Are you sure? Are you sure you want to report this comment? I understand, report it. Cancel

Secret World "not going free-to-play anytime soon"

Secret World "not going free-to-play anytime soon"

Tue 02 Oct 2012 5:07pm GMT / 1:07pm EDT / 10:07am PDT

Funcom insists it's sticking with subscription model for MMO despite disappointing sales

It's become ordinary for a subscription based MMO to have an underwhelming launch and quickly switch to a free-to-play model, but Funcom's The Secret World is anything but ordinary. In a post-mortem interview on Eurogamer, studio representatives insisted that a switch to free-to-play isn't on the horizon for the supernatural themed MMO.

"No it's not going free-to-play any time soon," Funcom communications director Erling Ellingsen told the site. Creative director Ragnar Tornquist then suggested there's no telling what the business model would look like in a year, or two, or five, which prompted Ellingsen to step in and acknowledge the company is "always looking" at the possibility.

"It's a fast changing business and we have to adapt ourselves," Ellingsen said. "But right now there's currently no plans."

One reason for sticking with the subscription fee is that the company believes those who paid it should be entitled to get their money's worth. That also means the company isn't planning to produce expansion packs for now, opting instead to release new content in monthly updates for subscribers.

"It's really important to us with the business model we've chosen," Secret World game director Joel Bylos said. "It sounds very emotional, but I almost feel like we need to prove that this business model has not gone the way of the dinosaur by delivering content constantly to people, and making people feel like there's value in it."

The Secret World launched in June through the EA Partners program, and sold only 200,000 copies through August. After the disappointing debut, Funcom instituted a round of cost-cutting initiatives, including layoffs.


Zidaya Zenovka
Blogger, Writer

41 8 0.2
This game had a ton of potential and could have been so much better and would have done a lot better if it had adopted Guild Wars 2's approach. I still can't understand why more developers haven't seen this coming. The demise of subscription-based games began as far back as 2008 or so-this game should have done better, and now that it's lost most of its key personell-the people behind the fantastic vision-I really don't see a reason to invest a single penny in this.

Admit that you screwed up, make it free to play and hire the original people back, if you can convince them to come back, that is.Otherwise, this game might go on but it will have lost much of the potential it once had and will just be another cheap grindfest.

Posted:A year ago


Andreas Gschwari
Senior Games Designer

558 607 1.1
Admit that you screwed up, make it free to play and hire the original people back, if you can convince them to come back, that is
Really? And how do you propose this will happen? It's not like Funcom can flick a switch to implement your suggestions. Quite a naive point of view, maybe wishful thinking even.

Funcom has made a substantial loss in the last quarter. Apart from the fact that no MMO will need all the original development people after launch, hiring back people simply does not appear to be an option. Do you think they would have let go so many people if they could have afforded to keep them and actually needed them?

Secondly you can not simply switch an MMO, that was designed to be subscription based, into a F2P game. There probably are few, if any, mechanics in place that would allow Funcom to draw revenue from microtransactions. It takes time to design these features, balance them and implement them.

And lastly i don't really see how the potential of the game changes just because you change monetization. Either the game is good, the setting is intruiging and the mechanics are fun, or they are not. If you think that the game has potential, and you really want to play it, then paying for it should not be holding you back. There ARE enough subscribers to fill a few servers, so it's not that the game world would be empty.

Unless of course people have a problem with paying subscription and wanting things for free. That is obviously their choice, but in that case, i don't think it's right to demand Funcom to fullfil their particular wishes.

I am sure it will go F2P at some point, Age of Conan did afterall and Funcom has experience in re-designing a subscription MMO to become a F2P. It just won't happen overnight. Nor will it mean everyone gets re-hired. That simply makes no business sense.

Posted:A year ago


Curt Sampson
Sofware Developer

596 360 0.6
I don't know if I'm typical or not, but for me the main issue has been the combination of the big up-front cost and the subscription. Paying fifty euros just to see if I like the game or not simply isn't worth the risk to me, whereas if I could get started with just a one month subscription (or better yet, for free, the way I can with Blizzard's games) I'd be willing to give it a try.

What's the general marketing idea behind having both a monthly charge and a high entry fee?

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Curt Sampson on 3rd October 2012 8:33am

Posted:A year ago


Andreas Gschwari
Senior Games Designer

558 607 1.1
Good point Curt, though i think the thinking there is that for the box price you also get one month free - plenty of time to decide whether to subscribe or not.

50 euros for a month of gaming, potentially hundred or more hours of gameplay, is not a bad price (considering most other boxed games these days seem to be hovering between the 4 and 10 hour mark for single player campaigns).

Posted:A year ago


Raphael Honore
Localization Assistant Manager

31 3 0.1
There probably are few, if any, mechanics in place that would allow Funcom to draw revenue from microtransactions.
Quest packs ala LOTRO? This would work just fine for this game, which is centered on quests and exploration.

Posted:A year ago


Andreas Gschwari
Senior Games Designer

558 607 1.1
Sure, but you can't simply switch over night - not without breaking the balance and/or the game flow. Switching from subscription to F2P takes proper design and planning. They do have the backend system in place from AoC though, so at least that part should go smoothly.

But when you spend 6 years or so developing a game structure that supports all content available for every subscriber, changing it to microtransactions and content on demand takes some time.

Posted:A year ago


James Terry

1 0 0.0
Secret World's current micro-transaction model is vanity items like clothing, pets, and titles. Nothing in there to give players an in-game advantage or access to new content. Switching over to free plus pay for content could alienate the players that are willing to pay a subscription by making them feel like they are being nickel and dimed.

There are plenty of continually successful subscription MMOs: EVE, FFXI, and of course WoW. The key is to getting a stable population. Satisfying your current players is a good way to get stable, then think about expanding, and from what Funcom has said, player satisfaction and retention are high.

Funcom needs to keep their numbers and prevent them from dropping, a massive change to the game could swing them from stability to decline, but could also swing it from stability to growth. I'm not sure that is a risk they want to take right now though.

Posted:A year ago


Login or register to post

Take part in the GamesIndustry community

Register now