You can argue the item mall model only sells access to the items and not the games. Therefore, there is still nothing to take away from the customer if the game is shut down.  Using the car analogy; you've rented the car, not bought it.  And when the company goes under, its just the expiration of your rental.  The car is just being returned.  Hope you remebered to fill up the tank....

The F2P model would be acceptable if the prices weren't that ridiculous. 1$ for a permanent mount and not 25$. 0.1$ for an echantment scroll and not 5$.

But still, F2P only has game hoppers or casual players, which will never be as good as commited P2P players.

I just hope SW:Tor will last for years, and i can finally stop hopping from one crappy mmo to the next.

Article is OK... Nothing in it i didn't already know.

I still think monthly subscription is the cheapest way of playing a MMO. You will not play a F2P for extended periods, if you will not buy lots of stuff in the cash shop. Because you will feel you're missing on a lot of things game has to offer.

The best model would be this: have two kinds of servers - F2P with a cash shop and P2P with no cash shop. People would choose what they like. Easy and satisfies all.

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

Yes it is such a fact that human nature wants microtransactions that no other major services use subscriptions........ oh wait.

 

Telephone service/cell phone service/cable and satellite TV/Internet/Magazines/Netflix/Radio/Xbox Live/insurance/ etc. etc. etc.

 

With how successful those services are, and how many of them are tied in directly to daily life, it would seem that a monthly subscription is the thing that is part of human nature, not microtransactions. Although it is nice to see how greedy developers that want to milk their players dry like to spin things.

Your examples don't quite work.

For Telephone service it used to be that you had a monthy fee and didn't own the phone. All of a sudden the phone company started selling phones with different styles/features and yadda yadda yadda, most people actually own their own phones now. But before it was like a cable box.

Cable was supposed to replace adverstisemetns so you had a monthly fee. Now? not only advertisements but you can purchase "premium" events and movies.

As far as music goes, companies did try (and are probably still trying) the subscription thing. but I-tunes does feed into the idea of people wanting to own what they pay for. I know I do. I dont' want to rent my music only to have it all go "poof" if I stop my subscritpion. Probably why I still buy dvds.

Cell phones used to have a pay as you go or you just would put money into it OR you could have a sub fee. However, the process of adding money was such a pain in the neck I strongly thing that consumers were being steered into paying a sub fee. Now you not only have a sub fee but add ons. Downloadalbe applications, additional fees for smart phones, downloadable games for extra money, etc. Of course there are pay as you go programs or phone cards. But there are downloadable extras people can pay cash for.

Most companies, if they can, would like to put people on recurring payment models. However, they really like recurring payment models and then little sales for services here and there.

with magaizies you own the magazine in the end, it doesn't go "poof" unless you are on some internet site. Insurance is insurance but they do try to get you to add more insurance for a variety of things. Sort of makes sense as who wants to pay a HUGE amount of money up front instead of a monthly manageable fee.

Originally posted by Tardcore

Unfortunately people wanting more than they can reasonably obtain does seem to be human nature, be it money, power, respect, sexual satisfaction, what have you.

The desire to own far more than could a person could financially afford was at the core of both the credit crunch and the housing crisis. I know people love to blame crooked banks and/or governments which I agree did not help matters, but the reality is that too many people feel the need to be in debt up to their eyeballs so they can surround themselves with what is essentially cargo cultist junk.

And now thanks to @$$holes like Mr Eckert it looks like this mentality is going to start seeping like a broken septic tank into our day to day MMO entertainment.

I personally think the desire to own more than what you have is a symptom of the problem which snowballs to larger problems. And I disagree with the writer's idea of human nature.

I think what Skelton thinks as human nature isn't anything more than tricks to milk money out of customers.  Lots of people thinks that money = power. Which is quite false. Such ideas have been deeply rooted in the human psyche over such long periods of time because it's good for business.  Money only equals power so long as there's people that want your money.

Wither purposeful or accidental, I think the social engineering from companies has a lot to do with why people buy more than they can afford, and why Skelton thinks it's human nature. Example: De Beers Advertising diamonds as THE stone for wedding rings is the ONLY reason diamonds are for wedding rings.  Before De Beers, wedding rings were just solid gold, or had other gems in them.

Currently companies are trying to promote a lifestyle that is upper middle class to upper class on all medias so that they can sell goods and make money. Idiots and gullible people spend much more money than they can make thinking such a lifestyle means happiness.  Which is easily proven false every time you see rich idiots like Lyndsie Lohan and Paris Hilton on TV.

Add: I thought a bout it a little and the only thing that would be 'human nature' would be wanting items that make you stand out of the crowd. which is actually just animal instinct to try and look better than the rest.  Compinsating for lacking in physical or mental prowess is more of a human nature consept.

These companies that are peddling "F2P" are merely trying to get away from what I call the "unsubscribe factor". Most players leave a game at some point no matter what the developer does. For arguments sake let us as 70% leave and 30% stay within a 1 year period.  Subscription games are then left with the dedicated players but the money they get from them is set at 30%, thus the new subscriber desperation.  BUT that 30% are likely the types of people that are willing to pay extra for benefits so why even worry about the 70%?  So some smart CEO cottoned onto this and viola... the F2P system is born!

"F2P" allows them to (1) widen the net to attract players with this "free" nonsense and increase the absolute values of the %s, and (2) enables them to ignore the unsubscribers, because they can milk more than the traditional 30% from those that will continue playing.

I guess I am a 70% type of player.

You sign a TOS everytime you log on or atleast once stating that they can turn off your account and ban you I seriously doubt in the future you seriously own the items. What if god forbids the company goes out of business of the game you play what will happen to your items then? Are you going to sue ??? lmAo need to get out more people ...

Another excellent article Jamie.  I do think today's executives are grasping at straws when it comes to revenue.  Some, like SOE have a completely distorted view of what makes a f2p work.   EQ II f2p is a huge joke on the gaming community the way it is designed.  Looks like Smedley's work hands down.  Clueless to the extreme.

Never bought a virtual item.  I am not into renting some nebulous bits on a computer that may or may not be there tomorrow.

Secondly, where is the sense of accomplishment when you buy something instead of earning it?  I just don't understand why some of these people play without any feeling of accomplishment developing their character.

If there was a decent f2p out there with content I might play it.  At this point in time such a beast does not exist.  Developers are going to have to put out a good game first before they will find me investing in their virtual goods.  Mainly because a good game will be around tomorrow.  

Originally posted by ZenNature

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

Yes it is such a fact that human nature wants microtransactions that no other major services use subscriptions........ oh wait.

 

Telephone service/cell phone service/cable and satellite TV/Internet/Magazines/Netflix/Radio/Xbox Live/insurance/ etc. etc. etc.

 

With how successful those services are, and how many of them are tied in directly to daily life, it would seem that a monthly subscription is the thing that is part of human nature, not microtransactions. Although it is nice to see how greedy developers that want to milk their players dry like to spin things.

 

Those are terrible examples. Telephone services are notorious for charging additional fees for various extras. Cable and satellite charges extra for pay-per-view specials. We subscribe to the internet, but then have to pay extra for so many online services. Magazines have special issues that they either offer as a bonus to subscribers or charge additional for them. TV/Radio/Internet is arguably just an advertising medium these days for more products (a LOT worse then cash shop advertising). Insurance lets you subscribe then asks you for a deductible payment every time you need it.

 

So really, you're just hurting the argument against RMTs. If anything, MMO developers are slowly following suit with the way the rest of the world already works. Charge consumers for everything that can be sold. I don't like it, but I think your examples have kinda highlighted why they are moving that direction.

 

Very good points. Another example - airllines. Remember (if you are old enough) when luggage was just 'free'? When meals were served on planes for the price of a ticket? Now you get *maybe* a soda, a tiny spoonful of stale nuts, and a fee for your bags on most airlines.

Those of us who are old enough may remember when the phone bill had two parts. Local service, and long distance. Now there may be 20 line items on there. Each little 'value added' costs another monthly fee. I love the scare tactics for things like 'maintenance' fees. "If you call us for a problem with your phone, and we send someone out, and the problem turns out to be in your lines inside the house - without this contract you may end up paying a $90 service call!" 

Any business out to make a profit will try to see where and how they can squeeze the consumer just short of driving them off for good. It's called greed, and yes,  I believe that's part of human nature.

That being said, I have no problem buying "I want" items (like special costume pieces, etc.). As long as *not* having them does NOT affect gameplay (i.e.  - I feel it's wrong if you're gimped unless you fork out cash) I think that is not a bad thing. Many of the things CoH has sold have been special emotes or costumes that players themselves have asked for. It takes time and money to create these things, so why not let people have some non-essential add-ons if they can afford it.

All I hear is blah blah blah you dont make a lick of sense.

I am sorry, but this is all BS.

We live in a world where the majority of people do all possible to try to save money..In fact most of the time a game conjures up a microtransaction system midway through, half the people leave.

Players buy things in order to get by the artificial inflation they set up. Below are possible examples :)

1) Want more EXP? Too bad! A company on conception will say "Lets just set the database EXP variable to 50% and put a double EXP item in an item store. This way a player can choose between spending twice as much time to earn the EXP or buy the in-game item.

The same is done to drops and has been for a very long time.

2) Agitation....Very easy for a company to send 10 - 50 of its employees into an online game with the task of agitating the population. All you do is set them up to have top guilds and items and spread the belief that if one doesn't spend money, they might as well not play. This is a very common marketting tactic in "Free Market Societies" that have an Established monopoly, which is why the law on monopolies were created....

3) Updates... Its very common for a divisor to be increased in a way that a player sees a higher number, but actually loses effectiveness. This is what happened with games like Runes of Magic, They released updates and made their attack and defense variables exceptionally high and when recalculating damage it turned out that players had lost 25 - 33% Effectiveness on their characters and to regain that effectiveness, put more things in their item shops..

Most of the items one buys is not because they "like the game." Its because they want to make progress without playing for 8+ hours a day. Its an addictive culture and companies love to say "time is money."

If companies cared about their games they would focus more on their characters rather than focusing on their pockets. A lot of people who buy tons of items get pissed they spent tons of money on Virtual Items, so they develop a mentality to defend the game further since going against it means losing their investment and having to face how dumb they were at investing a small fortune...

The bottom line is that a time will come when a person will change games, and have to face the fact how much one has spent on a game. All what F2Ps convince people to do is to find top items so they may RMT them. I new people who left a game and RMTed their equipment for over $3000 after spending $1000+ on item stores to get the items.

Who needs IGE when companies are setting up their own games to become RMTs?

It's really very simple...

P2P: The motivation of the Developer is to simply have the user enjoy the service. Why?  Because that's how they make thier money. You enjoy the service, you stay subscribed to it. The Developer gets income from you.

F2P: The motivation of the Developer is to have you make a RMT purchase. Why? Because that's how they make thier money. No matter how much you play, if you don't make a purchase, they don't make any money off you... in fact you are COSTING them money (server resources, bandwidth, etc)... not much..but that cost does add up.

I'd much rather have the Developer focus thier efforts on simply making the service enjoyable to me rather then focus it on trying to get me to make a purchase. The act of purchasing is no fun to me (it is for some people, but I'm a gamer not a shopper) it detracts from my fun... the act of playing is fun to me.

It the difference between going to a play/movie and going to a casino. With the play/movie they make thier money off selling you a ticket to the event... what you do once you are in the event as long as you aren't disrupting anyone else is irrelevent to them. They know as long as you had a fun time...you'll come back again in future.

With a Casino, they'll do alot to entice you in and try to keep you in..... but what they REALLY want you to do is gamble and to keep you gambling as long as you can possibly tolerate it. If you are just standing around eating free food and drinking free drinks and not gambling.... you are a waste to them. Everything they do is designed to push you toward gambling...it has to be or they make no money from you.

Now if they are smart and sophisticated....they'll make that attempt to manipulate you into gambling as subtle and unobtrusive as they can... but it's still there. They want you to enjoy yourself....but only if your gambling..... because if you aren't gambling thier loosing money.

F2P games operate on the exact same principles as Casino's..... If anyone tries to tell you anything different...they are feeding you a line.

+ over 9000 for Jamie who actually attempted to write something worthy of reading regarding F2P. They should have you do all the "less popular" topics because you seem to balence them well, and address the real actions/ideas behind something, not why we should all zombie step into whatever the writer is purposing.