Originally posted by Wraithone

I'm always amused and amazed by those who rant about "greed", as they almost never have any clear definition of it. Its usually some version of "you have more than I do", or "you have more than I feel that you should".  Are you going to be the exception, and provide a non subjective definition of the concept you have used above? 

Maye my post wasn't weel written. My fault.

Not paying for F2P is the exact thing I'm going to do. No problem. You and others can do otherwise and are free to do as you like. No problem with that too. I would just be happy not to be under the constant bombardment of insults or intellectual dishonesty and lies for my legitimate opinion/choice.

As for your quote: I'm not a socialist nor an egalitarian of any sort with the envy of the rich. Quite the contrary so spare me your 2-cents socio-political analysis. Getting a profit for a game you spent years to develop is a boon for everyone. Trying to milk any cent for a product beyond even its original scope or quality and with no consideration for your actual paying customers is a short-ranged goal that can only be defined is greed. Of course we'll see rights and wrongs only in the next years.

I'm confident in the laws of the market and that this is just the bubble of the moment.  Problem is: it will damage the MMO industry for the years to come and it will deliver us shittier and shittier products.

Originally posted by desiriel

Originally posted by Wraithone

I'm always amused and amazed by those who rant about "greed", as they almost never have any clear definition of it. Its usually some version of "you have more than I do", or "you have more than I feel that you should".  Are you going to be the exception, and provide a non subjective definition of the concept you have used above? 

 

Maye my post wasn't weel written. My fault.

Not paying for F2P is the exact thing I'm going to do. No problem. You and others can do otherwise and are free to do as you like. No problem with that too. I would just be happy not to be under the constant bombardment of insults or intellectual dishonesty and lies for my legitimate opinion/choice.

As for your quote: I'm not a socialist nor an egalitarian of any sort with the envy of the rich. Quite the contrary so spare me your 2-cents socio-political analysis. Getting a profit for a game you spent years to develop is a boon for everyone. Trying to milk any cent for a product beyond even its original scope or quality and with no consideration for your actual paying customers is a short-ranged goal that can only be defined is greed. Of course we'll see rights and wrongs only in the next years.

I'm confident in the laws of the market and that this is just the bubble of the moment.  Problem is: it will damage the MMO industry for the years to come and it will deliver us shittier and shittier products.

Ok... From your words above (last paragraph) what else would one be lead to believe?  That IS the all too typical mentality of  those who dispise free enterprise and the profit motive.  Given the nature of these types of communication, peoples words are all one has to go by. 

But I must disagree with your attempt at a definition for greed.  The key points again are subjective. They also mix poor quality customer service(which not considering the impact of ones policies equates to) with the basic principle to be defined.  While the word "greed" has many uses in manipulation(and the class warfare that such is a function of).  it has rather limited value in an attempt at clear communication.

I must say that all sides of the current conflict over various business models have their extremists. Personally, I really do not care if the model is P2P, F2P or some hybrid. What my focus is on is the entertainment to be had.

Bottom line, if you don't like F2P don't play games that use that business model. Its really that simple.

Personally im a big fan of the hybrid model that Turbine is using for DDO, and is moving LOTRO to. Its a great way to get players to strat playing the game, and they can spend a couple of months trying different areas of it to see if they actually like like. Where as the free trials that only last a week, or 2 at most, dont provide much of a chance for more casual players who have jobs, familys, and other commitments and only get an hour or 2 a day if they are lucky. And it means that if those same players like the game and want to kep playing it, they wont feel they are wasting money if they dont get to log in for a couple of weeks.

It also means that players like myself, who dont have the spare cash to subscribe to an mmo, or can only afford to subscribe to one mmo at a time, can try out games they have had thier eye on for a while, but never bothered with a trial because they knew they couldnt afford to play it anyway. I just started playing ddo this week because its f2p and hope to be able to subscribe for a month or two later in the year when my finances have stableised. And being unemployed means i can spend 15 hours a day playing mmos, which with turbines hybrid model means i can easily get the TP (Turbine Pionts) i need to purchase some items from the turbine store. I'm currently hoping that Turbine will also move AC to thier hybrid model, so i can try that out as well

**applause**

Now if I could just get you to throw some potato salad at Mr Aihoshi at the next MMORPG.com picnic ;)

Nicely thought out article, although I wish I shared your belief that the MMO market will actually vote with its' collective wallets. I've seen far too much that leads me to believe the MMO companies ignore their customers because said customers are mostly doormats who will accept whatever is thrown at them.

Now, if we could only get a few people to look past Turbines press releases and realize how badly they have implemented this model with DDO....

Yes, that does mean I have broken my usual trends and played DDO...I got sucked into trying because it is "dungeons and dragons" afterall and I had to see what they had done with it. The game itself is playable and fun in places, the cash shop revenue model is intrusive and really annoying. They promote it constantly at every turn in the game and want to nickel and dime you to death. (even they finally dropped the level-lock items that you had to grind like a lemming for or buy) One of the biggest drawbacks to the game is that it is virtually impossible to tell what content is free - you constantly run into "you can only go here if you pay" BS yet cannot tell until you try and go there.

As others have mentioned, what exactly is wrong with Turbine when in a market where sub models are doing fine for some games, even growing, they can manage to totally wreck two of the largest and most well known IPs in the western market?

I'm excited for this change.  I wholeheartedly do not believe LoTRO worth the subscription fee, but am much more inclined to play it if it's free with things to be purchased as I see fit.

Same goes for DDO, I hated it when I first tried and it and recently I have been playing it and totally adore it.  If anything it seems more fun than the first two times I had tried it.

Honestly the "F2P" model is basically the equivalent of basically the company wanting to get in tap with players who doesn't want to level or gain items the traditional way and want a quick time killer. If most of you read the comments above a lot of it claims supperiority over "F2P" but what they don't seem to understand is the bred of "P2P" is very rare hence the transaction between "P2P" to "F2P" because the companies would seriously rather make a quick buck out of someone who's lazy and wanna gain the edge faster by spending out of pocket, then a mere 15$ a month small group of players so if you don't like their business model, find another game to play.

First why does everybody feel the need to appoligize for lotro going f2p.  I disagree that the future is f2p,  there might be some but most I have played have been total crud.

I am sorry there is now way anybody can convince me that turbine being the liars that they are have the vet's best interest at heart. 

That was a pure money grab, one I hope blows up in their face.

Have to laugh at those posters that want an example of greed.  How about using Perfect World as an example of greed.  They have a power up stone for sale this week for $75.  It has a one time use.  That is 5 months of subscription game to upgrade one weapon one level.   If that isn't greed, I don't know what is.

The asian f2p games with their expensive items shops are simply just a blip in the horizon.   They represent no future in this genre because they offer no long term content besides the endless purchase of greater power items.

BTW excellent article again Jaime.

I do not believe that the future is F2P or P2P.  I think the future is a hybrid model, which happens to be exactly what Turbine is using.  LotRO and DDO are NOT F2P games.  They are games that have a F2P option.  There is a big difference.

The reason I believe the hybrid model is the future is really basic math.  

$15 a month for a subscription seems to be the sweet spot for subscriptions.  It's the highest that people are typically willing to pay.  So the more people a game has at that $15 price point, the more profitable the game is.

There's just one problem with that:  There are a limited number of customers, and most customers are not willing to pay that $15 a month for more than one, maybe two games.  Yet there are a large number of quality games out there, and more coming every month or two.  This constantly causes the pool of customers to become more and more divided among the games, meaning that each game gets less and less profit.  What happens when a new game comes out?  Usually, it means a bunch of people cancel their subs at Game A to go play Game B for a while.  Some eventually come back to Game A, but some also stay with Game B.  Then Game C comes out and gets players from both A and B.  Some eventually go back to those first two, while some remain with C.  It's a case of diminishing returns.  Unless the total player base grows faster than this inter-game spreading, the result is that all games end up making less and less money.  And frankly, there are no signs that this is happening.  WoW was really the only game that has significantly increased the player base, but even it has hit its limit.  Now it's experiencing the same attrition as everyone else.

This means that it's essential for another model to exist.  The hybrid model is perfect for this.

The advantage to the hybrid model is that there is the subscription option for those who want it.  These are going to be the game's best customers, and so they get the most.  But if the game also has a F2P option it will not completely lose customers every time the Next Big Game comes along.  Sure, it will lose that $15 a month from a number of people, but many of these people will opt to come back under the F2P model even as they're playing the NBG.  So maybe instead of $15 a month, the developer is getting $5 a month.  That's  $5 more than they would have had without the F2P option, which becomes significant when spread among a lot of players.  

It helps the industry as a whole.  That same player who would never pay $15 a month on two games might very well spend $15 on one and $5 on each of three others.  More companies see stronger revenue, which helps them keep their games strong with new features and content.  This also encourages still more developers to come into the picture.  Sure, they'll all be hoping to get as many of those full subscribers as possible, but because it's not an all-or-nothing situation they will have a reasonable hope to see at least decent profits in the long term.  They won't be so focused on a great starting experience with mediocre to crappy end-game content.  (Yes, I'm talking to YOU, Cryptic!)  

I know I've been talking about the benefits to developers here, and that's because those benefits are exactly what drives the developers.  Customer voice really doesn't go a long way unless it's a huge chunk of the population.  But honestly, this scenario does benefit the customer in many ways:

• More games coming onto the scene means more options and hopefully more innovation.
• You have more freedom because you're not locked into your subscription.  You can bounce among games more freely and be able to justify coming back to that change-of-pace game a couple days out of the month.
• As this model increasingly catches on, expect to start seeing price wars among the studios.  The subscription fee is unlikely to change, but the value of the items in the stores is likely to become a hotly competitive area.
• Because each game with a hybrid model is likely to be more profitable than a game with  only a subscription model, these games will be able to put out new content faster.  They'll have to, actually, in order to keep people wanting to at least spend a few days a month in their world.  This means the games you play will stay fresher for you.
• The market is more likely to grow under a hybrid model than it ever could under a strictly P2P model.  This means that more guys  will be able to get their girlfriends to play, even if it's only a few dollars a month rather than a full subscription.  It's an opportunity to introduce more people to the genre, and some of them will ultimately convert to subscribers.  The worlds will see more people, which will help keep them feeling alive.  And you'll have less of that top heaviness that so many of us complain about when we go to roll alts.  There will actually be people for those alts to play with!

Is it coincedence that all the columnist here like the F2P model?

Or is there some kind of secret marketing agenda going on in the background here at MMORPG?

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Have to laugh at those posters that want an example of greed.  How about using Perfect World as an example of greed.  They have a power up stone for sale this week for $75.  It has a one time use.  That is 5 months of subscription game to upgrade one weapon one level.   If that isn't greed, I don't know what is.

The asian f2p games with their expensive items shops are simply just a blip in the horizon.   They represent no future in this genre because they offer no long term content besides the endless purchase of greater power items.

BTW excellent article again Jaime.

Well, there is a good sized difference between an example and a definition.  I'd consider PW an example of how not to use a cash shop. But Battle of the Immortals(also PW) is even more so. But in neither case would I use the word greedy.  Out side of an attempt at emotional manipulation, it doesn't serve much purpose.

But I totally agree that some of the Asian games take the idea of a cash shop to absurd extremes.  But thats ok, as I choose not to play those games.  Market dynamics will determine the future of the western market. Bottom line, if you don't like F2P games, don't play them.

Originally posted by slashbeast

Is it coincedence that all the columnist here like the F2P model?

Or is there some kind of secret marketing agenda going on in the background here at MMORPG?

 I dont think there any coincednece. Tthere seams to be a lot of folks jumping on the lets defend turbine for going f2p.   There seams to be a real push here and there to go that route. 

I just wonder why.

Actually I like that LotRO is going free to play. Several others need to as well. CO, STO, Alganon, etc. just to name a few. 

There are way to many Free to play quality games that publishers and devs try to pass off as pay to play worthy.  Look at Aion, Age of Conan, GW2, Blade and Soul, ST:ToR, etc. the bar has been risen on quality for MMO's and it continues to rise. Gamers know what could be now so a lot of this rehashed crud simply won't cut it anymore. So if you want to develop and market a sub par game then it needs to be f2p. Atari and Cryptic are the biggest example of this. 

Champions Online and Star Trek Online were both slapped together and filled with Micro Transactions and they had the nerve to declare them pay to play worthy when neither has reached a point where they are. Free to play is the realm they need to sit. 

Other Devs and Publishers know where their game should be. Look at Allods, it's on par with most pay to play MMO's. Is this because it's just one of the most well done free to plays or is it because any MMO regardless of quality is deemed pay to play worthy now days? I personally believe it's a combination of both though I don't play allods anymore it was neat for about a week but in the end it boils down to being the same in essence as any of the other MMO's we have currently with a few exceptions. It's nice for what it is and it's  definitely on par with most pay to plays and it certainly is one of the better free to plays, just not my thing as I'm not looking for more of what we already have. 

Game Mechanics and systems are evolving, and with this new batch of MMO's on the horizon lets hope quality is as well. 2009 and 2010 seemed to be the years of pump and dump MMO's. 2010 seemed to be the year of Micro Transaction overkill in pay to play MMO's. I'm hoping 2011 will be about quality and innovation and mostly about fun finally. So many MMO's now days just feel like a 9-5. 

As I said I am happy that the time for free to plays is now, less people will have to buy a game to find out it's crud. Certainly will be less QQ threads saying " I got suckered into pre-ordering or a life time subscription".  So many current titles deserve to be free to play because they simply lack the quality, mechanics, or content  to be worth the monthly fee.

Leave the monthly fee business model to the games with the content, quality and mechanics to warrant it. 

Edited to Add: One thing I do know this Hybrid lets milk everyone for all they're worth business model needs to end. Micro Transactions have no place in pay to play games. If GW2 does as well or better than GW1 then we will hopefully see a decline of all this nonsense anyways. Might even be good for the industry as it would allow more MMO's to flourish. 

Originally posted by erictlewis

Originally posted by slashbeast

Is it coincedence that all the columnist here like the F2P model?

Or is there some kind of secret marketing agenda going on in the background here at MMORPG?

 I dont think there any coincednece. Tthere seams to be a lot of folks jumping on the lets defend turbine for going f2p.   There seams to be a real push here and there to go that route. 

I just wonder why.

Depends on the situation and the people.  The success of DDO demonstrated that its possible. Lets face it, this was a act of desperation on Turbines part.  In the absence of this move to a hybrid system and its success, they would have ended up pulling the plug on DDO.  Having done that with Asherons Call 2(right after having sold us an expansion pack) they know the negative PR that such generates.

As for the rest, sites like MMORPG tend to follow trends. Given Jamies column, I'd not think that she is really thrilled about F2P's ^^ So one can't really say that everyone here is a fan.

I always thought LOTR was better than WoW. Just wasn't enough people playing to keep me in. Now that it's gonna be F2P, I may give it another go. Thanks for this article!

"What's concerning about Turbine's precedent is it forces players to accept the product they've invested a significant amount of money and time into is changing its business model without consultation or consent,"

They need your consent? Who owns the company? Who made the product? Not you. The producers and creators of a game can sell it on any business model they want; It's far more concerning that you would see this as a problem.

'I typically end my thoughts for the week on a call to action for the MMO community, but such action is already alive and well in the community. We've been telling the media and the industry we don't want a fully free-to-play or micro-transaction supported market for a while now. We've been pretty loud, even obnoxious at times, about making our point clear. However, this time I appeal for the industry and the gaming media to listen up, re-evaluate, and think about what this shifting model means for the industry as a whole. This includes the impact on the consumer. It's time to stop patronizing the gaming community and listen."

What the shifting model means for the industry is that: A) the model is more profitable and B) it brings in more players.

The model is more profitable BECAUSE it has a larger pool of players to draw money from, and micro-transactions are far easier to make, implement, and sell as opposed to writing a ton of new content for a small fee of $15 dollars a month.

The model brings more players because the core of the game is free.

What the growing popularity of F2P means to the market is simple: companies are just going to have to find more innovative ways to do business and compete.

If the growing trend is in F2P (which I don't even know if that's true or not. WoW still seems to be toppling opposition as a P2P); then its obvious that not that many people want P2P as a main option.

If you look at market trends (not some random community forum [the majority of gamers don't comment on them]) then you will see what people want.

I think this article is poorly written; as the author displays poor understanding of economics and makes wild claims about the gaming industry in which she clearly doesn't understand.

Just because a few people are upset that the MMO they have been playing and investing in is changing business models is not reason to write an article telling the industry to look and notice consumers. That kind of condescension is unnecessary; of course they are listening; a business must FIRST and foremost realize what their audience wants before they make any kind of decision; THEN is it possible and is it profitable.

When you agree to play an MMO you agree to the terms of the business. NOT your terms. If you don't like the idea of paying for a game that could, tomorrow, change the way it charges its customers (or better yet,  not exist), then don't play MMO's. Since that is a RISK you take when investing in an MMO.

DDO has a fourth model. It's subscription with microtransactions.

FTP is NOT FREE! It is MICROTRANSACTION.

Calling it "free" is like saying it is "Free to eat" at a diner but you need to pay for the food, o yea and you pay for sitting at the table, o yea you pay for real silverware to use, o yea you pay for a napkin, and a drink, we also forgot to mention you pay for the conditioned air, and waitress service, and...exc...exc....

It is a scam and I will NEVER play a "pay to win" MMO. Not only is it a scam, but it destroys the community, and fair play.

If this "trend" sticks, I will be done with MMO's.

So call "free" to "play" MMOs are SCAMS to lure cash out of players pockets after getting their foot in the door. It is sneaky, shadey, and overly greedy.

NO THANKS! Stop trying to push this scam! I don't give a s*** if they do it in Korea!

Nice article!  I too think that gamers should be at least a little wary of the F2P market.

I"m not against the F2P model.  However, I don't think it's just a payment method and nothing more.  I think it changes the focus of the game.  I think that for any MMO company development resources (i.e. staff) is limited.  Any game that is F2P is going to have allot of those resources devoted to producing cash shop items and incorporating additional grinds to incentivize the players to fork over cash as opposed to purchasing an store cash item.  

My main concern with a F2P game is that the focus will be on the revolving door short term player and not on long term development of an interesting game.  To be sure there is a market for short term players who like to hop around different games and such.  But as gamers we better be wary about endorsing a type of game which may lead to shallow experience.  In the case of Lotro there hasn't been an expansion since MoM (Mirkwood was more of a map in my opinion).  The next "expansion" will be a cash shop and free to play with another map (maybe an additional PVP map also).  For Lotro it seems like game development is definitely slowing down.  I don't think that the existing Lotro playerbase (I"m a member of it) have caught on that they may not  get any substantial game development other then cosmetic items and little mini maps in the near future.

Great article Jaime.  I appreciate at least one journalist asking the hard questions instead of trying to promote their own agendas (that really did bother me).

I've mostly played P2P games, but their are some F2S I've played and other payment models like Guild Wars.  Personally I like the subscription model with a cash shop on the side.  I like the P2P model because the cash shop isn't in my face all the time like DDO and I can immerse myself in game play.  I like having a cash shop because it lets me support my favorite developers and buy stuff that adds fun to my game play.

I'm currently playing EQ2 and really like their Marketplace.  Station Cash works in multiple SoE titles and lets me buy fun stuff.  I consider that an extra, but very optional, donation to a game I highly value.

It will be interesting to see how Turbine's model works out with LotRO which is a very different game from DDO.  Will they gut a little bit of the core game (limited trait slots and gold cap) and make you buy it back?  Or will they put stuff in their shop that makes the game more fun?  If it's the former then I really think they're milking the customer.  If it's the latter then maybe it will add value to the game.  One content much at all since Moria (Loth was supposed to be part of Moria but was "delayed" and released a book update) and Mirkwood was very light.  In a sense, for longer term players, what does it matter if they let you still play for free if they haven't progressed their game for a whole year.

The most important thing to me about P2P, F2S, and cash shops is that they are tailored to the game to make the game fun, not as some cobbled on milking machine.  I hope that the industry doesn't get the cash cow stars in their eyes and remembers what made them successful in the first place: gaming enthusiasts making good games for people to play.