


GamesBeat: Does it make sense to funnel people into one game and try to monetize them in another?

Smedley: Our strategy is that we have different games for different people. Our hope is that as people try one game, they may find another game later on that they like even more. So what we try to do is monetize each game to the audience that we have there. Sometimes that means we forego trying to make money on a certain aspect of a game that we have longer-term plans for. This decision on content, I gotta tell you, is not a small one.

Here’s a clear differentiator between us and a Modern Warfare or a Battlefield, both of which are incredible games that I play personally. They have downloadable content (DLC) that they sell. We sell DLC in our game, DC Universe Online. That’s great. In PlanetSide 2 we’re making a conscious choice not to sell maps. Why? Because we want the community to stick together. If you look at Battlefield 3 or Modern Warfare 3, or actually the time immemorial of FPSes, here’s what happens. Everybody plays the base game. DLC comes. 80 percent pick that up. DLC comes. 70 percent pick that up. And so on and so on. Two years later, you don’t know what map packs people have and it ends up costing quite a bit in terms of how you get into the ones that people are playing, because you have to buy various DLCs. But for us, with a persistent game world, we don’t want to split up people. We need them in there, because the community doesn’t work without that. It’s pretty basic.

GamesBeat: Does the free-to-play side change the way you organize the size of the team? Or how often you’re going to update the game?

Smedley: It doesn’t. It’s free. There’s this notion out there about free-to-play, but not only does it not change the size of the team, we’ve also got to keep content coming at a fast pace to make this work. What separates you from the competition is our ability, or any other free-to-play company’s ability, to keep consumer interest. My personal opinion is that free-to-play is probably the most capitalistic, true form of capitalism there is in gaming because it is pure. The game works or it doesn’t. There’s no gimmick. Our marketing team is incredible, but it’s a lot harder. Basically, they can bring people in the door, but if they don’t spend a dime, that’s 100 percent on the game. If you’re selling the box, you can build up hype around the box and make a lot of money that way. This is a different paradigm now.

GamesBeat: And then the ads side of the business, is there anything…?

Smedley: Not for us right now. I don’t want to say we’ll never do it. The way I put it is, “Would I want to see it?” Sticking an ad at the top of one of our websites… We may have ads for our own games, but not ads for stuff, or selling…it’s just not us. Not saying we’re opposed to it, we’re just…. It doesn’t really fit in with what we do.

Access the entire article here.

Meh...it would sound good if it weren't coming from that douche bags mouth.

Much as I shudder to admit this...I agree with him about 'dividing' the community. Map packs, and things like that, that restrict access for certain people, do nothing but put distance between players - the haves and the have nots. Online games NEED to be accessible to every player that buys the box or subs for a month. PLAYERS are what make online games fun and you (the developer) need to do whatever you can to ensure that when lil Billy buys your game, he's a part of the entire community right away. People won't know what they're missing unless they see it...I look back at Mustafar in SWG as an example, hell, even Kashyyyk. When players can't access something to even SEE it, they're less inclined to eventually BUY it.

So much wrong with Smeds answers.

Like the on about SOE giving up money to satisfy along term plan. I don't think there is a company that focuses more on the short term than soe does.

Then, to start with Smed starts comparing how he does business to Modern Warfare and Battlefield? Last I checked those games are huge successes with proven business models that work. Players love those games.

I'm not sure who he is kidding, but soe has no trouble selling DLC that creates haves and have-nots. EQ2 just sold DLC that adds 2 more levels to max level cap. Try getting in a raid guild without that.

Planetside2 will be no different. This game isn't going to survive on selling vanity items and giving all the good stuff away. It will rely on giving power to players who spend money and turning free players into fodder. SOE is to greedy and incompetent to do otherwise.

They have not successfully done a good job with f2p game. Either from scratch (free realms/clone wars) or conversion (DCU/EQ2).

daffid011 wrote:
THIS! Anyone even remotely believing that $OE would settle with revenue generated by the sale of fluff/vanity items from PS2 is delusional. The content will be free to all, but try surviving without frequently spending Smed Bucks in the shameless, P2W cash shop.

Historically SOE has had problems with a lot of things, but some really stick out for this game.

1) Cross platform game design and execution. DCU... no more need to be said.

2) PvP: Soe has always struggled and typically fails miserably when they try to pvp. From balance, to expansion all the way to preventing cheating, so does not have anything to show they can manage this game. Planetside was their best effort and they managed to ruin that within a year.

3) F2P: Again SOE just has not figured it out. EQ2 is arguably the worst f2p system on the market. All of their f2p social games have died. There isn't a lot of examples to suggest soe will do anything proper here that will find success.

It does look cool, but that is marketing.