Runescape Dying? [Discussion/Observation]

[God Of Lego]

When I read these threads I sometimes get the feeling that some of the community wants RS to die....Like a spite thing because they don't enjoy the game anymore. :(

 

I feel the same, But at the same time I feel the other side of the debate are in denial about alot of things. It always causes clashes.

[God Of Lego]

How runescape will likely start dying is linked to "Runescape dying?"

Related =/= relevant. Saying that RS will end someday, and that that ending will involve less people playing the game, is like saying that eventually [car X] will go out of production. It doesn't really add any new information. Now, if you knew something about when this will happen, or under what conditions precisely, then it would be good to post that. Life has a 100% mortality rate etc..

 

So far we've concluded that the game won't die if/when it stays profitable, that the game still is profitable, that the development team has grown (costing more money) and that user online counts have been dropping. This suggests that a lot more money is being earned per player than previously. We know that the amount of money earned per player has to reach a ceiling somewhere, so this strategy of less people paying more money is not sustainable. However, it doesn't have to be - at this point, staying at this level is good enough. So the question is, are user numbers dropping to the point that they can't afford to support the game anymore? Not any time soon, I think.

 

Thats where my post comes in by the way.

 

I said they will eventually cut staff when players are cut to a certain extent. So that they can keep up their profit. From there on theres a long cycle that will go in repeat. Right now, the micro transaction money is just a boom. it'll last a few years maybe. But the player base is declining meaning that money will also go down. Oneday it'll reach a certain point that money per player would drop due to it not being worth spending money on a game that has very little compition and support as it used to.

 

If anything you backed up my statement. You only stated that Micro payments slowed it down by a few years. For now jobs are higher. Thats only because they're at their peak of Micropayment cash. Its all down hill from here unless they turn the tide and admit their mistakes that drove alot of players away, whilst gaining a method for new players.

[Estoc]

How runescape will likely start dying is linked to "Runescape dying?"

Related =/= relevant. Saying that RS will end someday, and that that ending will involve less people playing the game, is like saying that eventually [car X] will go out of production. It doesn't really add any new information. Now, if you knew something about when this will happen, or under what conditions precisely, then it would be good to post that. Life has a 100% mortality rate etc..

 

So far we've concluded that the game won't die if/when it stays profitable, that the game still is profitable, that the development team has grown (costing more money) and that user online counts have been dropping. This suggests that a lot more money is being earned per player than previously. We know that the amount of money earned per player has to reach a ceiling somewhere, so this strategy of less people paying more money is not sustainable. However, it doesn't have to be - at this point, staying at this level is good enough. So the question is, are user numbers dropping to the point that they can't afford to support the game anymore? Not any time soon, I think.

 

Thats where my post comes in by the way.

 

I said they will eventually cut staff when players are cut to a certain extent. So that they can keep up their profit. From there on theres a long cycle that will go in repeat. Right now, the micro transaction money is just a boom. it'll last a few years maybe. But the player base is declining meaning that money will also go down. Oneday it'll reach a certain point that money per player would drop due to it not being worth spending money on a game that has very little compition and support as it used to.

 

If anything you backed up my statement. You only stated that Micro payments slowed it down by a few years. For now jobs are higher. Thats only because they're at their peak of Micropayment cash. Its all down hill from here unless they turn the tide and admit their mistakes that drove alot of players away, whilst gaining a method for new players.

 

But what about all the unforeseeable variables such as:

• Another mmo closing causing an influx of new players
  
• New management altering their plans
  
• More microtransactions making the profit per player higher
  
• More direct advertising like they've done in the past with miniclip
  
• Runescape coming to mobile devices
  

The farther into the future you get, the less predictable things become. It comes to a point where the only reliable things you can say are so obvious that everyone already knows it.

[Kimberly]

There is so much competition now to runescape in the browser based mmo games that if one of them closed it likely wouldn't amount to a large increase. They already do direct advertising; furthermore, sites like miniclip also have large amounts of competition and the people that would use those services are spread out across all of them.

 

Those things alone will not really change the game very much.

[Estoc]

My point was that it's like trying to predict the next card drawn. You either have to take a random guess, or make a very obvious pick such as "it won't be 2 of spades". One single card added won't greatly alter your chances of being correct, but it only gets more difficult the more you have.

[Sy_Accursed]

I wonder of their plans for html5 and mobile devices is a bit of a move to get new customers.

 

After all browser-based has become saturated but there aren't a whole lot of mmorpg on the mobile market, so that could be a big pay off if done right.

 

Equally if they could find a way to make consoles work it'd likey give a big pay off as again consoles don't really have mmorpg on a large scale.

[Veiva]

I wonder of their plans for html5 and mobile devices is a bit of a move to get new customers.

 

After all browser-based has become saturated but there aren't a whole lot of mmorpg on the mobile market, so that could be a big pay off if done right.

 

Equally if they could find a way to make consoles work it'd likey give a big pay off as again consoles don't really have mmorpg on a large scale.

 

I think Sony is the only one with an open enough environment to allow RuneScape on a console, sadly (see: Dust 514). Maybe Nintendo. They would have to choose between the two most likely, because of contracts, though. And Microsoft is out of the question. Wii U would be a decent choice, though, because of the GamePad. Meh.

[Sy_Accursed]

Yeah consoles are a tricky market because they don't like interaction between different user pools and the update process.

Though I think most now have a browser built in, like many smart TVS so Runescape could reach them that way, which would probably be the most logical.

 

The only other choice would be a slightly behind update-wise version of the game that had specific servers for each of the consoles it is on. Though this would raise the issue of, for example warbands, when they got fixed people could play the unfixed variant on their consoles for a few weeks more. Plus how would account data cope with different game states like that?

 

Reaching tablets, mobiles and TVs and bypassing consoles seems the most obvious route though.

[Lord Slayas]

Yeah consoles are a tricky market because they don't like interaction between different user pools and the update process.

Though I think most now have a browser built in, like many smart TVS so Runescape could reach them that way, which would probably be the most logical.

 

The only other choice would be a slightly behind update-wise version of the game that had specific servers for each of the consoles it is on. Though this would raise the issue of, for example warbands, when they got fixed people could play the unfixed variant on their consoles for a few weeks more. Plus how would account data cope with different game states like that?

 

Reaching tablets, mobiles and TVs and bypassing consoles seems the most obvious route though.

 

I imagine if RuneScape comes to consoles, it would probably be through Sony, and I really doubt you would have to access through web-browser, it would be a Playstation Version of the client, loaded up like any game (or any app).

 

That being said, I can't see RuneScape doing particularly well on a console, though - the difference between a controller & a mouse is too large, it would either require a massive change to the gameplay mechanics, or would be somewhat of a failure. As well, RuneScape graphics on a console (even with their shiny html5) would not even close to measure to the graphics of some of the other MMORPG's available, and for that simple fact, I can't see it becoming too popular with new players through consoles.

 

RuneScape on Mobile devices definitely has a lot of potential, and I imagine if it is done well it would definitely garner some new business - perhaps enough to stave off all this "Dying" nonsense.

[Ginger_Warrior]

The main problem with RuneScape on consoles has never been technical specifications, or game controls, or even what company would be best for it. The philosophy is just plain wrong. As far as console gaming is concerned, free-to-play doesn't exist. It just doesn't. The idea that you get a basic version of the game for free and then only commit to spending more when you feel like it is lunacy.

 

Their model is more conventional. You go into a clothes store, you might look at the clothes, maybe try them on for a couple of minutes, but then you have to pay for it if you want to take it outside of the store. You go into a phone store, you might admire the style and its features, but then you have to pay for it if you want to take it outside of the store. You go into a games store, you might play an in-store demo, but then you have to pay for it if you want to take it outside of the store.

 

The argument for F2P in RuneScape is that, even if players don't want to spend money on the paid version, they're still contributing something in collateral simply by playing the game. They're talking about it, they're making something in game, they go down on the record books as "new players"... it just looks good.

 

That doesn't wash with any of Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo. All three would laugh you out of the office unless what you were offering was truly worthy of exception, and RuneScape ain't that offering.

 

It's pure fantasy. Nothing more.

[Sy_Accursed]

^Cool story bro.

 

Now I'll just Brb whilst I go and play any number of the hundreds of free demos offered on ps xbox wii and ds or maybe even some of the free games they gave out in promos and such.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Demos which have time limits before either subscription-based or lump sum requests kick in, not an open-ended model as RuneScape F2P. Promotions which are dependent on you spending money elsewhere, XBL's Gold member subscription model, for example.

 

Thank you for arguing my case.

[Sy_Accursed]

Not all demos are time limited, DS is the only one where I have actively come across time limits. Xbox and Ps have all just been smaller portions of the game as a whole to play as much as you like kinda exactly like f2p is to p2p.

 

And not all free games come from paying money elsewhere, they have done summer promos and tie-in events that give out free stuff just for plain free. Xbox arcade has plenty of free titles and playstation like a year ago had a whole fb thing where u could get a code a week for free games for nothing.

 

Your argument is fundamentally flawed in that most of the consoles have demos/games that are entirely free and entirely unlimited in use but are just smaller versions of paid for counterparts which is EXACTLY what runescape f2p is.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Not all demos are time limited, DS is the only one where I have actively come across time limits. Xbox and Ps have all just been smaller portions of the game as a whole to play as much as you like kinda exactly like f2p is to p2p.

You're treating us all like idiots if you think the unlimited "demo" of RuneScape F2P is anything near comparible to demos on the consoles, which typically have time limits or only offer a few levels before payment is required. RuneScape's F2P model is fundamentally different in that there is no limit, only restrictions on a minority of the total skills available. Aside from that you're free to do what you like, when you like, for however long you like, and without needing to pay for an accompanying subscription in order to gain access to the demo in the first place.

 

There's loads of demos on XBL with play limits, literally hundreds. You and I both know that... please stop feigning ignorance. It adds nothing to your point.

 

And not all free games come from paying money elsewhere, they have done summer promos and tie-in events that give out free stuff just for plain free. Xbox arcade has plenty of free titles and playstation like a year ago had a whole fb thing where u could get a code a week for free games for nothing.

Bullshit.

 

List of top-selling XBL Arcade games for w/ending 27th June 2013, according to The Market For Computer & Video Games publication, with MS Points cost in parenthesis, as according to the Xbox.com official website:[1]

 

1. State of Decay - Microsoft (1600)

2. Minecraft - Microsoft (1600)

3. Sonic The Hedgehog - Sega (400)

4. Sonic Adventure 2 - Sega (800)

5. Sonic Adventure - Sega (400)

6. Sonic The Hedgehog 2 - Sega (400)

7. The Cave - Sega (1200)

8. Sonic The Hedgehog 3 - Sega (400)

9. Guardian Heroes - Sega (400)

10. Sega Bass Fishing - Sega (400)

 

Oh look, none of them are free. Surprise surprise.

 

Your argument is fundamentally flawed in that most of the consoles have demos/games that are entirely free and entirely unlimited in use but are just smaller versions of paid for counterparts which is EXACTLY what runescape f2p is.

I think I've sufficiently demolished any impression that my argument is "fundamentally flawed" by exposing just how ignorant your perception of the F2P model truly is. I'll repeat the F-word... what you seem to believe about RuneScape and console gaming is pure fantasy, nothing more.

[Sy_Accursed]

I'm not saying there are no demos with limits or that free games top the charts.

I am merely saying that free games exist and that there are demos without limits other than you cannot play the whole thing, which is what F2P rs is.

 

Your argument still does not hold up as the fact is the sort of demo that Runescape model would fit does exist; the fact others have limits and free stuff doesn't top the charts does not alter this.

 

Yes Runecape F2P is larger than the average demo in terms of content, but guess what? Runescape P2P is larger than the average game offering demos in terms of content too.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Cool story bro.

 

Now I'll just Brb whilst I go and play any number of the hundreds of free demos offered on ps xbox wii and ds or maybe even some of the free games they gave out in promos and such.

I'm not saying there are no demos with limits or that free games top the charts.

I am merely saying that free games exist and that there are demos without limits other than you cannot play the whole thing, which is what F2P rs is.

Oh please... it only took me two hours to force you into a U-turn. Not once have you even attempted to demonstrate that a free-to-play MMO model would actually work on the console. All you've done is meekly state that demos exist (in a different format to the MMO model) and that occasionally Microsoft like to give away the proverbial Bargain Bin in order to get punters signed up to XBL Gold.

 

When I'm playing Call of Duty online for free over XBL with a lessened array of weapons to be unlocked only if I pay a month's subscription, come back and tell me I'm wrong. Until then, I'll fork out the £40 when it comes out, knowing full well the transaction bears no resemblance whatsoever to the MMORPG scene.

 

It's not just a "bigger" game. It's a completely different model, a completely different mentality, and a completely different way of doing things. The two are incompatible.

[Sy_Accursed]

I haven't U-turned at all; nor was I trying to argue about how it would work.

 

My only point, if you go back a few posts, was I disagreed with your case for f2p being unworkable on consoles as they charge for everything because demos and free games do exist. Prior debate already covered the fact the whole reason the market was interesting was because it lacked games of that model and some points of whether that could work. Again my only point was your case that F2P can't exist was flawed as there is free content out there on the consoles.

 

Whether the game as a whole, due to format, works is a separate point.

[Saradomin_Mage]

I think Ginger's point was that RuneScape is fundamentally different from those demo+paid console games, simply because the scale is absolutely massive (10,000 hours of playtime, was it?) and nowhere near as restrictive. Even though free and demo games exist on consoles, they all don't (and can't) fit into the category as RuneScape.

[Hedgehog]

They could release a console version that let you play mini games in shard worlds on dummy accounts. Maybe you could buy weapons/armor with rune coins too.

[V O R K]

Honestly if any servers are getting removed due to player density the translated servers ought to be the first to go.

 

It's a noble idea about making the game accessible to other nations, but the reality is they probably aren't all that cost effective. The busier ones (French and German in my experience) hover around 100-200 at best. The others rarely breach 100 with the worst (Spanish) often being as low as 20-30.

 

In all honesty I think these servers are kind of a waste of time given the player numbers, especially as they require a whole team to translate everything (in turn slowing down the overall dev process)

 

Dutch & Belgian worlds remain one of the fullest at low peak times.

 

Only German & Spanish servers.

 

[wagon] Jagex

[Ginger_Warrior]

I think Ginger's point was that RuneScape is fundamentally different from those demo+paid console games, simply because the scale is absolutely massive (10,000 hours of playtime, was it?) and nowhere near as restrictive. Even though free and demo games exist on consoles, they all don't (and can't) fit into the category as RuneScape.

More or less.

 

To understand this properly, you need to accept a key principle first: That F2P RuneScape is a full, unrestricted game within its own right, and it isn't a 'demo' by conventional measures. In F2P you can quite happily get along playing so-called "F2P skills" as long as you want and you're not actually restricted from doing so. There's no level caps (apart from P2P skills, so you can ignore that exception), there's no time limits, there no restrictions on chatting or trading or interacting generally with other people. There's no wall to say "Time's up, stop freeloading". The only thing you're faced with is encouragement to purchase the P2P version of the game, in return for more content. Fundamentally however, this remains a choice: You can play the game paying for additional content, or you can choose not to pay and play on anyway (and many do, including a lot of people on this forum).

 

When we talk about demos on the consoles, we're not talking about that. We're not talking open-ended versions of games where you're asked nicely to fork out money occasionally. There might be 15 'chapters', you get to play one or possibly two chapters, you can repeat the first two chapters ad nauseam, but that's the end of the line until you pay up. You're not getting a full game in its own right, you're getting a little bit of one to titillate you into buying the whole thing.

 

The main difference is that the Big Three companies won't accept the former model. It isn't in their interests to do so; why would they want someone hanging on, incurring costs to them, and not giving anything back in return? So unless a demo fits into the second model, the conversation stops now. If RuneScape were to launch onto a console (ignoring technicalities like the UI etc. for a second), you'd effectively have to kiss goodbye to F2P RuneScape and instead adopt something more similar to WoW's demo: A bootleg, limited version of the game with heavy restrictions (level caps, gold caps, trade restrictions).

 

In other words (just like, no doubt, Diablo 3 will have to be when it gets released onto consoles next month) you're have to go back and fundamentally change the game in order to make it work on a console. By that, like I said, I'm not even talking controls or UIs or graphics... I'm literally talking business. Companies making profit.

 

When you factor that and everything else in to the equation, I stand by my original assertion: It's plain fantasy to believe that, as things stand, RuneScape could work on a console.

[Alg]

I am merely saying that free games exist and that there are demos without limits other than you cannot play the whole thing, which is what F2P rs is.

[bleep]'s sake people, it's 2013, this has been a mainstream thing for years now.

 

You're blind if you didn't see Runescape's free game as one of its strengths. Back in ye goode olde dayse, it was one of (if not the) biggest MMO to have F2P. Nowadays, free-with-microtransactions is the go-to game model; you can't afford to treat your free game as a glorified demo, especially when it's fallen out of favor.

[Sy_Accursed]

The trouble is whether you slap the new fangled 'freemium' term on it or not, a free portion of the whole game that has some form of limits in place, such as certain skills and areas excluded, is a demo of the full game experience.

 

Freemium is just terminology for a popularised format of demo whereby the demo is much more expansive and complete in its own right than other games might offer. Just because it uses the freemium model and just because you can play free to play endless does not make it any less a demo at heart.

[Kimberly]

Why do people think that if the game came to consoles, the f2p aspect would have to be available? If the biggest argument is that the freemium style clashes with how consoles typically operate, it seems the easiest and probably the most profitable answer is just make console-play members only.

[Sy_Accursed]

That would certainly be an interesting way to go, having it as a members feature but would it be worth it?

The point of expanding to new markets is to get new users and a game built around freemium format relies on the demo to grab those customers. Not to mention the previously raised issue to do with graphics, updates etc.