Sony "removed" PSN barriers for F2P MMO Dust 514

"Sony didn't relax PSN policies so free-to-play MMO Dust 514 would work on PS3 - Sony "removed" them, developer CCP has told Eurogamer."

[morganfell]

These policies cross paths with those Sony removed to gain Valve and Gabe Newell's support. These decisions as well as an open development architecture (which Sony has had) will go quite a long way to benefit gamers and the companies building titles.

In addition such a move enhances the game experience for those of us that are Eve Online players as well as future players by the manner in which such cross platform interfacing fleshes out the game world. I am really looking forward to hopping between my fleet ship and my ground engagements on the PS3 and Vita.

[Baka-akaB]

if only he was an employee it would be logical... more like a free religious zealot as usual

[gamingdroid]

This is no surprise, as Sony isn't new to F2P model. DC Universe went F2P after a unsuccessful P2P launch.

It's great to hear Sony isn' just "relaxing" the rules, but making the changes permanent.

[Rynx]

I wouldn't say it was unsuccessful, DCUO was far from dead on arrival. It didn't have to hit WOW strides in order for it to be successful, but the $15 dollars a month wasn't helping it.

Not many MMO's can survive on a P2P model anymore. Look at WOW, loosing hundreds of thousands of subscriptions yearly. After years of dominating the MMO market, they just had to abide by this new model that's here to stay.

Besides F2P has turned out to be much more profitable for companies in the long run. So again, I doubt it had anything to do with it being "unsuccessful". Rather, the F2P model would make SONY more money than P2P.

EDIT: And judging from your comment below #2.3. You pointed out the value of profit to these companies. So I don't know whether it was clear bias against DCUO, or a clear case of double standards for not acknowledging that they made DCUO F2P for the clear profit they would make.

[gamingdroid]

@Rynx

***Besides F2P has turned out to be much more profitable for companies in the long run.***

***... or a clear case of double standards for not acknowledging that they made DCUO F2P for the clear profit they would make.***

uh?

If it was more profitable and preferential to do F2P, why was DC Universe P2P first? It's clear that the business model didn't work after SOE tried it.

Even you acknowledge:

***Not many MMO's can survive on a P2P model anymore. Look at WOW, loosing hundreds of thousands of subscriptions yearly.***

Sounds like you need to work a little on your logic there. You can't say both, then claim others have double standards.

[Rynx]

I don't know exactly why SOE didn't try F2P from the get-go. But I do have educated stipulations as to why they didn't. Opposed to your biased non-backed statement of an "unsuccessful launch":

I don't know which game come out first Free Realms or DCUO. Either way 2 things are clear here.

1)If Free Realms came out first, then SOE would have experience with the F2P model. Yet, you're ignoring that DCUO had a big budget to gain back (bigger budget than Free Realms). So maybe going P2P first would yield them a return on their budget quicker.

2)If DCUO came out first, then would you really expect them to experiment with F2P for the very first time, on a big budget title at launch? Did that Star Wars MMO (forgot the name) release with a F2P model at launch? No.

Lastly the reason why I mentioned that most MMO's can't survive on solely a P2P model is because they loose subscriptions to other MMO's that practice a F2P model. Hence why I mentioned WOW and them eventually going F2P. It's all for the sake of keeping returning costumers and still make an income. I don't doubt or debate that DCUO was also falling victim to loss of subscriptions to other MMO's with F2P models. My argument is, that F2P is here to stay, so for any MMO to stay active with it's users they have to eventually go F2P. The only reason why I bother replying to your comment was because you came out of nowhere calling DCUO's launch "unsuccessful"

SO again you have NO basis on DCUO having an "unsuccessful" launch, just because they ended up going F2P. What exactly are you basing "unsuccessful" on? Not having COD-type sales? Or not having WOW-type subscription numbers? You have no idea how many subscriptions they needed on both the PS3 and PC to break even on the budget spent. Yet somehow, you still felt it necessary to deem it "unsuccessful" (with no solid backings to your claims) just because they went F2P. But then you turn around and in your #2.3 comment you came into the defense of Nintendo and Microsoft by generalizing that all "companies are out to profit", and acknowledging that F2P is still profitable. But It's clear now that the basis of your statement derives from a clear bias against DCUO.

[Baka-akaB]

the p2p system is usually successful , so hardly that contradicting a statement . But obviously its limits wear thin over time ... hence many game switching to f2p at some point . Hell all of them them did so far , or will do , aside from WoW (and maybe in the future swtor) . Desnt mean , all of those game failed , just that WoW is so big it can sustain overtime playerbase losses for quite a while .

It's a bad idea to release a big title as f2p from the get go .. There is much warrantd stigma attached to the f2p label , wich many people wanna avoid .

f2p games of the past , or even a few current ones , were bigger scams than subbed , with a boatload of micro payement , some far more necessary to thrive in such game , than usually believed .

Not everyone is going to accept the idea of spenting tons of cash on a micro basis , for the sake of staying competitive enough in a game .

And most born f2p are still of far lower quality compared to their p2p born counterparts .

[DragonKnight]

I doubt you'd ever see Nintendo or Microsoft go to those lengths for progress.

[Baka-akaB]

well not even a matter of doubt , they keep going in the opposite direction . Nintendo even closing borders on its handhelds , unlike before

[TheMysterion]

What do you mean?

[Baka-akaB]

Nintendo region locked the 3ds , wich is beyond ridiculous .

[Godmars290]

Especially if such a move included the competition.

And yet at the end of the article they say they're still talking with MS.

@gamingdroid:
Tell that to the Mechwarrior guys when they wanted to put the game on the 360 and PS3.

Likely would have sold most on the 360, yet someone on the MS side couldn't accept the idea.

[gamingdroid]

Really?

MS and Nintendo (like Sony) is a company out to profit. If there is big enough incentive, they all will go to those lengths.

Profit is the single most important motivator to get people (or companies) to do things!

[Kleptic]

obviously...but prioritizing profit and control are also closely related...

as in...they'll remove a certain degree of control only IF the profit is high enough...

for MS and Nintendo, that barrier is clearly unknown...and hasn't been approached yet, even by companies like Epic desperately wanting UGC content for their titles (which were available on PSN, not on XBL)...

[Godmars290]

Exactly.

MS would want the lion's share of the MMO's fees, just like Sony wanted them with their CD-add on deal with Nintendo back in the day.

In this case while Sony's getting paid for a F2P title, they aren't still trying to do CCCP from the other end with maintenance fees.

Though they do the same to themselves with Free Realms.

[gamingdroid]

@Godmars290

***Tell that to the Mechwarrior guys when they wanted to put the game on the 360 and PS3.

Likely would have sold most on the 360, yet someone on the MS side couldn't accept the idea. ***

I can't speak for what MS thought, but logic dictates that consumers only have so much money to spend. Perhaps they thought that consumers money would be better spent elsewhere on their platform as the "incentive" wasn't favorable compared to other more profitable things.

***In this case while Sony's getting paid for a F2P title, they aren't still trying to do CCCP from the other end with maintenance fees.***

To be frank, Sony isn't in a position to be "picky" this generation. They aren't the leader the used to be.

Therefore Sony have to have other incentives for developers, such as more flexibility. Sony isn't the "arrogant" Japanese console maker that push developers around anymore, are they?

When MS was the underdog, they too had incentives for developers by creating easier to use tools and architecture as well opened up Xbox Live more as evident by Final Fantasy XI (no Xbox Live Gold required).

If MS is hurt and start declining, they too will have to start creating other incentives.

[Godmars290]

Sony was hardly picky last gen. The diversity of their library was one of their strengths in fact.

Whereas MS largely messed up with the Xbox1 by presenting an air that some game generas weren't good enough for their system. Tried to change it then as they are now with the 360, but are still a FPS and PC bridge console maker.

Even now, in this specific case, they again prove themselves to be more picky in what's allowed on the 360.

[Baka-akaB]

even as far back as the ps2 era , sony was the one , alongside nintendo , pushing for mmos on consoles with titles like FFXI , everquest and the first monter hunter titles ...

So yeah i doubt it's that much about being in a bind , and forced to not be picky , like you claim

[gamingdroid]

@Godmars290

Having diversity doesn't mean jack squat when you are the top dog as everyone will target your platform by default. Apple is probably among the most "picky" mobile platform, yet they rank above all.

That of course give you the power to bend people to your will. There is a reason why early in the Xbox 360 cycle, there was a mass influx to that platform. Because Sony wasn't friendly to their third party developers!

[slavish]

m$ take notes!

[Godmars290]

Only unless this proves to be a real or notable success. Then they'll try to both copy it and exclude Sony. Make it look like they've been behind the idea the whole time.

[DigitalRaptor]

Microsoft on Xbox, free-to-play? Not much of a chance there.

I'm much more likely to support a company making the better industry decisions such as this. Taking risks on distribution models, which could end up benefiting publishers, developers and consumers in the long term ;)

Note: industry, not strictly business. When I say industry, I mean things that are beneficial to other companies in the industry and prove growth in innovation, great new ideas for the distribution of content and amazing long lasting partnerships. Closed frameworks are good for nobody but people interested in the bottom line in this industry. You're gonna notice this more and more as the years pass, and Microsoft will have to adapt.

[skrug]

MS will gladly take your note ;)

[negroguy]

Really looking forward to this and they didn't deny that it wouldn't be possible to transition to PS4 when it arrives. Right now it's a no comment but their 5 year plan might have to incorporate it on PS4 to continue growing.

[Persistantthug]

More games like this will ensure that the PS4 will have to carry PS3 backwards compatibility.

This is good :)

[ABizzel1]

This is the makings of the PS4.

[mayberry]

dust 514 and starhawk are in my sughts hardcore! Glad sony is letting things move forward with cpp! starhawk is looking fantastic!