LOL The Item Mall Cometh! Subscriptions are on the way out. Why charge 14.99 a month when you can persuade people to drop 50-100 a week on digital items?

Okay I never post on this site, mainly because its the scourge of the mmo community.

There is no such thing as f2p. It's all. ALL pay to win. Someone can pay cash to circumvent arbitrary game design.

The only thing I see on this site is a bunch of kids complaining about paying just 15 bucks a month for a decent game with fleshed out content. Every f2p game i've ever tried has been totally broken, or a complete pay to win Wow clone. 

These forums are disgusting.

Originally posted by Interesting

Hahaha.

 

People didnt checked the link, didnt read what the movement stands for.

People repplying without a clue whatsoever...

That amuses me.

Please continue bumping my topic...

I've read it, and it's the same old pro F2P hype that's been around for awhile.

F2P is a pipedream. You can't have a quality game without a reliable revenue source. If you're not going to have subscriptions, then you better have a very intrusive item mall to support your expenses, otherwise you're going to go out of business.

That's the reality of it, and expecting anything else is just a delusion.

Subscription or intrusive item mall... personally I pick subscription and avoid "F2P" bait and switches.

Originally posted by Ceridith

Originally posted by Interesting

Hahaha.

 

People didnt checked the link, didnt read what the movement stands for.

People repplying without a clue whatsoever...

That amuses me.

Please continue bumping my topic...

I've read it, and it's the same old pro F2P hype that's been around for awhile.

F2P is a pipedream. You can't have a quality game without a reliable revenue source. If you're not going to have subscriptions, then you better have a very intrusive item mall to support your expenses, otherwise you're going to go out of business.

That's the reality of it, and expecting anything else is just a delusion.

Subscription or intrusive item mall... personally I pick subscription and avoid "F2P" bait and switches.

Delusion is the person who is ignoring EVIDENCE and keep on harping his OPINION.

Fact, most MMO F2P players don't pay -> Thus, F2P is real.

Fact, F2P MMO market > $1B in 2009.

Fact, 6 of the best money making MMOs in 2009 (by Forbe list) is F2P.

A $1B market with many success is not going to go away. Anyone denying that is sticking their head into the sand.

The F2P movement is really picking up, Turbine has shown with DDO and is going to show again with LOTRO that with their current model, they really bring in the players, while keeping subs of the hardcores. LOTRO is getting packed out to shit, with queues on most servers to even log in.

That may die out soon, but there will still be plenty of players gained and always gaining more subs, whether any of them spend a penny isn't going to be a 100% deal, but people will spend money.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Ceridith

Originally posted by Interesting

Hahaha.

 

People didnt checked the link, didnt read what the movement stands for.

People repplying without a clue whatsoever...

That amuses me.

Please continue bumping my topic...

I've read it, and it's the same old pro F2P hype that's been around for awhile.

F2P is a pipedream. You can't have a quality game without a reliable revenue source. If you're not going to have subscriptions, then you better have a very intrusive item mall to support your expenses, otherwise you're going to go out of business.

That's the reality of it, and expecting anything else is just a delusion.

Subscription or intrusive item mall... personally I pick subscription and avoid "F2P" bait and switches.

 

Delusion is the person who is ignoring EVIDENCE and keep on harping his OPINION.

Fact, most MMO F2P players don't pay -> Thus, F2P is real.

Fact, F2P MMO market > $1B in 2009.

Fact, 6 of the best money making MMOs in 2009 (by Forbe list) is F2P.

A $1B market with many success is not going to go away. Anyone denying that is sticking their head into the sand.

Not paying equates to a sub-par play experience and limited accessability. I guess we better call every single game with a demo "Free to Play" too, because they equate to the same thing.

WoW's revenue alone was greater than a billion dollars in 2009, so what's your point? The vast majority of the F2P industry is in asia as well, which has different cultural expectations when it comes to payment models.

Again, asian MMOs, and the single biggest P2P MMO still trumps them all.

Lastly, who said it was going to go away? I surely didn't. In fact, all I said was that there is no possible way that you can have a "F2P" game, of high quality, without an intrusive item mall, without going bankrupt that is. In continuing on that point, the existence of an intrusive item mall by definition negates a true sense of "F2P".

The only ones sticking their head in the sand are the F2P players who act like their preferred payment model is oh so superior.

P2P is superior for me, that's my preference. Now stop trying to act like F2P is god's gift to mankind and that you're being opressed.

Free to Play Games for the win!

Just tell me how much the game is up front so I can budget and play.  If they claim F2P and nickle and dime you with unconventional billing/charges then I'd rather just pay the up front fee so I know what I'm paying and getting.  I am not a fan of the free to play movement that you are talking about.

If a game is F2P, I would like to see exactly what they sell in the item shop and for how much (in real $).  It irks me that some companies require you to register before even showing you that portion of the site or they make it tricky to determine how much in real $ a particular item costs.

Originally posted by liamkincaid

Free to Play Games for the win!

 nah brah. there's no "win" in F2P without a credit card.

Looking at all this from the outside, all I can say is F2P haters really don't come up with any good arguments or even analogies, it's all just personal opinion or worse, it may be a bunch of non F2P developers screaming murder. The beauty of F2P is you can try it and if you don't like it you leave, nothing's lost. You can't do that with any other model. If you're not sure you can stay until you are, if you like it a bit you can go for limited play completely free, if you like it a lot you'll probably start paying for some things and if you fall in love you spend way too much, but then there are those who do the same in every other model. The problem with F2P haters, is they want everyone to play their way (almost sounding worried their games cannot evolve or continue if others don't think alike). Since when do people have to conform to your desires or ways of seeing things? There is no truth in any cost/quality argument, in real life (I'm not sure hardcore gamers can be counted on for providing unbiased analysis there) there are things you pay for that are crap and great, things for free that are great and crap. E-mail is free (or does anyone here still pay for theirs), yes it may be subsidized by others, so is searching with Google, free for the basics, pay for premium, no-one complains about quality. You can get quality information for free all over the internet but you can also go out and buy a good paper, no-one complains about free news but it is subsidized by those who pay for more content. You get good music for free on the radio but only what's on offer, you want to hear it again or more, you have to go buy the support. Why all the fuss about games then? F2P is a marketing strategy, like plugging music on radio programmes or offering news content to attract those who like what they see and want more. Those who don't like what they see are free to leave and have little to complain about, no-one's ripped them off. The complaining bonafide player who tries F2P and is upset he has to pay to continue or buy items is a hypocrite, he actually likes the game enough to want to go on but is against paying, too bad, keep looking until you find something you like that's free as you define it. Funny thing is, this is close to the hypocrisy F2P haters show, they expect games to cost but don't want to explore the premium in F2P. It seems some people still have a problem with freedom of choice. As for things that cost so much to develop, Skype costs were not exactly peanuts and still pretty much everything is free, TV is pretty much free to watch and subsidised by those who go out to buy the placed products (whether in commercials or in the shows). Game revenue models are in their infancy and already we have bunch of conservative whiners probably 20-30 years old on average but already sounding like their grandparents when looking at a world they can no longer adapt to or works differently to what they grew used to or liked. Gaming revenue models are in their infancy, they will develop far further than just the F2P alternative and incorporate revenue creation (direct, indirect or even hidden) from advertising, product and corporate placement, coupons and vouchers, sponsorship, alliances, selling of customer base, IPOs, social chores, adoption, work hours, consumer goods including entertainment, maybe even political party or healthcare funding. Yes, maybe for some things were better before but that's not going to change anything for the future. 90% of the world's biggest gaming market is F2P with over 100 companies and 1000 games active where players like 2 or 3 enough to pay just as with P2P you pick just 2 or 3 your prepared to pay for but F2P haters discuss as if 99% of P2P they're not prepared to pay for must be better than 99% of F2P they've never tried. In summary it all boils down to a cheap pointless battle between a bunch of fans from 2 or 3 P2P games and another bunch of fans from 2 or 3 F2P games who'll never convince each other, just like a basher and pumper discussing a stock. And not understanding why it is politicians and leaders can never agree or make progress, they're still convinced they are part of the "civilised" world and are making progress. Real progress is making the effort to understand others in order to make allowances.

The Turbine version of "free to play" is not meant to provide completely free entertainment.  Its meant to provide a tiered way of particpating in their games.

If you want to dedicate all your time to one game, then you may want to subscribe to DDO or LOTRO.  If you wanted to play DDO simply because some friends do you may do a non-sub game with a few strategic purposes.

Turbine's main goal is not to provide a free service but to change the granularity of paying to play from a binary yes/no $15 a month or no game for you to a range of choices so that everyone (including Turbine) may benefit from a broader participation.

Turbine makes no-bones about attemtping to make money. 

The Turbine money making model is a step forward in multiple ways. 

1)  It allows people to play their games according to a varying and customizable array of options.  This includes games outside of Turbines catalog.  You can play DDO or LOTRO and not pay at all and also play WoW on a sub.  Or you could play LOTRO exclusively.  Eitehr way.  Or you could pay somethign around $8 a month on both DDO and LOTRO but not sub to either one.  In other words its flexibile.

2)  it increases the total number of people playing and therefore makes grouping easier and the MMO experience in general more favorable.

3) Its gets rid of the big lie MMO companies have been selling for quite some time.  Namely that your sub is for maintain servers etc.  The Guild Wars Devs were the first to seriously publicaly repudiate this, but the Turbine model shows just how much BS this was to begin with.  There are tons of people using ther server resources, yet DDO is making more money than ever in subs.  I am completely ignoring revenue from the DDO store.  DDO doubled its subs.  The whole subs = maintainence thing is BS and always has been.  Oh hold on subs = content?  What?  Turbine sells you the content with a one time fee.  Hold on what was that sub for?  Turbine sells you EXACTLY what that sub is for.  And every single part of the sub can be purchased separately.  If you do not like 50% of the content they release you are not forced to subsidize the crappy content.  Just don't sub and pay for the content you DO like.

MMO companies have been lying about what you are purchasing for quite some time.  Turbine's model is more honest.  Now you may not want a "pay to win" store.  I don't either.  But Turbine is not yet crossing that line.

Think about it for a second.  If a piece of content released by Turbine does not sell well, then in order to make more money they need to actually make good content updates.  On an individual basis.

I remember SandLol PvP in WoW.  The fact I was paying a sub for that piece of crap content update.  The fact that I subdized raid content that I hated.  It was galling.

If things like raid content are actually valuable features.  Then this Turbine model will actually prove whether that is or is not the case.

Isn't that obviously superior to the stupid forum warfare between raiders and non-raiders that went on in WoW before Burning Crusade was released?

You just say put up or shut up;  that raid sold well or no one bought that raid content.  End of issue.  But in a game like WoW with subsidized content you get bullshit social manipulation.

Cash shop games make more money than subscription games because they exploit achiever addiction better.

That's the reality underneath all the dishonest hype.

As i don't have those addictions it doesn't effect me except...

F2P inevitably make games trend towards solo grinders with sudden levelling walls and a pay to win PvP endgame (with optional fluff mounts) because that is the best way to exploit achiever addiction.

This reality is temporarily muddlied at the moment because the cash shop games are having to compete with the old-style western subscription games but the underlying psychology behind how cash shops make money will increasingly drive the design.

It might be possible to have a decent cash shop game based on the micro-expansion idea i.e things like having twelve playable races but only one is free, but that remains to be seen. I think that's more likely to work as subscription plus.

On the other hand there is a problem with the subscription model over time because game companies have fixed costs which go up every year e.g wages, but there is a certain stickiness to the maximum price of a subscription. I think this stickiness is the amount people feel is reasonable to pay *even when they're not playing much*. When i played EQ i often didn't play much for weeks on end because of work commitments but i carried on subbing anyway because the sub was an okay price when i was only playing 6 hours a week. Obviously it was a complete steal when i was playing 30-40 hours a week but i think the stickiness of the upper limit on subscription price comes from what players feel is reasonable when they're only playing a few hours. Cash shops are a way out of this for game companies but will eventually inevitably lead to the games being designed around maximizing cash shop revenue.

I don't know what the solution is but if the reason for subscription stickiness is the one i mention above then maybe a variation on the subscription model where there is no cash shop but you buy game time in 30 hours blocks?

(The reason this might work is say a person plays a game between 30 and 120 hours a month and the maximum they'll pay is 50 cents an hour then the max sub they'll pay is $15 even though on average they'd pay more.)

Also F2P movement is stupid,If it wants all games to be cash shop game.

Also any free to play game with Box sale or sub is just money grab ripoff it is almost impossible to create a game with fair cash shop with out revenue source coming in.No game should get 100% revenue from a cash shop because it force the game to make gamers use the cash shop or else they make no money and games are not charities


I firm believer in paying for boxes and expansion or having some sort monthly hybrid payment plan that company is not depending on the cash shop to make money.That way they are not force to make design decision that encourage you to use the cash shop.

The ideal games set up is either

Buy to play:Original game and expansions and if the game needs a cash at all maybe a small cash shop that sells stuff like pets, costume gear,vanity mounts,server changes,name changes,etc

or

Free to play with sub:You download the game free of charge,You play for free but some content is limited,To get the full content and all the features you have to pay for the sub and most of the stuff need from cash shop is cover in your sub fee

Pure cash shop cause shady designs which slow down leveling or create some sort of item dependence on purpose which forces people use to cash shop.I am saying this a person who supports F2P games has played over 60 f2p games has max level characters in F2P games.Both B2P and Free to play with a sub are plans that depend on selling gamers content. Pure Cash shop games don't carry about content they just care if you buy item

I agree with the Gameophobic post...

I seem to enjoy F2P games only when I have very limited time to game...as in say the last 2 months...I must say that the F2P Im playing now isnt horrible at all...the cash shop doesnt interest me in the slightest and I have not felt like I was less cool or gonna be ganked because I didnt spend money in the game...will that last? probably not...but this isnt a life long committment I'm making either...its just something to kill time...so F2P as a movement doesnt bother me...as long as they have a few really good sub games around somewhere for me to marry into when more free time opens up

there has to be a limit to the ammount of money people can spend on cash shop.

to prevent companies from designing the game in a way that people want to spend more than 15 bucks per month

if there was such a limitation, then people with 30 bucks wouldnt get twice the benefits... because the game's cash shop would be designed so whatever is sold can only be advantageous to the limit of 15$ per month, per character....

that way, people can still spend the same as they would in a subscription model, except that are not penalized indirectly by the players who spent more than 15 bucks....

and yeah, since its free, some people wouldnt pay anything...

F2P should be limited to 0 $ to 15 $ per character/account on whatever is offered. That way, they get revenue, without selling the soul of the game.

the first smart company to advertise their game as offering a "protective barrier" for the "PAY TO WIN" prejudice on F2P games would win.

Except no company wants to stop being unethical with their cash shop items offering over thousand bucks worth of power and advantages....

All they need is a slogan "F2P, with 15 bucks CAP FOR EVERYONE IF you want to buy anything from the cash shop"

They like caps to make everyone fair and balanced, right?  WHY NOT IMPLEMENT A FUCKING CAP ON YOUR FUCKING CASH SHOPS?

LOTRO, DDO, and EQ2 are getting all thrown around this thread. It should be stated that these are not truly F2P games. These games provide options, and also have "Standard" subscriptions. I think its important to note, for the purposes of this thread, that successful future business models will include more options, not just F2P. Different ways to buy into the game. Whether that is a lifetime sub, B2P, whatever.

Games, in the future, should provide options based on the interest level of the user. Maybe a person only wants to play an hour or two a week. Why not a pay by the hour rate for those with less interest? The point is, to allow a plan that allows anybody to jump into your game and set their own starting/continuing costs.

Ultimately, F2P does not fit this mold 100%. It is simply one option of many possibilities. Is it the business model of the future? Aboslutely not. It is only one choice of many. Games that employ the best entry model into their games will succeed, that is not always F2P. Just look at the other responses in this thread. These are paying gamers >>