In this week's edition of The Free Zone, columnist Richard Aihoshi looks at the line between free to play and not. As games adopt more hybrid business models - microtransactions or optional subscription fees - the line has gotten blurrier. Aihoshi tries to sort things out.

Will we actually see both options offered in a single title? If forced to hazard a guess, I'd venture to say we will. At first glance, this may seem like trying to mix oil and water. However, there is certainly a trend toward more diverse revenue models. This is natural and thus to be expected as an industry expands. In fact, it's a way of promoting growth; it helps to reach new consumers by providing alternatives that better fit their preferences. In a way, it's kind of like marketing changes we see all the time in other areas, such as adding a new package size, another color or a different combination of burger toppings.

We're already part of the way there. For instance, Wizard101 has two basic payment choices. One is monthly subscription, although in a still relatively unusual form that includes discounted rates for multiple accounts in a family, and also for six- and 12-month terms. The other is area-based. I haven't played the game for at least a few months now, but during the post-launch period, free players could only enter selected zones. This is still the case, with the option of buying access to the others one at a time using virtual currency; according to KingsIsle's website, the cost in real money ranges from $1 to $3.

Read more here.

I'd like it if he actually made clear what the hell he's trying to discuss. I presume it's something to do with whether or not a game is free to play, but it's HARD to tell.

On principle, however, I disagree.

How many F2P articles does he need to write ?

He's talking about the  trend in MMO games to become more ambiguous in wether they are subscription or "free" to play based. Quite frankly, I think we'll see more and more companies trying out variations that include both business models in some sense or other. The reason is quite simple: they want to make money.

A subscription-based game is an 'either-or' model. A potention customer will either subscribe or they will not. A company will not see profits from those that don't. By including elements of F2P within a game that also has subscriptions, the company increases the possible revenue streams.

In other words, by appealing to as many potential payers as possible, they're more likely to make a profit.

With the new DDO model, subscribers not only have access to all modules and play content, they get points they can use in the cash shop (I last read it was about 500 points a month). Non-subscribers can either fork out cash for those points (convenience) or earn reputation (granted from doing quests) which in turn gives them so many points they can use in the cash shop.

Another model is Requiem, in which subscribers earned XP bonuses and a flat rate discount at the cash shop (and I think they also got an allowance for the cash shop, don't quite remember).

In any case, the mixture of the MMO business models is the same sort of thing seen in any other industry: the attempt to increase revenue by adapting.

-w

What's the point of playing a mmo if at the end, you can buy stuff otherwise you'll have to work for it ?   There is no achievement feeling in paying RL money for an ingame item.  However working hard to get that special item that very few peoples have, now that's something.

How much money you can spend in a virtual game should not affect how powerful/succesful you are in that game.   For me RMT games are for the lazy.

i would gladly pay more  for in game items on games i am already paying a monthly sub for, i have bought 30 bucks worth of booster packs for CoX, gladly 10 dollars a  pop for an entire costume set, i dint mind it, great game, but the isue with most people i think, is the general quality of f2p games,hell some of the p2p games arnt doing so well,..LoTR,..i dont care what any of you say, a game that is doing well doesnt have 10 dollar subs,and that game looks great and plays well,theres just a combination of ingrediants that i dont completly understand taht makes a game successfull, and its not just getting over the f2p tag, naturally your going to pay less money to ake a f2p game, and then try to make money on item malls , mulyiple sub types, f2p zones, whatever, a low budget game is like a low busget movie,..you get what you pay for , oh i am going on again, basicly i am saying ,..you cant polish a turd,..and no one wants to pay for a polished turd,..no matter how you package it, eventually everyone gonna figure out its a polished turd. THE END

I might be able to understand a system where if you subscribe, you get access to all content but if you play for free you have to pay for additional content.

Like a new zone opens and is included for subsciption customers, but free players would have to pay a one time fee to get access to the new zone.

I stick to games that are p2p and avoid all games that have any type of micro-transaction of any kind.

I have no problem with a game that has a f2p area with a small level cap and a small area to run around in as opposed to a free trial since it is basically the same thing.

I also truly hate the concept of paying for things that improve your character over another, so xp potions, extra damage etc etc. If I was going to venture into a game that had some micro transactions I would only do it if the items were purely cosmetic.

It seems to me that in so many more years I won't be a part of any of the MMOs since they seem to so badly all want to go to micro-transactions, at that point I'll go back to my roots and pay FPS and RTS games that are one off games with no subs/transactions etc.

It is really bad to see companies that only offer a subscription but then start trying to add in as many other transactions as they can, look at how big games are releasing now. 1 million in sales at 50-60 a pop, let's say after all the different distribution deals etc that the company gets half of that, there's a good 25 million in the first couple months. Now by the second month most of these games still have half of that pay a sub so another 7.5 million. And then of course the 250,000 average they might hold up over the year so another 41.25 mil for a nice total of 73.75 mil. Now let's say the company did half that success the first year for only ~36 mil. That company is still doing well and either paid off it's investment or come close in that first year, and all it's workers can afford to be paid a good salary. Why do they need to top it off with extra nickle and dime models like a pay for name change pay for server move, pay for new clothing etc.

What I might consider playing if a game that was entirely free to play no hidden strings. And people were allowed to in game trade the items they've purchased for in game loot with other players. This allows people who don't care about real money to buy  plenty from the store and trade it off to players in game who are too cheap to buy things (like me) for in game items they spend their time getting. As sad of an example as it is I could show Puzzle Pirates as an example of that. You have to use currency bought with real money to unlock different games for a month's time, however people can trade these bought monies for in game money to other players. Meaning if you put in the time you can keep playing all the puzzles for no real world money.

If i was in charge of a mmo id make both f2p and p2p, then if either lost money id can it.  They would of course be totally seperate games, and this way you dont get free trial people in the p2p game.

t's also inevitable. If F2P, F2T and other non-subscription business models help drive more rapid growth - and I think they do - I welcome them

The question in this is, does it suport quantity or quality. Sofar I only seen Quantity and well..no quality, this is subject to personal flavor ofcource.

A p2p whit a form of micro transactions will get a large amound of  "game ballance" centrert around the microshop.
Even if its just flavor items it will unballance the game of those whit the money will get more game then those whitout the money.

swg is a neat exsample of a p2p game were they keep trying to push  the cardgame (ingame items ) onto the the general swg mmo population.
 

Maybe if you pay by the hour( ala asian customers style) a cashshop would work.
But only if its ballanced. you can get the items in the shop or spent a few more hour playing the game getting the item ingame.
but even this will give those whit enoug money in there hands a clear advantage.

Originally posted by fenrisblue

i would gladly pay more  for in game items on games i am already paying a monthly sub for, i have bought 30 bucks worth of booster packs for CoX, gladly 10 dollars a  pop for an entire costume set, i dint mind it, great game, but the isue with most people i think, is the general quality of f2p games,hell some of the p2p games arnt doing so well,..LoTR,..i dont care what any of you say, a game that is doing well doesnt have 10 dollar subs,and that game looks great and plays well,theres just a combination of ingrediants that i dont completly understand taht makes a game successfull, and its not just getting over the f2p tag, naturally your going to pay less money to ake a f2p game, and then try to make money on item malls , mulyiple sub types, f2p zones, whatever, a low budget game is like a low busget movie,..you get what you pay for , oh i am going on again, basicly i am saying ,..you cant polish a turd,..and no one wants to pay for a polished turd,..no matter how you package it, eventually everyone gonna figure out its a polished turd. THE END

I'm confused you say a P2P game that costs $10 is a sign it isn't good then you use LoTRO as a example. Now i have been in LoTRO since beta and they never charged less then the insdustry standard fo 12-14 bucks.

Oh wait I see, your confusing a limited time promotion price to the standard price.

Gotca now.

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

I stick to games that are p2p and avoid all games that have any type of micro-transaction of any kind.

 

I have no problem with a game that has a f2p area with a small level cap and a small area to run around in as opposed to a free trial since it is basically the same thing.

 

I also truly hate the concept of paying for things that improve your character over another, so xp potions, extra damage etc etc. If I was going to venture into a game that had some micro transactions I would only do it if the items were purely cosmetic.

 

It seems to me that in so many more years I won't be a part of any of the MMOs since they seem to so badly all want to go to micro-transactions, at that point I'll go back to my roots and pay FPS and RTS games that are one off games with no subs/transactions etc.

 

It is really bad to see companies that only offer a subscription but then start trying to add in as many other transactions as they can, look at how big games are releasing now. 1 million in sales at 50-60 a pop, let's say after all the different distribution deals etc that the company gets half of that, there's a good 25 million in the first couple months. Now by the second month most of these games still have half of that pay a sub so another 7.5 million. And then of course the 250,000 average they might hold up over the year so another 41.25 mil for a nice total of 73.75 mil. Now let's say the company did half that success the first year for only ~36 mil. That company is still doing well and either paid off it's investment or come close in that first year, and all it's workers can afford to be paid a good salary. Why do they need to top it off with extra nickle and dime models like a pay for name change pay for server move, pay for new clothing etc.

 

What I might consider playing if a game that was entirely free to play no hidden strings. And people were allowed to in game trade the items they've purchased for in game loot with other players. This allows people who don't care about real money to buy  plenty from the store and trade it off to players in game who are too cheap to buy things (like me) for in game items they spend their time getting. As sad of an example as it is I could show Puzzle Pirates as an example of that. You have to use currency bought with real money to unlock different games for a month's time, however people can trade these bought monies for in game money to other players. Meaning if you put in the time you can keep playing all the puzzles for no real world money.

I agree, and say yet again - RMT will end my playing MMO's since I would rather play single player then participate in what I believe is truly Corporate greed.

No Richard, we are not going to try your cr*ppy f2p MMOs!!

just stop writting pointless articles

Question: When a game has both micro-transactions and an optional subscription fee, is it still considered free to play?

Answer: No. (So stop being a cheapskate and just pay for a sub to a decent game  )

Hope that helps

Well I believe DDO will fit in the mold of what he is talking about.  So no ifs about it, there will be one of these in the near future.

Mixing F2P with P2P make something even more disgusting for the "average" gamer. My concept of "average" gamer is someone that pays for content only (retail prices, expansion packs, monthly fees, now if they just went and added hourly plans...).

Why is it disgusting? You will be facing a real, constant cost AND an item mall. You see a game together with all ways of taking money out of you, but that does not mean you will see a game with double quality, double content, double support. Nope. It's truly disgusting the twist that free-to-play games do, there will be those paying for free that serve as food for  those that are paying much higher than $15/month to become all-powerful. The "average" gamer doesn't want endless money sinks on his games and doesn't want to be weaker than somebody else because his opponent's credit card has a larger limit than his.

The concept of Wizard101 of selling areas or offering a premium subscription that lets you play everything should be enough of a revenue for the game, although it might be true that it allows for an item mall that evolves in a slower pace - you will have your true vanity items and that might be only it, until they want to make more money and add up the temporary items that give you a boost (which will stack  with your-already-existing premium subscription for a cost much higher than $15/month) and then they add the killer - the endless money sinks that are the item mall upgrade materials.

We have yet to see how much will be the cost in DDO Unlimited to play competitively.

Originally posted by markt50

Question: When a game has both micro-transactions and an optional subscription fee, is it still considered free to play?

 

Answer: No. (So stop being a cheapskate and just pay for a sub to a decent game  )

 

Hope that helps

Ya because not wanting to pay 180 a year and being locked into one game, makes you a cheapskate. Even if you do pay for the game doesnt mean all your friends want to pay for it too.

No Richard, we are not going to try your cr*ppy f2p MMOs!!

This.

I dont get how people can say this is the wave of the future when there are no indications of that at all. Whenever this topic comes up, the response from most people ranges from polite disinterest to rabid hatred.

F2P is not a sustainable model. The money has to come from somewhere. And it is usually an item mall. And it should be pretty clear by now that MMO players hate item malls.

Ya because not wanting to pay 180 a year and being locked into one game, makes you a cheapskate.

You arent locked into anything. You could quit after one month if you wanted to.

Originally posted by MarL

Originally posted by markt50

Question: When a game has both micro-transactions and an optional subscription fee, is it still considered free to play?

 

Answer: No. (So stop being a cheapskate and just pay for a sub to a decent game  )

 

Hope that helps

 

Ya because not wanting to pay 180 a year and being locked into one game, makes you a cheapskate. Even if you do pay for the game doesnt mean all your friends want to pay for it too.

And that's when hour plans similar to China Aion would be "for the win". Purchase hours that you can spend whenever you want (please note that this does not exclude the monthly plans for those that don't want a hour limitation and know they will only be playing that MMO). This completely unbinds you to a specific game and that is what happens with monthly fees, although you can still, you know, not resub in the next month but resub anytime you want.

This free to play idea that is simply idiot in the eyes of those that understand the fact that developers want your money, and it is much better when they are bound to monthly fees or hour plans and not on auto-generated items that really don't take much work to do (yet they may cost you dozens of dollars), fair for everyone and the developers will need to work on real content (and fun) if they want you to keep playing.

And no, purchasing the upgrade materials in an item mall to make the +99 sword of pwnage and go one-hitting things is not my concept of fun that is based on content aka things to do in the game that are fun and immersive.

Originally posted by Brain-dead

No Richard, we are not going to try your cr*ppy f2p MMOs!!

This.

I dont get how people can say this is the wave of the future when there are no indications of that at all. Whenever this topic comes up, the response from most people ranges from polite disinterest to rabid hatred.

F2P is not a sustainable model. The money has to come from somewhere. And it is usually an item mall. And it should be pretty clear by now that MMO players hate item malls.

They can say it because they have some stake(even if it is just being a prophet of the times) for it becoming true.  They will continue to say it without consulting the true feelings of gamers in an effort to convince some that it is true and to make it become a self-fulfilling prophecy.  The gaming corporations will allow it to be said because if these rabble-rousers can convince people that it really is the true future of MMO's then they will make even more money.

Do not ask how they can say it - ask how much they are being PAID to say it.

I wish MMORPG would allow users to block certain content.  The crap this guy spews would be the first on my list.  I swear if ever F2P takes hold as the norm in the gaming industry, this guy will pull an Al Gore and claim he invented it.

Originally posted by Aguitha

What's the point of playing a mmo if at the end, you can buy stuff otherwise you'll have to work for it ?   There is no achievement feeling in paying RL money for an ingame item.  However working hard to get that special item that very few peoples have, now that's something.

How much money you can spend in a virtual game should not affect how powerful/succesful you are in that game.   For me RMT games are for the lazy.

I agree with this post. I would never play a game that has a subscription model plus and item shop. 

Originally posted by rickwired

I wish MMORPG would allow users to block certain content.  The crap this guy spews would be the first on my list.  I swear if ever F2P takes hold as the norm in the gaming industry, this guy will pull an Al Gore and claim he invented it.

The filter is pretty simple... If you don't like it, don't click it ;)

Originally posted by stine96

How many F2P articles does he need to write ?

LoL yeah.