All Points Bulletin goes free to play, but will that save it from being a bad game?

Well this is awkward. GamersFirst, an operator of free-to-play online games, announced today that it has acquired the rights to the 2010 flop of the year, All Points Bulletin (APB), and will re-launch it on a freemium revenue model later next year.

GamersFirst is essentially betting that switching All Points Bulletin, which was formerly on a monthly pay-to-play subscription model before it shut down in September, to a free-to-play model that makes money off the sale of virtual goods like weapons, will save the game. What GamersFirst may be forgetting is that APB’s developer, Realtime Worlds, chewed through $100 million before shutting its doors.

Simply making APB free for everyone to play isn’t a guarantee that gamers will flock back to the game. All Points Bulletin was universally slammed by critics. And that’s not because it was on a pay-to-play model — it simply wasn’t a good game. The game only garnered a score of 58 out of 100 after 42 reviews on Metacritic, a site that aggregates reviews into a single score. And even if gamers do pick up the game once again, there’s no guarantee the game would actually begin making money.

Some games have seen success shifting from a subscription-based revenue model to a free-to-play model. Lord of the Rings Online and Dungeons and Dragons Online, both games released by Turbine, are the most notable. Lord of the Rings Online’s revenue doubled after Turbine introduced microtransactions to help speed up character progression, and Dungeons and Dragons Online’s revenue went up by 500 percent.

But that’s mostly because the games were actually good, according to game critics. Lord of the Rings Online had a score of 86 out of 100 after 40 reviews on Metacritic, and Dungeons and Dragons Online had a slightly less-than-stellar — but by no means terrible — 74 out of 100 after 33 reviews.

Realtime Worlds previously created Crackdown, a third-person shooting game that took place in an open world urban environment and let gamers participate in all sorts of mayhem. Crackdown ended up being a cult hit, and picking up a score of 83 out of 100 after 75 reviews on Metacritic. The company built its staff to more than 250 employees and worked on All Points Bulletin for more than five years, only to find out that nobody wanted to play it.

So far there is only one successful subscription-based online game left. Activision Blizzard’s World of Warcraft, one of the most dominant online games in history, has around 12 million players that pay $15 a month to access the game’s persistent world. And again, that’s simply because World of Warcraft is widely considered to be a fantastic game. The game received a score of 93 out of 100 after 57 reviews on Metacritic. World of Warcaft has been so dominant that it has forced many other subscription-based games to go free-to-play.

GamersFirst says that it has around 30 million players across 160 million countries playing its games. I guess it can only hope that those same gamers are more forgiving than the rest of the world was to APB the first time around.

  • http://www.goldflow.com Joe Wagner

    If the price was right, sounds pretty low risk. Marginal costs are low, and incremental revenue from virtual goods may make it worth the bet.

  • Omar_McCoy

    #1 APB was not a bad game, Playing it from beta to flop, the essential element that killed it was the lack of communication from the employees in RTW. The employees responsible for reading the tech forums were not communicating properly with the employees responsible for correcting issues. On top of that their roles got mixed and fogged causing certain technical errors to snowball to the point of game managers going on the forums and saying things were fine or not responding to player's complaints at all. The game itself had pioneering content; 1) If you like to customize your character, this game had unparalleled content. 2) If you like your graphics sharp, the unreal3 engine had you covered, 3) If you want quick and conclusive PVP matches, this game had that to a science 4) and If you like VIOP that would make you laugh, this game had voice activated mic (that many players forget to turn off, which made it even more funny). It was a legit and functioning title without support basically, its pay model originally was pretty unorthodox (ex: buy the title, pay for hours, use in-game content to purchase or sell more content or more hours) which, even in the first week, allowed players to exploit it to its fullest before a patch. Switching to a Free to play but pay for toys model could possibly save it. This would also allow players to sample the game without inuring the risk of it flopping. Vouching for myself, when the game died, something was missing in my games until COD Black Ops came out, but you still cant make your own (completely your own) soldier or vehicle when you get bored of twitch shooting. I for one will be following this game closely and I am excited for its return because it was a shame it died so shortly due to bad managing.On a final note, comparing the original game to WoW is not a fair assessment. WoW is of the fantasy genre backed with a budget and staff from many previous successful titles. RTW had one success; Crackdown. Too many online RPGs are compared to WoW, and its not to say its a good example of a successful model, its just being used as a common standard to rate all games that move online for the past decade. For many players like myself I see WoW as a pioneer of a original and successful model, but risk adverse in providing innovative content that changes the way games are played.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQHY62DUVNCLZSF6HKZHRU3HBA Kinjik Zen

    Honestly, this is amazing to find out, though in a bad way. My computer crapped out and all of a sudden I find I can't play the game for the whole summer since it comes out. I upgrade and come back and suddenly I can't sign on to the game. “Odd,” I think to myself.Then a little bit a snooping around leads me to this article. What the crap? This game was fun because it didn't have mindless grind! As soon as I got in the world I barely had time to get ammo between being chased by the Vigilante Cops or going on the next mission because someone asked for back-up. That's just the fan bit.From a logical sense, the game doesn't have priorities to higher-maintenance thinkers, like critics, these people are nit-picky if they're peas aren't on the same side of the plate. YES… All games have bugs, this is a batch of 250 people we're talking about. This is not Blizzard, who have half of the world working for them. They didn't have the experience to sign-up more than enough overseers and this is what they got in return.If this game goes free-to-play, I believe we'll have just as much fun while it's out. I wonder if people who bought this game will be able to keep their weapons? For anyone who hasn't tried it, when it goes free… Why not?

  • mongrest

    i actually really wanted to play the game but after i saw u had to pay and play i said f**k this.but if it does go free to play then i will definitely play it and i'll get my friend to play too.

  • http://venturebeat.com/2011/11/21/a-list-games-raises-9-3m-to-market-digital-games/ A List Games raises $9.3M to market digital games | VentureBeat

    [...] subscription game was shut down in September. Then GamersFirst, an operator of free-to-play games, acquired the title and relaunched it using the free-to-play [...]

blog comments powered by Disqus

GamesBeat is your source for gaming news and reviews. But it's also home to the best articles from gamers, developers, and other folks outside of the traditional press. Register or log in to join our community of writers. You can even make a few bucks publishing stories here! Learn more.

You are now an esteemed member of the GamesBeat community. That means you can comment on stories or post your own to GB Unfiltered (look for the "New Post" link by mousing over your name in the red bar up top). But first, why don't you fill out your via your ?

About GamesBeat